Sitting of 16 October 1975

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

    Bill of Rights
    Mr. Penhaligonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce a Bill of Rights in the next Session of Parliament.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): The Government do not have such a measure in preparation, but we are continuing to study the questions raised by this proposal.
    Mr. Penhaligon: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the widespread feeling that many of our basic rights have been eroded. It has occurred to me that the amount of legislation passing through the House at present means that sometimes, more by accident than by design some of our basic rights are being eroded. A Bill of Rights could give some sort of appeal through the courts—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not make a statement. He must ask a question.
    Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister indicate whether she is against the introduction of such a Bill in the short term because she believes that basic British good sense will protect us against any erosion, or because she believes that all the legislation before Parliament is, individually, more necessary?
    Dr. Summerskill: Earlier this year, during the debate on a Bill of Rights, there was a wide variation of opinion about the best way of safeguarding individual
    1564
    rights, about what form such a Bill should take, and what rights it should seek to protect. Therefore, we shall continue to study all the questions raised by the proposal.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that, whether or not we have a Bill of Rights, many civil liberty measures need to be undertaken, about which the Home Office is not doing very much? Does the Home Office have in mind any measures to give the ordinary citizen under police interrogation any greater protection than he or she has at present?
    Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend has raised one aspect of civil rights which could be included in a Bill of Rights, but it does not relate to the question whether there should be a full Bill of Rights, which would involve far more than the one point he raised.
    Mr. Molyneaux: During further study of the feasibility of such legislation, will the hon. Lady bear in mind the desirability of such a Bill of Rights applying to the whole of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Summerskill: If such a Bill of Rights were introduced, that would be one of the points to be considered.

    Electoral Reform
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the Government's intentions as regards electoral reform.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of Government policy on electoral reform.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will shortly consult the leaders of the parties about reconvening the Speaker's Conference. This consultation will provide an opportunity for the approach to this subject to be discussed.
    Mr. Hurd: Is it the Government's view that the Speaker's Conference should include among its work the discussion of this matter?
    Mr. Jenkins: The Government's view is that this is a matter to be discussed

    1565
    between the parties, of which the Government are, of course, one. Although I should not expect those who were not entirely convinced by the speech of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) to be completely satisfied by a reference to the Speaker's Conference, and although they will no doubt wish to pursue and discuss this matter in other fora, I hope they will also be willing to discuss it in any arena that seems suitable. The Speaker's Conference is one such arena.
    Mr. Grocott: I turn to another aspect of electoral reform. Connected with this are the lessons to be drawn from the recently-published accounts of the two sides in the referendum campaign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that another urgent matter to be considered by any Speaker's Conference should be the proper rules and regulations to control campaign expenditure by both political parties and support fringe organisations at any future General Election? Does he further agree that unless there is proper control over the amount spent by either side it will be extremely difficult to achieve a just electoral system?
    Mr. Jenkins: One of the matters which the last Speaker's Conference was unable to consider, because it was interrupted by the General Election of 1974—it has not been reconvened since—was that of election expenditure generally. Therefore, this would be an appropriate matter for a reconvened Speaker's Conference to consider.
    Mr. Moate: Is not one of the arguments against the introduction of proportional representation that it would be particularly unkind to the Liberal Party, because as that party appears to stand for nothing else it would have nothing left to campaign for?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is not part of my duty to comment upon that supplementary question.
    Mr. David Steel: As both the Government and the main Opposition party—which I think make two of the parties to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—have declared themselves to be against any change in the electoral system and then in the next breath have gone on to offer the setting up of a Speaker's Conference, is this not somewhat hypocritical?
    1566
    Would it not be better to save the time of the Speaker's Conference and await the result of the inquiry of the Hansard Society, which is already at work on this subject?
    Mr. Jenkins: If the hon. Gentleman does not wish the matter to be considered by the Speaker's Conference he can say so through his right hon. Friend when the consultations take place. As I said in answer to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), I did not expect those who were in favour of some form of electoral reform to regard this as a totally satisfactory solution to the problem, and I have no doubt that the campaign and the discussions will continue. However, I think it would be a little odd if, as is suggested—and as I believe to be the case—there is more interest in electoral reform now than at any time in the past, that a Speaker's Conference should not consider the matter.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a unique feature of parliamentary democracy in Great Britain is the single-Member constituency and that any change which destroyed the uniqueness of the relationship between a constituent and his or her Member of Parliament would be detrimental to effective representation?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that it is a most important feature of British electoral arrangements, but I do not think that it is entirely unique to British democracy. It exists in the congressional system in America, and it has existed much of the time in France. It is certainly a factor to be borne in mind. Undoubtedly, any system which split the relationship between a Member and his constituency would be a substantially different system from the present one.
    Mr. Carlisle: Further to the answer that the Home Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), is it not a fact that the Prime Minister, in approaching the leaders of the other parties to set up a Speaker's Conference, normally suggests the draft agenda for that conference? Is it the Government's intention to put this matter on the draft agenda?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have already indicated that I think that, in the consultations, the Prime Minister would suggest that this

    1567
    matter should be on the agenda. Whether or not the Speaker's Conference is regarded as a completely satisfactory forum in which to discuss the matter, I regard it as very surprising that anybody should wish to exclude the subject from the agenda of the conference, because I should have thought that those who are in favour of electoral reform would want the matter to be discussed as widely and in as many different places as possible.

    Prison Population
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is proposing to take any further steps to reduce the size of the prison population.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to reduce the prison population, including modifications, if any, to the parole system.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made concerning his new policy about the size of the prison population; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I continue to watch with concern the high level of prison population and to keep under close review any measures that may contribute to its reduction. I hope that the more liberal approach to the granting of parole which I announced on 4th August in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the member for Battersea, South (Mr. Perry)—[Vol. 897, c. 25–7.]—will have a beneficial effect. Other relevant measures include my proposals for the reform of bail procedures, and the expansion, as resources permit, of non-custodial penal provision.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prison population in Britain, in percentage terms, is one of the highest in Europe? Given that fact, is it not now time to consider whether certain offences, particularly perhaps offences in relation to drunkenness, should be removed from the criminal code? Are the Government actively pursuing policies whereby community service orders can be initiated on a wider basis?
    Mr. Jenkins: Yes, indeed. I accept broadly the premise of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The relative prison population in Britain is not the highest, but it is one of the highest, in the developed world. This in itself is a reason why we should question whether our procedures are right.
    Provision was made for the decriminalisation of drunkenness in the Criminal Justice Act 1967, which I had the privilege of piloting through the House but not of implementing. I am sorry that for a variety of reasons that measure has not been more completely implemented. One would like to see it implemented to a greater extent. However, I assure the House that the full implementation of this measure, although desirable in itself, would not, in numerical terms, have any very significant effect upon the prison population.
    We are anxious, within the constraints which are necessarily placed upon resources, to extend community service orders as rapidly as we reasonably can to the whole country. I believe that in the substantial number of areas in which they can be applied now they are proving to be extremely useful and effective.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Any Member with a prison in his constituency will be aware of the problems of the overcrowding of prisons. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be rather Gilbertian if, instead of making the punishment fit the crime, he were to give even the appearance of making the sentences fit the prisons?
    Mr. Jenkins: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon the neatness of his supplementary question, but I am not sure that neatness of expression solves the very real problems which are involved. There is a great problem of strain upon resources. Even if we had limitless resources, which we certainly do not—the expenditure of which hon. Members opposite certainly, and hon. Members on this side, should not advocate in present circumstances—we should not in the short or even in the medium run obtain a very great expansion in prison capacity. Therefore, we must consider how well we are using our present resources.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his recent action on bail is very

    1569
    welcome? Will he consider another very modest but important step, namely, the absolute prohibition on placing children in adult prisons?
    Mr. Jenkins: I should very much like to be able to achieve the latter objective as soon as I can. I hope that, certainly as regards girls, we shall be able to move in the near future. The position in this respect causes me considerable concern. It is not easy to deal in absolutes when one is dealing with people who need secure accommodation, and when there is a lack of secure accommodation. I assure my hon. Friend that my desires, and my intention to translate my desires into fact so far as practicable, march very closely alongside his, at any rate on this issue.
    Mr. Freud: I welcome the recent utterances on bail, but will the right hon. Gentleman announce what percentage of the prison population is now awaiting bail, and what possible purpose there is in keeping in prison people who dug up the Headingley pitch when we are way into the football season?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure that these pastoral considerations are of the essence of this matter. Nor is it appropriate for me to make comments on individual cases. However, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the general trend of my thought in this matter, which I expressed—I hope courteously, but certainly forcibly—to the Magistrates' Association last week.
    Substantial progress can be made. The numbers of those occupying places in prison who are awaiting trial, who are unconvicted or unsentenced, is substantial. Although I in no way underestimate the difficulties which confront magistrates and other courts in deciding whether to allow people out, it can often be a difficult decision. It is undoubtedly disturbing that many people who are remanded in custody do not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the day. One is bound to have considerable regard to this. Although a great deal can be done, and I am trying to do it by administrative action, I greatly hope that all parts of the House will assist me in getting the bail Bill through as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on children in prison is very welcome? Does he agree, however, that it is a barbaric practice, which is a condemnation of a so-called civilised society, that over 4,000 children between the ages of 14 and 16 are sent to penal establishments every year? Will he indicate the progress of the discussions that he is having with the local authorities on the phasing out of the "unruly certificate"? Will he indicate what other more imaginative measures he proposes to take in terms of non-custodial treatment for juveniles?
    Mr. Jenkins: Not in answer to a supplementary question. It would be a very important and wide-ranging statement. I agree that there are many blots on a civilised society—blots which exist in the penal system but also blots which, unfortunately, exist in conduct which lead to the stress in the penal system.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a further effective way of reducing the prison population would be to extend to other categories of law-breaker the immunity from criminal prosecution which, on his instructions to the Thames Valley Police, was conferred upon the hippies on the Watchfield pop site?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not happen to know the constituency which the hon. Gentleman represents, but his question is without foundation. I do not give instructions upon operational matters to any police force in this country, not even to the Metropolitan Police Force, of which I am the police authority, and still less to other police forces for which I am not the police authority. I gave no instructions to the Thames Valley Police. In so far as that was suggested by certain people and believed by the hon. Gentleman, it was done, to some extent, in order to create trouble out of a difficult situation.

    Detained Persons (Police Powers)
    Mr. Gouldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to give the police new powers to hold persons in custody without arrest or charge.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: No, Sir.
    Mr. Gould: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the existing law, resting as it does on ageing cases and unenforceable or, at least, unenforced judges' rules, means that there is uncertainty and confusion in a sensitive area of civil liberties where there should be sensitivity and clarity? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this can only engender feelings of suspicion and grievance against the police which must harm them in the long term? Rather than allow this area of friction and suspicion to develop, would it not be better to provide a clear legislative restatement of police powers in this area so that the police and the individual citizen know exactly where they stand?
    Mr. Jenkins: I attach importance to the application and implementation of the judges' rules. If they are not applied, that counts very much against the police when the prosecution process is developed. However, they are applied in the overwhelming majority of cases. I am not sure whether this would be a matter suitable for a clear legislative statement. In any event, as my hon. Friend will be aware, there is pressure upon me to legislate within the sphere of the Home Office. Therefore, the pressures for me to try to obtain legislative time are very substantial. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said but I cannot hold out an early prospect of legislation, even if I were convinced that a legislative statement would be right.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what developments there have been from his reference—I believe this is correct—to the Chief Constables' Association over a year ago regarding consideration of the rules whereby persons who are sometimes kept in custody by the police are denied access to their solicitors?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am anxious that the rules in that respect should be applied. I remind the House that the judges' rules do not require access to a solicitor to be granted in all cases. If a person is in custody the rules make access possible subject to the proviso that
    "no unreasonable delay or hindrance is caused to the processes of investigation or the administration of justice."
    I attach importance to that being so. I shall note the hon. Gentleman's point,
    1572
    as I am sure will chief officers of police who are concerned in the administration of this difficult matter.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to amend the law on shoplifting.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon): No, Sir. The issues of law are indistinguishable from those in any other form of theft; the issues of fact are best resolved by a court.
    Mr. Janner: If my hon. Friend is not prepared to introduce legislation on shoplifting, is he prepared to increase the number of guilty people who are prosecuted for such offences and to diminish the number of innocent people who are prosecuted?
    Mr. Lyon: As in almost every other aspect of the criminal law, there is the matter of detection, assembling the evidence, and proper proof before the criminal courts. I am aware of some of the difficulties that have arisen in relation to shoplifting, but almost all of them arise from questions of fact which have to be decided by the courts in due course.
    Mr. Adley: Does the Minister not accept that the introduction of supermarket shopping has been largely responsible for the rapid increase in shoplifting? Further, does he not accept that only by insisting that supermarkets take preventive measures will shoplifting be reduced?
    Mr. Lyon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the working party's report indicated ways in which the shopkeeper should take steps to try to prevent shoplifting. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government should legislate against self-service shops, which have proved to be of considerable convenience to most members of the public.

    Rape
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received regarding the law relating to rape; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have received a number of letters from interested organisations and individuals making representations about the decision of the House of

    1573
    Lords in DPP v. Morgan & Others. As my hon. Friend is aware, this issue is being examined by Mrs. Justice Heilbron's advisory group, whose report I hope to have before the end of this Session.
    Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people appreciate his swift response to the request for an investigation into the law on rape? Will he now assure the House that after the Heilbron Committee has reported, and if he thinks legislation is necessary, he will take action early in the next Session, either by bringing forward a Bill of his own or by supporting an apppropriate Private Member's Bill?
    Mr. Jenkins: When I appointed Mrs. Justice Heilbron and the four other members of the advisory group—an action which I think received fairly general support—I asked that they should let me have a report by about mid-autumn. I am now confident of receiving the report by the end of this Session or before the beginning of the next Session. Clearly, I must consider what the report says, but if I had intended to take any delaying action on this matter I would have encouraged the group to share with me some of the delay rather than put the whole of the responsiblity upon myself.
    Mr. Lane: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider another area of the law in which there may be lessons to be learnt from the case of the Cambridge rapist—namely, the public display of pornographic material and the boom in blue films? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government have not ruled out far stricter control in that area during the next Session, along the lines of the previous Conservative Government's Bill?
    Mr. Jenkins: As I have told the House previously, although I did not by any means entirely dissent from the purpose of the Conservative Government's Bill, I did not think that it stood up in Committee. I think it came apart very badly at the seams.
    Mr. Carlisle: Nonsense.
    Mr. Jenkins: That is clearly a matter of opinion which I would not expect the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) to share. It is my opinion put forward with firmness but with due
    1574
    humility. It is certainly the case that the position in relation to films, although not necessarily arising from exactly the point of view of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), will emerge in the Law Commission's report on conspiracy, about which there are other Questions on the Order Paper today. I shall bear in mind closely the contents of that report and other considerations.

    Hotels (Fire Precautions)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the effect on small hotels and boarding houses of the implementation of the Fire Precautions Act.
    Dr. Summerskill: We appreciate the problems facing small hotels and boarding houses, and we are always prepared to consider difficulties arising in individual cases, in consultation with the fire authority concerned.
    Mr. Adley: I declare an interest in the industry. Does the Minister accept that hardship and delay in implementation is being occasioned to keepers of small hotels and boarding houses because of the continuing lack of uniformity in the rules relating to the introduction of adequate fire precautions throughout the United Kingdom? Is she aware that in the company with which I am connected 10 out of the 11 hotels have had identical fire instruction notices accepted, but this has been rejected, by one authority, namely the Greater London Council, yet that two out of the three hotels within the GLC area have found this notice acceptable? Will she take it from me that there is a great deal too much "paper pushing" surrounding the implementation of the Fire Precautions Act and too little action, and that quicker implementation undoubtedly would follow the introduction of uniform guidelines laid down by the Home Office?
    Dr. Summerskill: We seek to obtain general uniformity, but it is up to the local fire authority to assess the needs and possibilities in each case. Each occupier is required to take only such fire precautions as are reasonable in the circumstances of his case.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister accept that however well-intentioned are the provisions of the Act—and the legislation

    1575
    received all-party support in this House—its implementation has raised practical and financial problems for hoteliers small and large? Is it not right that the Department should look again at the implementation of the Act, since the contribution made by the tourist industry to this country is a positive one and we should not endanger it?
    Dr. Summerskill: I agree that difficulties are imposed on the hotel industry, which is already suffering from inflation and rising costs. We have introduced tax reliefs and a loan scheme but, regrettably, the present economic situation does not make it possible to extend the scheme.

    Shrewsbury Picket
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the special review committee dealing with the remaining jailed Shrewsbury picket has completed its investigations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The special review has been completed. The Parole Board has felt unable to recommend parole, and in these circumstances I have no power to grant it.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it not about time that the Home Secretary recognised that Des Warren is a political prisoner, nothing more and nothing less, despite the fact that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues constantly protest about happenings in South Africa, Uganda, Spain and the rest of the world? That is why Amnesty International has taken up Des Warren's case. Why does not the Home Secretary do something positive about the situation and act in accordance with the way he has preached about other political prisoners throughout the world? Will he not do something at home—namely, release Des Warren?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. I recognise hardly anything of what my hon. Friend said. I should have thought that I had made it clear sufficiently often by now that my hon. Friend would understand that I mean what I say. I believe that in this matter the Parole Board should make its decision. In the other case it made a favourable decision, but the circumstances in which Mr. Warren appeared on report on 26 occasions in five different prisons
    1576
    hardly made the case very favourable for parole.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Was he a bank robber?
    Mr. Jenkins: I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) would keep quiet for a moment. In these circumstances I have made it clear that my view is that the Parole Board should consider the matter, and it has considered it. I do not accept the fact that Mr. Warren is a political prisoner, nor, I understand, does Amnesty International, which has informed us that it is reconsidering its provisional decision in this matter.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does not the Home Secretary find it alarming that those who have been convicted in our courts of serious offences involving allegations of intimidation and physical violence against other work people should become the new folk heroes of the Left of his party?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have stated my opinion on many occasions, and I hope that I have maintained it in practice in the administration of the law. I have nothing to add.

    Squatting
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he now has any plans to introduce legislation about squatting.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The report of the Law Commission on the law in England and Wales relating to conspiracy, which will deal with offences of entering and remaining on property, is expected in January. When it is received and considered the Government intend to introduce without delay comprehensive legislation to reform this branch of the law.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Home Secretary agree that the recent Elgin Avenue incident underlines the extreme bitterness which will arise if those who have broken the law as it now stands are given preference over those who have not, resulting in the latter having to wait longer in the housing queue? Is there not some interim measure which the right hon. Gentleman could take to encourage local authorities, on a temporary basis—I emphasise "on a temporary basis"—to

    1577
    assist squatters, so as not to give the impression in 1975 that it is always the law-breaker who wins?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not believe that any such impression should be given, but I am sure that on consideration the hon. Gentleman and the House will agree that an adequate response to difficult situations is not ill-considered law. This is related to the law of conspiracy, which takes in a number of issues, including industrial matters, squatting, and film censorship, on which a wide-ranging, considered report is expected early in the new-year. It would not be a sensible procedure to rush in with interim legislation—assuming that I could get it through; I am still waiting for the bail Bill—before a well-considered report becomes available within three or four months.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely the Home Secretary recognises that the impression has been given that it is the policy of the chairman of the Greater London Council to encourage squatting. Surely such behaviour is wrong, and must be condemned.
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not think that it is any part of my duty, in answering a Question about legislation on squatting, to make remarks about people who have to take difficult decisions. I am in favour of upholding the law, as I think I have made clear by precept and practice. I do not think it necessary to supplement this by off-the-cuff sermons on subjects on which I am inadequately informed.

    Urban Deprivation
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on his programme for tackling urban deprivation.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In addition to the existing programmes directed to this end, the Home Office have now had extensive discussions with four metropolitan district councils in England—Bradford, Gateshead, Wands-worth and the Wirral—with whose collaboration we are seeking to develop new machinery of comprehensive community programmes for identifying and meeting the needs of the disadvantaged.
    Mr. Lane: Must not the Government's welcome commitment to a more positive race relations policy be matched by a stronger attack on urban deprivation in order to benefit disadvantaged people, white or coloured? If the Government were to divert money to that purpose which they are wasting in other directions would it not transform the conditions of many inner city areas?
    Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman's words strike a responsive chord in my breast since he, too, was a Minister with responsibilities for race relations and we know the problems of inner cities. We are treating the matter urgently, and I hope that we shall be able to do something in the near future.
    Mr. Steen: Why has the Minister decided not to extend the community development projects, especially as they introduce a radical approach in tackling urban deprivation by getting people to identify and solve their own problems?
    Mr. Lyon: There has been no decision to curtail community development projects. So far as I am aware, the matter will continue as at present.

    Amnesty International
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give full access to British prisons to representatives of Amnesty International.
    Dr. Summerskill: We have had no request for any such facilities from Amnesty International.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that Amnesty International is an organisation of the highest probity and has recently been extended by taking into membership the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? Will the Government assist Amnesty International's inquiries into the Des Warren case by holding a public inquiry into the whole judicial attack on the Shrewsbury pickets? Will my hon. Friend give some assurance that the conspiracy laws, which have been used so savagely against trade unionists in the ordinary course of picketing, will be brought to a speedy end and will allow those acting in contemplation of or furtherance of a trade union dispute properly to organise?
    Dr. Summerskill: I do not know whether my hon. Friend realises that we have been told by Amnesty International that it will not be adopting Mr. Des Warren as one of its prisoners of conscience. As far as we are aware, the organisation has not asked to visit him in prison.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Does the Minister agree that the special review committee which looked at the case of Mr. Des Warren did so at the instigation of my right hon. Friend and that otherwise there would have been no special review? Will the Minister take note that many Government supporters and other Members of Parliament will continue to resist any attempt to interfere with the due process of law?
    Dr. Summerskill: I am aware of that, but the fact remains that we are informed that Amnesty International has not accepted the case of Mr. Des Warren as one which it will further.

    Prisoners (Correspondence)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what study he has made of the case of a Cannock constituent whose letters to his wife were stopped as these complained about his prison medical treatment; and if he will take steps to change the prison standing orders so that prisoners can at all times be allowed to communicate with their Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have studied the papers. On the first point, the rule is that a man wishing to complain about some aspect of his prison treatment, or of the actions of prison staff, must do so first to the prison authorities, giving them the opportunity to remedy his grievance. On the second point, I expect to make an early statement about future arrangements for prisoners to communicate with their Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Roberts: I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. However, I am sure he will agree with me that there is something Gestapo-like about a situation in which a prisoner faces having parts of his letters censored or not having his letters sent at all. Does the Minister agree that it is an inherent democratic right that any individual, whether in prison, in the Armed Forces or else-where,
    1580
    should at all times be able to communicate with his Member of Parliament?
    Mr. Jenkins: I do not agree that there is anything Gestapo-like in this case. That is an exaggerated use of language. While it is desirable, as far as practicable, that we should have free communication—I include those in prison—it is also necessary to run any organisation so that grievances should first be ventilated through the proper channels, and that people should have an opportunity to hear the grievances and complaints and deal with them. It would not be possible to run a prison system in a substantially different way. I assure my hon. Friend that I have made certain moves already in respect of open prisons. I am anxious that communication between prisoners and their Members of Parliament should be as free as possible.

    Police (Recruitment)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking both to encourage the recruitment of women and girls to the police force, and to give them opportunities for promotion.
    Dr. Summerskill: The national recruiting campaign is aimed at attracting both men and women into the police service. We are continuing to encourage forces to recruit more women police officers and to provide better opportunities for their promotion and appointment to specialist duties.
    The Sex Discrimination Bill will, as the hon. Member is aware, apply to the police.
    Miss Fookes: Will the Minister give more details of the encouragement that is being given to promotions, as opposed to recruitment?
    Dr. Summerskill: The Sex Discrimination Bill involves promotion. I think that it will make it easier for women in the police service to rise to more senior appointments, and the opportunities for specialist duties and promotion will be increased.

    Prison Rules
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    1581
    what progress has been made on the reform of prison rules.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am currently examining a number of areas of prison administration. In particular I hope shortly to lay amending rules resulting from the Golder case.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is the Minister aware that there was confidence and expectation that there would be considerable investigation of the rules on the censorship of prisoners' letters resulting from the decision in the Golder case, and that there is profound regret at the restrictive interpretation which the Minister has placed on that judgment? Does the Minister agree that a more liberal approach to the censorship of prisoners' letters is desirable in the terms of the spirit of the Golder judgment, which has much to commend it and against which there is little argument of substance?
    Mr. Jenkins: We have met the criticisms contained in the Golder judgment, as far as they go, in full. We are considering what lies on the frontier of that judgment. I am anxious to make progress in this area and to do so in a liberal way. It is important in these matters to take account of the views—but not necessarily to be wholly governed by them—of those who operate the prison service. I must do that and pay due regard to that while endeavouring to maintain a firm liberal sense of direction.

    CBI, TUC and NEDC
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the NEDC.
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at the NEDC.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the CBI and the TUC.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he met the CBI during the recess.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Prime Minister when he will next meet the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at the NEDC.
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet representatives from the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to chair a meeting of the NEDC.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I refer my hon. Friends and hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) on 14th October.
    Mr. Lawson: I do not recall what that answer was. However, when the Prime Minister next takes the chair at a meeting of the NEDC will he explain to the assembled dignitaries there, and perhaps also—with the permission of the TUC, of course—to the House, why it is that, according to the latest figures published by the Brussels Commission, unemployment in this country is now higher than in any other member country of the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: I gave that answer on Tuesday. The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten it. At the next meeting of the NEDC we shall consider an important paper on the approach to the new industrial strategy for this country, on which a great deal of work has been done by NEDC and the Government.
    On unemployment, the decline in production began in the spring of 1973 under the Conservative Government. It has continued since then. The world depression has affected every country. There are a number of countries with much higher unemployment rates than ours.
    Mr. Ashley: If at the next meeting of the NEDC my right hon. Friend discusses the economic subjects on the agenda of the Heads of State meeting on 15th November, will he bear in mind that it would be a serious mistake to confine discussions about increasing exports to the other five countries represented, and that consideration should be given to all interested countries?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that I invited the TUC and the CBI to come to me for separate meetings to give their advice about the matters which they think should be raised. There is no question of the six countries on that occasion looking only at their own internal interests or those of the group of six as a whole. Any decision which may follow our consideration of world economic problems will be taken by the regional and world-wide international organisations. Anything which affects other countries will be decided by other countries as well as our selves.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Prime Minister recall that the Chancellor recently said that we must convince the world that the Government have a policy to control inflation? Bearing in mind that Government spending over the past six months is 40 per cent. higher than in the corresponding six months of last year, and that the Prime Minister appeared to tell the House in an answer on Tuesday that the Government would not be contemplating further expenditure cuts until the year after next, how does he expect to convince the world that the Government have such a policy?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has correctly reported what I said in the House. If he consults the Official Report he will see what I said on Tuesday about this matter. I understand that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks at the Mansion House tonight, he may deal with Government expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement. I am sure that he will exactly follow the practice adopted by his Conservative predecessors, but will be much more informative than they were. The hon. Gentleman and others will no doubt wish to pursue any statement that he makes.
    With regard to convincing the world on the matter of our inflation policy, it is my understanding that not only the TUC, the miners and the Labour Party conference but the whole country supports the anti-inflation policy which I announced on 11th July, on which Her Majesty's loyal Opposition failed to vote but sat on their hands without having anything to say to the nation.
    Mr. Skinner: At the next NEDC meeting, or perhaps here, today, will the Prime Minister lift the veil on the topical row in the Common Market over the seat at the top table? Is he aware that many people in the Labour Party believe that the current dispute about the seat for Britain is no more than a smoke screen to cover up a transfer of power and control over North Sea oil from Britain to some of the other Common Market countries? Will the Prime Minister guarantee that no real transfer will take place?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the situation somewhat. The conference about which this argument arises is not a Common Market conference but a conference, convened by the French Government, of producers and consumers, including, in contradistinction to earlier this year, commodity producers and consumers as well as oil producers. The French Government have made clear their intentions and told the Heads of Government Conference what they are doing. It is not a matter for argument among the Nine. We have suggested that it will be remarkable if it is not possible to get an agreed policy, at least by the eight countries if France pursues the chairmanship in this way. We are disappointed—as I am sure the whole House will be, and my hon. Friend—that, so far, there is no real agreement among the eight as to the policy that should be put forward. We believe that there should be. We believe that Britain has a very special position because of North Sea oil. There is no question of the Government's transferring national control and responsibility for that oil to any other body.
    Mr. Tebbit: If the Prime Minister is correct and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) misunderstood what the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to say whether or not he will announce expenditure cuts in the current year? I want just a simple answer, without any flannel, please.
    The Prime Minister: It is perfectly simple, and the question has been answered many times. I repeat what I said on Tuesday. In the autumn every Government look forward five years. The expenditure for this year has been approved by Parliament in the Estimates

    1585
    for this year. We are not proposing changes in this year's expenditure. That has been made clear in the House a hundred times. As to next year, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his Budget Statement some cuts compared with the previous financial programme. We are now at work on the programmes for the third, fourth and fifth years, which is what all Governments do. Those with experience in government, like a few on the Opposition Front Bench—very few—know that cuts for the current year are usually highly counter-productive and uneconomical.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Prime Minister aware that he has not answered the supplementary questions put by my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? Does he agree with the Opposition that further Government expenditure cuts are essential, and when will he announce such cuts?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I did answer the question. I was asked whether there would be cuts for this year. I said that the Estimates had been approved by Parliament and that they remain. That is a clear answer that we are not cutting for this year. With regard to cuts for the future and the expenditure review which we are undertaking, normally at the turn of the year a Public Expenditure White Paper is published. We started that practice, and it has been followed for several years. That White Paper will set out the Government's expenditure programme for five years ahead and will embody the results of the review which is now taking place.
    Mr. Noble: Before my right hon. Friend chairs the next meeting of the NEDC will he listen carefully to the voices of those who represent the textile industry in Lancashire? Will he take the opportunity to meet the textile workers and their representatives in Lancashire, perhaps tomorrow, but, if not, at some future date?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern about the textile industry, and a statement has been made in the House. I shall be in Lancashire tomorrow, when I have a full programme of engagements meeting representatives of the textile unions. I have this afternoon
    1586
    given a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble)—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh at my pronunciation—
    Mr. Lawson: Rosenthal—
    The Prime Minister: The workers of Rossendale will note the frivolity with which hon. Members approach the problems of the textile industry. I have said that the right thing will be for a meeting to be held between myself, my right hon. Friends principally concerned and members of the United Textile Factory Workers' Association, on a local and national level, in London, and that has been arranged.
    Mr. Henderson: Following the Prime Minister's answer to the Shadow Leader of the Opposition—the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—will the right hon. Gentleman take into account, when he wishes to be separately represented at the conference, that North Sea oil is Scotland's oil and that he should be making arrangements for Scotland to be represented?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard that view put forward before by the hon. Gentleman. I understand that Shetland does not regard it as Scotland's oil but as Shetland's oil, or at least the greater part of it. As it is the policy of the Scottish National Party to allow a free decision as to the devolution of Shetland and Orkney on a Faröese basis, the hon. Gentleman had better be careful should he ever be in a position to give them that choice. It will never be Scotland's oil. They want Britain to handle it.
    Mr. Gardiner: With respect, the Prime Minister's remarks about public spending have added to the confusion rather than clearing it up. Are we to have any further spending cuts, or trimming of programmes, that have not yet been announced, to take effect next year?
    The Prime Minister: I have already made it plain. The hon. Gentleman is one of the most highly literate but not one of the most highly numerate hon. Members. He may understand if I repeat my remarks. The Estimates for this year have been approved by the House and the expenditure proposals for next year were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement this

    1587
    year. I have been concerned with the Government—like every other Government in past years—with expenditure in the third, fourth and fifth years of the five-year rolling programme.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister is answering supplementary questions on expenditure in relation to Estimates and not actual expenditure. Is he aware that actual expenditure this year is running at 47 per cent more than over the comparable period last year? If he does not intend to cut expenditure—and I understand that he does not—he can finance that extra expenditure only by taking more tax away from the pay packet or by more inflation. Which will he do?
    The Prime Minister: As far as I know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no supplementary Budget in mind for this year. Our record on the printing of money is a great deal better than that of our predecessors. The money supply figure since we returned to office reflects a Government with responsibility—not like the Government of which the right hon. Lady was such a loyal member.
    My right hon. Friend is dealing with the borrowing requirement and will answer Questions on it in the House. The right hon. Lady should know that at the end of every year there are sometimes Supplementary Estimates and sometimes shortfalls in expenditure. It is a pity that she never served on the Public Accounts Committee, or she would have known these things. Knowing the right hon. Lady's well-known commitments to massive cuts in public expenditure, I shall simply tell her that if she will send me any proposals we shall consider them on their merits.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister knows that the Government have already spent more in a half year than the increase budgeted for in the whole year. Where is he going to get that expenditure from? Will he give one straight answer?
    The Prime Minister: I have made clear that we do not intend to increase public expenditure. As far as I am aware, there is no intention to introduce a supplementary Budget this year. This is being met on the borrowing requirement, and my right hon. Friend will make a statement.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Speaker: Business of the House. Mrs. Thatcher.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Will the—
  Mr. Cyril Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Prime Minister's Questions today, we have not even taken Question No. Q2. May I appeal to you, as a matter of order, to urge the Prime Minister, in answering Questions, not to take eight Questions together and as a consequence prevent even Question No.Q2 from being answered?
  The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry-that, because of the repetitive questions put to me by hon. Members opposite, I could not reach Question No.Q2. The House, as you will recall, has often considered these matters. Some Prime Ministers have aggregated right up to 24 or 25 Questions and sometimes done three or four.
  After complaints, which were considered, I made a statement in which I made the suggestion that the aggregation should be automatic up to 10 but not beyond. On this occasion, partly through the withdrawal of Questions at the last minute, a large number of the remainder proved to be really the same Question, and I had to follow the rule which the House has agreed by answering them together. I regret that I was not able to tell the hon. Member that I have no immediate plans to visit Rochdale.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House be good enough 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 20TH OCTOBER—Debate on the Report of the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families, Command No. 5629.
Remaining stages of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Bill [Lords].

1589
Proceedings on the Iron and Steel Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be seeking your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a statement about the establishment of an inquiry into the National Health Service.
TUESDAY 21ST OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Second Reading of the Cinematograph Bill.
Proceedings on the Recess Elections Bill [Lords], which is a consolidation measure.
WEDNESDAY 22ND OCTOBER—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Industry Bill.
THURSDAY 23RD OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Welsh Development Agency (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Followed by a debate on Welsh Affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House Remaining stages of the Cinematograph Films Bill.
FRIDAY 24TH OCTOBER—Remaining stages of the Hare Coursing Bill.
MONDAY 27TH OCTOBER—Debate on an Opposition motion on the National Health Service.
It is expected, Mr. Speaker, that the new Session will be opened on Wednesday 19th November.
Mrs. Thatcher: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions. First, it emerged from the Prime Minister's answers to Questions that a major economic statement is about to be made elsewhere this evening, covering things that we have often asked the Government about, such as controlling public expenditure and a new industrial strategy. If any such major statement is to be made, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we have it in the House first?
Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall have a debate on the handling of EEC business? We have tried to put down an amendment for the debate tomorrow, but I understand that we cannot do so for procedural reasons.
1590
We would have preferred to have done so. We feel that the sooner we debate this matter the better.
Mr. Short: I will reply to the right hon. Lady's second question first. I understand her feelings and those of many other hon. Members about this matter. Tomorrow's is an adjourned debate plus further motions. The debate was originally adjourned because of economic debates before the recess. It was adjourned because I did not want the House to go into another week in August. Matters have come up since then and they will all be taken tomorrow. There will be a debate shortly, in this Session, on the Select Committee's report on the handling of EEC business in the House.
In reply to the right hon. Lady's first question, I remind her that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is making the traditional speech in the City tonight that Chancellors of the Exchequer have made for many years.
Mr. Ashley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that next week there will be a public inquiry into the death in hospital of a severely disabled boy, that the authorities will be legally represented but that the parents probably will not because of the inequities of the legal aid system? This is a dramatic example of the shortcomings of our legal aid system. Could my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on the legal aid system?
Mr. Short: I am afraid that I cannot offer any time for a debate on this matter, but I will bring what my hon. Friend has said about legal aid to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for an early debate on the report of the Expenditure Committee on the motor vehicle industry, so that the House can express itself on that weighty report before there is any question of more money going to British Leyland?
Mr. Short: That report is very important, and the Government must consider it and prepare their response. When that has been done, it will be time to consider a debate.
Mr. Hooley: In view of the massive disagreements which appear to be arising

1591
within the EEC on matters of vital concern to this country and on such matters as overseas policy, can my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on our policy within the EEC, quite apart from the agricultural issue?
Mr. Short: Without agreeing that there are matters of massive disagreement within the EEC, I can tell my hon. Friend that there will be a debate on foreign affairs before the end of this spillover part of the Session.
Mr. Peter Walker: If today the Government decide to veto the EEC's policy on pollution, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made immediately to the House?
Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I think that is a reasonable request. I will pass it on to my right hon. Friend concerned.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people welcome the fact that, despite the difficulties of time, the House is to have the opportunity to take the remaining stages of the Hare Coursing Bill, and that the country as a whole will be looking for a final decision on this matter by the House?
Mr. Short: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I should warn hon. Members that I propose to suspend the rule on that Friday.
Mr. Kimball: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to proceed with the Bill about seat belts? Is it not the case that the Bill could save some 8,000 human lives a year? Would it not be better to deal with the safety of human beings rather than with a Bill dealing with some 600 or so hares?
Mr. Short: I am sorry that it has not been possible to continue the Second Reading debate on the Bill dealing with seat belts. I will try to find time early in the new Session for it.
Mrs. Millie Miller: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the House is given an opportunity at the earliest possible moment to discuss the report of the Select Committee on Violence in Marriage, which has been welcomed by all the agencies concerned with this serious matter, and in which a number
1592
of quite simple proposals are made which could be implemented to deal with the problem?
Mr. Short: I will certainly bear that in mind and see what I can do about it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterbottom: Are the Government to make any statement about the deteriorating position of the British textile industry during next week?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. I know of no such statement to be made next week.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Since vital transport services, both rail and road, are being drastically cut—especially around my constituency in Watford—with the result that many people are being deprived of any means of transport, may I ask my right hon. Friend to give us an early date for a transport debate?
Mr. Short: I cannot offer any time in the near future for such a debate. My hon. Friend can avail himself of the normal opportunities for raising constituency matters of this kind.
Mr. Carlisle: In view of the inadequacy of the statement made yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture concerning the situation facing the dairy farming industry, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any intention of arranging a debate on dairy farming in the near future?
Mr. Short: No, Sir; I have no intention of arranging such a debate in the near future. I do not agree with the premise of the hon. and learned Member. My right hon. Friend's statement yesterday was an excellent statement. The relief he announced was welcomed in all quarters of the House, except the Conservative Front Bench. The measures he announced will give great relief to dairy farmers and will carry them well ahead of the increase in costs due to inflation.
Mr. Duffy: Will my right hon. Friend give much more urgent consideration to making time available for an early debate on the report of the Expenditure Committee on the motor industry than he seemed to indicate he was giving in the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)? Does my right hon. Friend accept that my colleagues on the Trade and Industry Subcommittee and I thought that, in view

1593
of the importance of British Leyland and the vast expenditure of public money involved, an early debate should take place on a day specially set aside for the purpose, particularly in view of the conclusions reached unanimously by our Committee, which have not yet been challenged in any quarter?
Mr. Short: My hon. Friend knows quite well that the normal procedure in these cases—I am talking of the Fourteenth Report of the Committee—is for the Government to make their responses. The Government are studying this together with the CPRS report. This is a big document. When we have completed that task we will report our responses to the House. That will be the time to consider a debate.
Mr. Jasper More: Rather than waste yet another day of parliamentary time on the Hare Coursing Bill may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the House would not be better employed on Friday in debating the Third Report of the Expenditure Committee on the all-important subject of public expenditure, so unsatisfactorily dealt with by the Prime Minister, and on which we understand the Chancellor is to make a speech this evening? Would not this suggestion give the House of Commons the opportunity to reassert its traditional authority over our national finances and our economic destiny?
Mr. Short: I do not agree that the banning of cruelty is ever a waste of time.
Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend tell us when we are to have an opportunity briefly to debate some matters of intimate concern to the House, such as, for example, the van Straubenzee report? Is it not a disgrace that Members' secretaries are about the only secretaries in the country unable to get pensions and so forth?
Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that when this matter is complete we should debate the whole matter. I agree about the urgency and importance of this.
Mr. Henderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the White Paper on devolution will be published before or after the start of the new Session?
Mr. Short: I cannot say, but it will be published somewhere about that date. I cannot give the exact date. As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman last week, this is a long and detailed document. It is a big printing operation. I will do my best.
Mr. Mather: Can the right hon. Gentleman give time in the near future for a debate on the noise levels of Concorde and, in particular, on the report which the Government have just issued, so as to allay public anxiety, particularly among those who live in the neighbourhood of London Airport? Would not this be a much better use of the business for Friday next week?
Mr. Short: I do not underestimate the fears and apprehensions of people living near London Airport. I am afraid that I cannot find time next week for a debate on this subject. It is about next week that I am making my statement.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend consider giving time to the Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Bill, because there is now a large body of opinion in the trade union movement which feels that existing legislation needs strengthening and that this Bill would fit the purpose admirably? Can my right hon. Friend consider giving time to the Bill before the end of this Session?
Mr. Short: I am afraid that there will not be any time before the end of the Session. We are coming up to a new Session and my hon. Friend can start all over again—and good luck to him!
Sir Bernard Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on both sides of the House are deeply concerned over the decision of the EEC not to honour its long-standing obligations to help the Asian Commonwealth? Is he aware that we would regard this turning back on the part of the Community on the poorest of the poor nations as a betrayal at a time of acute difficulty for them? In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman at least arrange for the Minister for Overseas Development to make a statement early next week? If possible, will he try to find time for a debate on this crucially important subject?
Mr. Short: I cannot find any time next week. I believe that the hon. Gentleman

1595
has overstated the matter. However, my right hon. Friend is here and no doubt has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said and taken note of it.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Law Commission has at last produced two important reports, one on exclusion clauses in contracts for the provision of services, and one concerning the rights of children to sue for damage caused to them before birth? Is he aware that each of these reports has a draft Bill attached to it? Will my right hon. Friend be providing time for the introduction of legislation on these two matters?
Mr. Short: I hope that next Session we can get around to this. This is usual with Law Commission matters.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Since the report of the Expenditure Committee on the motor vehicle industry has already been in the Government's hands for two months, can we be assured that the comments of the Government will be made in the near future? Would the Leader of the House bear in mind that the Government, if they are having difficulty in reaching conclusions and providing comments on the report, could well be helped by an early debate on a special day set aside for the purpose?
Mr. Short: I have already answered two questions on this subject and I cannot add anything further. I repeat that when the Government make their response to this report, and to the report of the CPRS, which they are also considering and which deals with the motor car industry, we can consider holding a debate.
Mr. Newens: My right hon. Friend will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) and I raised the question of a statement about Diego Garcia on a point of order on Monday of this week. Can my right hon. Friend say what consultations he has had with the Foreign Secretary? Does he accept that there is still a need for this matter to be clarified and for the House to have the opportunity of considering the many important questions at stake?
Mr. Short: I was present during the exchanges on this matter the other day.
1596
I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about it. I understand that my hon. Friend and another hon. Friend met the Foreign Secretary recently and that he wrote to them this week. I have a copy of his letter. I have also checked up on all the information given about Deigo Garcia. A considerable amount has been given over a period. The arrangement with the Americans, for example, was first announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in his Statement on the defence review on 3rd December 1974. I have checked up to the latest information given in another place yesterday. A vast amount of information has been given on this and I cannot see any need for a statement. There will be a debate on foreign affairs in the House in the near future, when this matter could be raised.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Referring to the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman a few moments ago, to the effect that EEC matters would be dealt with in the foreign affairs debate, may I suggest that it would be preferable if, in future, these two subjects could be separated? There is so much EEC business and there are other parts of the world to discuss, too.
Mr. Short: The specific EEC matters are separate. There will be another day's debate on EEC matters, apart from the procedural debate, before the end of the Session. There will be one day's procedural debate, and one day on EEC matters, and there will also be the foreign affairs debate. All of this will be before the next Session in the middle of November.
Mrs. Hart: Further to the points raised about the EEC's refusal to provide aid to non-associates, I thought that it had become fairly normal practice that a report was made to the House after meetings of the Council of Development Ministers. May I suggest that it will not be satisfactory if the whole range of Third World matters is wrapped up in the middle of a general foreign affairs debate? Given that a White Paper is due shortly on overseas aid questions, could my right hon. Friend possibly look, at some point in the early future, at the real need for a debate covering both aspects of the matter?
Mr. Short: I will certainly consider my right hon. Friend's last point. As for the first, I understand that our right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development answered a Written Question on this yesterday.
Mr. Marten: Reverting to tomorrow's business, can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, when a series of EEC documents was put down on 25th July, it was done on a "take note" motion to which the House could make an amendment, but that when the same series is put down for tomorrow the debate will be on the Adjournment, to which no amendment can be made? Is he aware of the seriousness of what he is doing—taking away from Parliament the right to amend legislation coming from Europe?
Mr. Short: Of course, if an amenable "take note" motion were down, that would not amount to the House amending the legislation: it would be expressing a view. The House can express a view in two ways—one by voting against the Adjournment motion if it wishes and the other by putting down an Early-Day Motion. I know that they are not entirely satisfactory, but there are difficulties tomorrow. It is Friday, and Divisions at 4 o'clock on a Friday present difficulties for some right hon. Gentlemen. It would mean suspending the rule. There are seven different motions. So, all things considered, I thought that it was better to have a wide debate on this occasion on the Adjournment. We consulted fairly widely in the House about it.
Mr. Robin F. Cooke: May I press my right hon. Friend further on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens)? Is he aware that serious allegations have been made by American senators that the agreement entered into on Diego Garcia involved cuts in the price of Polaris missiles and that the agreement with the Government of Mauritius was obtained as part of the package? Is he aware that the only Government statement on these allegations has been a non-attributable Foreign Office briefing? Is that really enough? Could we not have a statement or a Select Committee to sort fact from fiction in this episode?
Mr. Short: My hon. Friend has raised a specific point. I should have thought
1598
that our Parliamentary Question system was designed for that purpose, to get information. I suggest that he puts down a Question on that.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the rule will be suspended next Thursday for the Welsh affairs debate, since this is the first Welsh day for 20 months and since industrial production in Wales has fallen to the lowest level and unemployment has reached the highest level for many a long day?
Mr. Short: The announcement about a general debate was made because we thought that the debate on the Welsh Development Agency Bill would probably not run the whole day and we felt that we should devote the rest of the day to a Welsh debate. However, if it is wished to suspend the rule—the time of the first debate is unpredictable—I should certainly be prepared to look at this. I would rather not do so: we have given more time to Wales this Session than for many Sessions past.
Mr. Peyton: What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by his reference to "widespread consultations" about tomorrow's business? I understand that no consultations took place with us about what should go on the Order Paper. Perhaps he would clear that up.
Going back to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition about tonight's speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Leader of the House said that the Chancellor was to make what was merely a traditional speech on a traditional occasion. Happily, there is nothing traditional about the state of our public sector finances at the moment. I wonder whether he would confirm that it would be wrong for the Chancellor to make a statement about the public sector borrowing requirement, as the Financial Times today suggests he will, without first making such a statement in the House? I hope that he will take this point seriously. If by any chance he is let down by the Chancellor, who does make such a statement, will he arrange for his right hon. Friend to come to the House on Monday and at least repeat the speech which he will have made at the bankers' banquet tonight?
Mr. Short: The second part of that question is a great deal of nonsense. I

1599
would not attempt to lay down general rules about what the Chancellor should and should not say, any more than the House has ever done when the Chancellor has been going to speak at the Lord Mayor's banquet. He will make a speech tonight, and no doubt it will be an excellent one. On the first part of the question, if the Opposition were not positively consulted, I am sorry. I understand that they were told about it and raised no objection. I apologise for putting it the wrong way round.
Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the extreme concern about the present high unemployment and the danger of present Government policy being swept aside if the figures continue to rise? Already it appears that they are in a parlous state in certain sections of industry. Would he not consider, in those circumstances, that the House should take an early opportunity to debate unemployment and draw from the Opposition the sort of statements that they have been making this week about public expenditure—ideas which will add tremendously to the already unacceptable level of unemployment?
Mr. Short: I agree with the last part of what my hon. Friend said—in fact, with everything he said, but certainly about the Opposition. If the policy of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on public expenditure cuts were put into effect, it would double the unemployment figure, and she knows it. The concern my hon. Friend mentions is certainly shared by the Government. Our anti-inflation policy is directed towards getting unemployment down very quickly.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry: we must move on.

CROWN AGENTS
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): With permission, I wish to make a further statement about the financial position of the Crown Agents and other matters relating to that organisation.
My predecessor announced in December 1974 that the Government had agreed to provide a recoverable grant of £85
1600
million to the Crown Agents to cover the writing down of asset values in their 1974 accounts as then foreseen and to provide financial backing appropriate to their operations, and that standby facilities had also been arranged with the Bank of England.
I have now received the audited accounts for 1973 and 1974 and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The balance sheet as at 31st December 1974 shows that the Government grant of £85 million was not enough in the event to avoid a technical state of insolvency, with liabilities exceeding assets at that date by some £15 million. This was because a greater degree of writing down of asset values and provision for losses were found necessary for the period covered by the accounts.
I should emphasise that the Crown Agents have no immediate liquidity problems. They have still not needed to draw on the £85 million grant or on the standby facility. I am also reassured by the thorough and energetic action which has already been taken by the new Board of the Crown Agents, under its Chairman, Mr. Cuckney, to clear up the problems of the past and lay the groundwork of a more soundly based future for the organisation. I should like to pay my own tribute to their efforts.
Nevertheless, without Government backing the Crown Agents would at present be in a difficult position, which could affect the confidence of depositors and others. I have therefore thought it desirable formally to reaffirm the assurance given by my predecessor in December 1974, that Her Majesty's Government stand behind the Crown Agents. Hon. Members will find the terms of my assurance to the Chairman in his covering report on the 1974 accounts, and I emphasise now to the House that the Government wish to see the Crown Agents continue in being for the sake of the valuable services which they are able to render both to their many overseas principals in the developing world and to Her Majesty's Government in their relations with overseas countries.
Like my predecessor I am, however, concerned that the future activities of the Crown Agents, and their relations with Ministers, should be on a more closely defined basis. The Government have been giving much thought to the future status

1601
structure and functions of the Crown Agents. We have decided that the right solution will be to introduce legislation which would confer independent legal personality on the Crown Agents by incorporating them, define their functions for the future and provide that specified powers of direction should rest with Ministers.
This would create a well understood relationship of a kind which exists between a number of bodies in the public sector and the Ministers responsible for them. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Government in exercising the broad oversight over the activities of the Crown Agents that has been shown to be desirable by all that has happened; while leaving it to the Board to run their own day-to-day affairs. It would not disturb the traditional relationship between them and their principals.
My predecessor told the House in April that she hoped to publish a White Paper during the present Session giving the Government's thinking on these matters. I shall not quite be able to meet that target, but I hope to publish a White Paper shortly to set out our present view of the provisions which will or may be required in the legislation to incorporate the Crown Agents.
Meanwhile, I should inform the House of a further complication arising from the past activities of the Crown Agents which will have to be dealt with separately and in advance of this legislation. I was informed in August by the Chairman that certain loans made by the Crown Agents either directly or through a nominee company might be challenged as unenforceable, on the grounds that the Crown Agents were neither licensed moneylenders under the terms of the Moneylenders Acts nor a bank for the purposes of those Acts. The Crown Agents are advised that if this matter were brought before the courts, they would have a good defence particularly on the basis that they and their staff are exempt from the operation of these Acts as Crown servants. However, if there were a challenge in the courts the matter might take a long time to resolve. Meanwhile the Crown Agents' financial position might be seriously worsened by the withholding of loan repayments and interest due, and in other ways.
1602
This would increase the potential call on the Exchequer for financial support for the Crown Agents to a degree which we should find quite unacceptable in the circumstances. It would mean that a heavy additional liability would fall on the public purse, and that other creditors of those property and other companies to which the Crown Agents had made loans would be in a position to benefit by taking advantage of an uncertainty in the application of legislation. I think it is essential to put this anomalous situation right. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill, for consideration as early as possible in the next Session, to put the matter beyond doubt.
Mr. Maudling: These are serious and disturbing figures, and no doubt at the appropriate time we shall wish to discuss how the Crown Agents, with their great traditions, got into this situation, but I imagine that we shall have to await the report of the Fay Committee, which will have all the facts before it.
The Crown Agents are a considerable asset to this country and provide very valuable services to their principals overseas. The Minister can therefore take it from me that we support him in his desire to give all the help he can to the new chairman and the new Board.
With regard to the legislation, will he take note that we shall look carefully at the actual proposals, bearing in mind that the main need of legislation at this stage is to ensure the confidence of the overseas principals in the Crown Agents?
Mr. Prentice: I thank the right hon. Member for his statement. He has reminded the House that the events of recent years, which have given rise to great concern, are being considered by Judge Fay and colleagues working with him. They will, I think, take a few more months to complete their work, but obviously then there will be an occasion for a wider discussion of what has happened in the past.
With regard to the future, I am very glad that the Opposition agree with us that the Crown Agents perform a very valuable service which should continue and that we should give them the appropriate support.
Mr. David Steel: I, too, welcome the steps that the Minister has mentioned

1603
this afternoon. Will he confirm that, if this were a private company, it would be insolvent, and will he give an undertaking to the House that the inquiry being made into its operations and finances will be made public and published to the House?
Mr. Prentice: The answer to the latter point is, "Yes". I think the answer to the former point would also be, "Yes". It will not have escaped the attention of the House that a great many private enterprise companies—if "enterprise" is the appropriate word—got their fingers pretty severely burned in the property market, and in secondary banking and activities of that kind.
Mrs. Hart: May I welcome very much my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly the policy that is to be pursued in terms of the future incorporation of the Crown Agents. I am quite certain that that is the right course to pursue.
May I also say that I very much hope that the Fay Committee of inquiry will go very deeply into the causes of the misadventures of the past, which were, as he said, largely concerned with adventures in the property and secondary banking sector.
May I also say to him that I totally share his own confidence in the future of the Crown Agents and in all the tremendous and very difficult work that the new Board and the new chairman have carried out since they were appointed a year ago.
Mr. Prentice: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the way in which she has put those points. I think that, in relation to this whole rather tangled story, a tribute should be paid to her, first, for the work she did from the Opposition Front Bench in probing into these matters and persistently questioning the Government of the day, and secondly, for the prompt action she took on assuming office, and particularly the directions she gave to the Crown Agents, which have provided a framework within which they are now working, and which they are fully implementing.
Mr. Tapsell: Arising out of the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, will he give an assurance that the legislation, the introduction of which he
1604
is contemplating, will not be retrospective to the extent that it weakens the present legal position of one of the parties to the possible legal controversy to which he referred?
Mr. Prentice: The House will be glad to know that we have in mind a very short Bill which will clarify the position about which there is some doubt. It will not alter the law as most people understand the law but will simply clarify it, so as to avoid the situation which I described in my original statement. If that were not done, there might be a period of uncertainty, which could be most damaging to the Crown Agents and conceivably to public funds.
Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Minister accept that some of us have almost exhausted our capacity for surprise at the successive manifestations of incompetence which have been shown in running the Crown Agents, and that this shows how unwise it was for the House of Commons Select Committee on Overseas Development just over a year ago to terminate its investigation of the Crown Agents, which might have revealed this latest example of incompetence a bit sooner than it has been revealed?
Are we to understand that there will be two Bills, one the declaratory Bill on the point he has just mentioned and the other on the relationship of the Crown Agents to Government and Parliament? If there are to be two Bills, will the second Bill be produced in the immediately forthcoming Session as well as the first?
Secondly, may we be told what is the state of play on the papers which were referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of some of the staff, and how many of the staff of the Crown Agents have either been dismissed or are currently suspended pending investigations?
Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend also played an active part in helping to draw attention to all the things that had gone wrong in the past, and I pay tribute to him for that. But I think he was wrong in saying that I had revealed some further example of incompetence. I have drawn attention to a legal doubt which has arisen and which might be damaging, unless it were corrected, to the finances of the Crown Agents.

1605
I think that the story of recent months has been a success story. The Crown Agents are disengaging as fast as they prudently can from the wrong type of investment in which they were engaged in the past. Their current activities are succeeding, and their overseas principals, including 120 different Governments and a number of other organisations, show continuing confidence in them.
As to my hon. Friend's question whether there will be two Bills, I envisage a very short Bill on the narrow legal point that I mentioned. I also envisage a White Paper, very shortly, which will itself lead to further legislation, though not quite as quickly—probably not in the next Session.
With regard to his point about the Director of Public Prosecutions, I have nothing to add to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave in January. This matter is still with the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is taking a long time. It is not a matter over which I have any control.
I do not have a figure for the number of staff dismissed, but I will look into it and give my hon. Friend any information that I can.
Mr. Peter Rees: The Minister has made it clear that the financial position of the Crown Agents depends to a certain extent on the delicate question whether they acted as bankers or as moneylenders in certain transactions. However, he was somewhat ambiguous in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell). May we have an explicit assurance that the legislation which the right hon. Gentleman contemplates will not retrospectively affect bodies and individuals, persons and partnerships who have been involved in transactions with the Crown Agents and who may even currently be in litigation with them? Some of those involved are themselves in financial difficulties. I understand that one company is in the hands of liquidators. It would be grossly unfair if these matters were clarified retrospectively in a sense unfavourable to those other parties.
Mr. Prentice: I am sure that the House would consider it unfair if the Crown Agents were unable through a legal technicality to recover money owing to them. That is what we seek to clarify and to
1606
ensure by this short piece of legislation which I propose to introduce.
Mr. Skinner: Is not the truth of this whole affair that a large sum of money was available for investment and was invested mainly in slum property empires, just like the investments of many private companies, some of which have been referred to already? The fact is that the Crown Agents got their fingers burned as a result of those investments because of the escalation of property values and the subsequent falling-off in values. Are we to take it that this tiny group of people, who have squandered someone else's money and subsequently have had to use large amounts of the British taxpayers' money to try to remain solvent, apparently without success, will be dealt with in accordance with so-called British justice? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that if there are to be bankruptcy proceedings against these people, as there ought to be, they will be dealt with in the same way as the 11 people at Clay Cross about whom my right hon. Friend knows so much—having their cars and furniture taken away because they acted not in accordance with wanting to line their pockets and someone else's but in accordance with high moral principles?
Mr. Prentice: There is a tremendous temptation to debate Clay Cross with my hon. Friend but, unfortunately, that would be out of order. Perhaps we might continue that argument somewhere else. The events which we all deplore are under investigation by Judge Fay and two other distinguished people. I shall await their report, and that report will be made known to the House. Then we can debate these matters. I do not think that any of these proceedings are helped by the cheap sneers which are typical of remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
Mr. Costain: Is the Minister aware that the Public Accounts Committee endeavoured to look into these matters in past years but was prevented from doing so because the accounts were not audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General? Will the new arrangements put the accounts under the authority of the Comptroller and Auditor-General so that the Public Accounts Committee may deal with these matters, or will they be matters for the nationalised industries' accounts?
Mr. Prentice: The accounts which have been placed in the Library today have a commentary by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Therefore they could be studied by the Public Accounts Committee if it saw fit.
Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend has made a low-key statement, but is not this a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs? Will he reconsider the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham)? Does not this call for a public inquiry under the Public Tribunals Act? Will my right hon. Friend also say how much additional money will be required in the interim, since the subvention provided by his predecessor, as he said, clearly proved inadequate? Finally, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the fact that his strident aversion to nationalisation is not wholly inflexible?
Mr. Prentice: It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, of course. My hon. Friend described my statement as "low key". The simple reason is that it is a sequel to two statements to the House by my predecessor which dealt with the matter far more fundamentally. As to whether there should be a study by a tribunal, there is a study being carried out by Judge Fay helped by Sir Edmund Compton and an accountant, Mr. Peter Godfrey—
Mr. Lee: But it is not a public inquiry.
Mr. Prentice: This is taking place in private. That was thought right, and it was not challenged in the House when it was first announced. But there will be a public statement about it in due course.
As for the amount of additional money that will be needed, the significant point is that the £85 million of standby facilities at the bank has not been used. What we are saying is that there will be continued Government backing. Whether the money will be used and to what extent it will be needed, we cannot foretell. That depends on many imponderable factors in the future. Certainly I shall keep the House informed of any significant developments.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Although we welcome in general the proposal about the future state of the Crown Agents in
1608
their incorporated form, subject to any study of the White Paper, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be more clear-cut about allowing freedom in day-to-day management and perhaps, in that context, stress what he omitted to say in his statement that, in addition to serving their overseas principals and the Government themselves, the Crown Agents are serving as a form of direct and invisible exports which are of value to the country? I hope that that side of their activities will be strengthened and encouraged in the future.
Mr. Prentice: The operations of the Crown Agents are of great value to the country in many ways that we cannot measure, because their activities create opportunities which lead indirectly to further investment, exports and so on. The work which they do in training people overseas is of help and of indirect benefit to this country, too.
As for the details of the division of powers between the Minister and the Crown Agents when they are incorporated, I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the White Paper. We are still considering that. But we envisage something broadly comparable with the relationship which exists already between many Ministers and the nationalised industries. I am sure that the House would not want a Minister in this House to answer for day-to-day decisions. One difficulty at the moment is that the situation is so unclear in the constitutional sense and needs clarification by new arrangements of this kind.
Mrs. Hart: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for being allowed to intervene a second time. Will my right hon. Friend confirm to a number of my hon. Friends, first, that the problem about holding a public inquiry, which was considered very carefully at the time, is that a great deal of the evidence which has to be given to the Fay Committee has to come from companies and banks, is highly confidential and would not have been forthcoming at a public inquiry? Will my right hon. Friend assure them also that those against whom it is possible that charges might be made are under study by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Will he assure them, further, that although a great deal of Government money has been required to sustain confidence in

1609
the Crown Agents and to provide standby credits, it has not been spent or needed to be spent?
Mr. Prentice: I think that I can give an affirmative answer to all three of my right hon. Friend's questions. I made reference in my original statement certainly to her latter point about the money not having been drawn upon, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend underlined that.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
  Lords amendments considered.
  SEX DISCRIMINATION BILL
    Clause 4

      DISCRIMINATION BY WAY OF VICTIMISATION
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 32, after first "person" insert" (the discriminator)"
      4.18 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summers-skill): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is convenient, with this amendment, to consider the following Lords amendments:
      No. 2, in line 38, leave out "him "and insert
      "the discriminator or any other person"
      No. 3, in line 41, leave out "him" and insert
      "the discriminator or any other person"
      No. 4, in line 44, leave out "him" and insert
      "the discriminator or any other person"
      No. 5, in page 3, line 1, leave out "him" and insert
      "the discriminator or any other person"
      No. 6, in line 5, leave out "he" and insert "the discriminator".
      Dr. Summerskill: These amendments are the result of the consideration which the Government undertook to give to points made on Report in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) about the scope of the definition of "victimisation". As Clause 4 stood, a person, X, victimised another person, Y, where he treated Y less favourably than other persons on the ground that Y had done any of the things specified in subsection (2); for example, instituted proceedings under the Act against him. However, the clause did not define as victimisation the less favourable treatment of Y by X on the ground that

      1611
      Y had done any of the things specified in subsection (2) against a third person, Z. The amendments to Clause 4 secure that the definition of "victimisation" is extended to cover such a situation.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: I suppose that at this stage of the Bill it is rather hopeless to oppose these amendments, but I think some words should be said against them because these things tend to slip through, particularly in the later stages of a Bill, without their significance being considered by the House. One feels grateful that the alphabet ends with Z, otherwise this sort of thing could go on and on in ever-increasing circles.
      The amendments strike at someone who treats less favourably, in employment for example, a person on the grounds that he has done or intends to do anything by reference to this Bill in relation to that first person. The "anything" that is done by reference to this Bill does not refer to proceedings under the Bill, to giving evidence or information under the Bill or to allegations of a contravention of the Bill. One could understand all that, whatever one thoughth of it, but that is not referred to. That is all dealt with under Clause 4(i)(a), (b) and (d).
      The "anything" must be the holding or expressing of disagreeable opinions about this measure. There is nothing else it can be, and that is the significance of this extension of the clause. It does not just mean the person who is guilty of the conduct, if I may be allowed to use that expression; it is now widened from X and Y to Z. In the comparable provisions of Clause 13(2), it is laid down in the most explicit terms that where an authority or body is required to take into account or assess the character of a person for the purposes of employment, then the fact that someone disagrees with this Bill is to be evidence of bad character. Somebody who says to another: "You are the sort of person who agrees with this Bill. I do not think I like you" will be guilty of discrimination under the Bill. This is a dangerous path on which to tread. The expression of opinion about the policy of an Act will be treated as evidence of a bad character, and a person who, like me, thinks this measure is bad and wrong in principle will be struck at by the extension proposed in the amendment.
      1612
      I realise that I speak in vain. Even if I spoke with the tongues of men and of angels, there is hardly anyone here to listen, so I could not persuade them, but before this Bill becomes an Act it is right that one voice should be raised to point to the dangers in the way the law is increasingly being used to stigmatise and, in a sense, outlaw the expression of certain opinions about matters of controversy.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 7

      EXCEPTION WHERE SEX IS A GENUINE OCCUPATIONAL QUALIFICATION
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 6, leave out from "for" to "different" in line 7 and insert:
      "a man for reasons of physiology (excluding physical strength or stamina) or, in dramatic performances or other entertainment, for reasons of authenticity, so that the essential nature of the job would be materially".
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment is a rewording of the first genuine occupational qualification criterion, and is an attempt to meet some of the criticisms made at an earlier stage. Some people thought that preconceptions about a woman's rôle would cloud the interpretation of our intentions. We do not think the amended wording differs significantly in effect from the wording as it left this House, but it has the additional merit that it makes the intention rather clearer.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Once again I feel it necessary to say some words of dissent on this proposal. The wording that is being replaced was inevitably and naturally the subject of some fairly astringent comment in the earlier stages of the Bill and I do not consider that any improvement has been made. On the contrary, the faults of the Bill are brought into focus rather more sharply by the proposed change.
      The extraordinary words "excluding physical strength or stamina" in the amendment underline the absurdity of this Bill. I heard the hon. Member for

      1613
      Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) mention physiognomy at one point. As I understand it, physiognomy might get past as a necessary characteristic, particularly if one wanted a character with a beard. At least we have got away from the attitude of a former Home Secretary who said that, if necessary, a woman could have a beard stuck on in order to avoid discrimination. If there is one thing which validly differentiates men and women it is physical strength and stamina, yet they are expressly excluded.
      I choose this amendment for an intervention at this late stage because in it is distilled, in the purest form, the phrenetic absurdity which underlies the whole Bill. To me it is sad to see the House of Commons lending its grave attention to proposals which spring from nothing better than a shrill and peevish militancy of a sectional lobby. The Bill, of course, will not work. No one thinks that it will. It is offensive and objectionable in principle.
      4.30 p.m.
      I can give two illustrations on the question whether it will work. One of them I raised on Report, and it concerns the police. I asked how, if physical strength and stamina were excluded, it would be possible to ensure a police force which could deal with disorder in the streets, with holding back crowds and with all those occasions where physical strength of relatively young men is regularly engaged. I raised this point in the hope of getting an answer, and in the end I was told that somehow or other the police would make sure that they got an adequate number of men, as distinct from women. That can mean only that this kind of thing is to be a broad principle in the Bill but that in practice it will be winked at where convenient. The Forces are excluded, and they have to be. The police should be excluded, but they are not, and so these things will be done in a covert way.
      I saw in the daily Press that the fire service is worried over securing the proper recruitment of men. The Chief Fire Officer of East Sussex has said that the fire service should be excluded from the Bill. I wonder, if physical strength and stamina are not to be matters of differentiation, how it is proposed to get an adequate number of male firemen without discriminating on the ground of sex.
      Mr. Michael Alison: My hon. and learned Friend is raising an
      1614
      important point, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about it. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is not right in saying that physical strength and stamina may no longer be grounds for discrimination. It may be that one would want to choose a woman precisely because she was strong and had more stamina, but it is important that we should be reassured that my hon. and learned Friend is not right and that we are not disallowing the factor of physical strength and stamina as a basis for discrimination.
      Mr. Bell: The Lords amendment in the new phrasing of the exemption, which before referred to authentic male characteristics, now uses a form of words which speaks of
      "physiology (excluding physical strength or stamina").
      That explicit and express exception must mean something, and I should be very glad to know what it means. When I raised this question on Report in relation to the police I was told that somehow the police would manage to get the number of men, as distinct from women, that they wanted. I suppose that the fire service will also—by breaking the law—recruit the number of men it wants.
      I can imagine that the Minister will give us a wildly impractical answer. He will probably say that it is necessary to have a mainly male police force and fire service. The police will have to hold back crowds, deal with fighting and arrest people, and therefore, they will say that they need 90 per cent. of strong, large constables. Those are the sort of constables they will interview. Of course, the only strong and large ones will be men, and that is how the objective will be achieved. That is the nonsense that we shall have arrived at. The Minister must give an answer, and there is no other which can be thought of.
      I do not intend to go through the Lords amendments restating the different facets of my opposition to these proposals because basically I am opposed to the principle of this kind of legislation at all. If one gets involved in the details of a Committee or Report stage or in consideration of Lords amendments one is, before one knows it, embroiled in the whole issue and is subject to inferences of partial acceptance, which would not

      1615
      be correct in my case. I therefore propose to intervene on these two groups of amendments and then to leave the matter to the inevitable course of nature, if I may so describe it.
      It is only a matter of regret to me that when important issues like this reach the House, almost invariably on a Friday but at other times, too, they are greeted by empty benches. I say that regardless of which side of the argument I am on. I have seen it through the years. On Fridays we have gone through proposals about divorce and abortion, and quite often I have been on the same side of the argument as some Labour hon. Members on these subjects, surprising though that may seem, but nearly always the House is empty. Our colleagues seem to be locked in their economic dogfights, almost to the exclusion of all other considerations. When these matters, which go far deeper and are far more pervasive and go much further in shaping the development of society, are discussed no one is present to listen to the arguments and perhaps be persuaded by them.
      Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that women always have had to take second place in this House? The situation arose in which a dogs Bill came before women, and the Lotteries Bill came before women, both of them before quite a full House. That is the situation today. Not even male members of the Committee can be bothered to turn up for the debate.
      Mr. Bell: That is no doubt true but it does not have much to do with women taking second place, which is not the case in my experience during my time in the House. It would be ungracious to say that they have hogged the time—I must find a more elegant expression than that—but they have had their fair share of the time and there may be those who would say that matters relating to women are always something of a lottery anyway.
      I feel that my duty in this matter is not in any way to hold up the procedural progress of the Bill. It is to make my own position on it perfectly clear over this extension of the use of legislation which I regard as wrong in principle and thoroughly dangerous. Having made that position clear, I must say that if people
      1616
      have to learn from painful experience rather than precept at least the responsibility is not mine.
      Mr. John Fraser: I think I should start by paying a compliment to the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). Throughout the proceedings about equality for women, whenever he has made a contribution on the subject, he has strengthened the backbone of the lobby for women's equality, and to that extent he has pushed the legislation along.
      I deal with his point by reference to an example concerning the fireman. If there is an advertisement for people to become firemen, both men and women can apply. It will be unlawful to discriminate against a woman making an application for that kind of job. However, of course, the fire authorities can impose a requirement about stamina or strength, because that is an essential condition for carrying out the job. Therefore, the amendment does not prevent recruitment, and recruitment conditions which include requirements about stamina or strength.
      I turn to the second example which is the one that we intend to cover in the Bill. If one advertises for somebody to play the part of Juliet, in our view it makes sense that the person inserting the advertisement or contacting an agent can require that a woman performs that part. I should have thought that that was fairly obvious. That is the exception where one can specify that only a woman is wanted for the job. That is why we have introduced this particular qualification into Clause 7.
      Mr. Bell: How will one assess the stamina? Will it be at the interview or by filling in questions on a form? This is not plausible. We all know that there are physical differences of strength as well as other differences between men and women. Surely, the only way is the practical way. As to the theoretical way, if it were applied one could advertise not for a woman to play the part of Juliet but for someone with female characteristics, and there are plenty of such people around. It is not altogether easy in these days to know at whom one is looking in the Underground. Some men could pass quite well for Juliet. Does not the

      1617
      Minister think that it is all a little fanciful?
      Mr. Fraser: No, I do not think that it is fanciful. It would bring the legislation into disrepute if there were not some occasions on which one would specify that only a man or a woman was required for the position. Therefore, we thought it right to introduce this genuine occupational qualification for carrying out, for instance, a dramatic part. That is why we have the exception.
      I shall now explain why we further amended the exception. There are certain jobs where there might be a different opinion whether one needed authentic male characteristics to carry out the job at all. Let us take as an example the job of a waiter. Some of my hon. Friends feared that a job such as that of a waiter might be considered by some people to be one which required authentic male characteristics of physique, appearance and so forth. We disagreed with that proposition and wanted to make it clear that the condition that had to be fulfilled in order to obtain the exception was that there was only to be a requirement as to physiology and gave the example of entertainment and dramatic performances. I hope that I have made the distinction clear.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 21, after "available" insert
      "for persons holding that kind of job".
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The need for the amendment arises in connection with communal accommodation available on ships. We have been advised that the words
      "the only such premises which are available"
      in Clause 7(2)(c)(i) must relate to the totality of the living accommodation on a ship and that, therefore, the requirements of subparagraph (i) cannot be met by any ship which has more than one unit or block of sleeping and sanitary accommodation for its crew.
      By definition, such a ship is equipped with separate sleeping and sanitary accommodation which could be used by women in privacy from men, although,
      1618
      in fact, it may not be available for this purpose. Where, for example, a ship which was recruiting a crew for a voyage had three units of communal living accommodation, one for deck crew, one for engine room crew, and one for catering ratings, and a woman applied to join the ship, it would not be possible even to attempt to claim that Clause 7(2)(c) applied because the ship would fail to meet the requirements of subparagraph (i), as it would have separate sleeping and sanitary accommodation which could be used by women. This would be so whether the woman was the first applicant or the last.
      The effect of the amendment is to restrict the reference to "premises" in Clause 7(2)(c)(i) to premises which are available for persons holding the job in question.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9

      DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CONTRACT WORKERS
      Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 8, line 10, leave out "female" and insert "woman who is a".
      4.45 p.m.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 13, in page 15, line 29, leave out "female" and insert "woman".
      Dr. Summerskill: A point was raised in another place by my noble Friend Lord Gardiner about the use of the word "female" instead of "woman" in Clause 22. It was suggested that though Clause 2 provided for "man" to be read where appropriate for "woman", it did not allow "male" to be read for "female", with the result that Clause 22 does not deal with discrimination against men in the area of education. The analysis is equally relevant to Clause 9, which speaks of a "female contract worker". We think, therefore, that the word "woman" in place of the references to "female" will avoid any possible argument on the point.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 13

      QUALIFYING BODIES
      Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 11, line 12, leave out "agents or associates" and insert "or agents".
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Clause 13(2) is based on a precedent in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There was some criticism of the inclusion of the word "associates", and the Government now accept that the word "associates", although appropriate in the Consumer Credit Act, would not be appropriate in the Bill. The amendment is made for that reason.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 19

      MINISTERS OF RELIGION ETC
      Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 14, line 41, leave out "any" and insert "a significant number".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords Amendment No. 19, in page 22, line 34, leave out "any" and insert "a significant number".
      Dr. Summerskill: It has been clear from the debates on these clauses both in this House and another place that many hon. Members and noble Lords have taken the view that the phrase "any of its followers" was too wide and open to misinterpretation. The amendments, therefore, replace the word "any" by the words "a significant number". We believe that, while safeguarding the position of those Churches in which there exist genuine disagreements as to what are or should be the received doctrines, these amendments should go some way to reassure those who fear that change might be held up by a single objector.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the hon. Lady give some indication of what "a significant number" means?
      Dr. Summerskill: It would be for the courts to decide in a particular case.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: It certainly would be for them to decide, but there must be some reason for inserting the words. The Government must have some idea what they mean, otherwise they would not have made the alteration.
      Dr. Summerskill: Although the religious susceptibilities test has been modified by these amendments, it is still an essential one to avoid placing on courts and tribunals the difficult and invidious task of making decisions on questions of religious doctrine, and also to give sufficient flexibility so that genuine religious feelings which fall short of religious doctrine may be respected.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 14, line 41, at end insert:
      "(2) Nothing in section 13 applies to an authorisation or qualification (as denned in that section) for purposes of an organised religion where the authorisation or qualification is limited to one sex so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers."
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment ensures that in so far as ordination to the ministry—and its equivalents in the case of the non-Christian Churches—amounts to the conferring of a professional qualification under Clause 13, the Clause 19 exception will apply to such ordination as well as to employment under Clause 6.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      GENERAL DUTY IN PUBLIC SECTOR OF EDUCATION
      Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 17, line 35, after "performance" insert:
      "by a body to which subsection (1) applies of the duties imposed by sections 22 and 23 and shall also apply to the performance".
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Joan Lestor): I beg to move, That this House

      1621
      doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following Lords amendments: No. 15, in page 17, line 37, leave out from "Act" to end of line 38.
      No. 16, in page 18, line 4, leave out from "Act" to end of line 5 and insert:
      "(4) The sanctions in subsections (2) and (3) shall be the only sanctions for breach of the general duty in subsection (1), but without prejudice to the enforcement of sections 22 and 23 under section 63 or otherwise (where the breach is also a contravention of either of those sections)."
      Miss Lestor: These amendments are drafting amendments. It is the Government's policy that enforcement of the education clauses should rest in the first place with Education Ministers. The amendment ensures that the Secretary of State's power under Sections 68 and 69 of the Education Act 1944 can be used in cases where the obligation imposed by Clauses 22 and 23 has been breached, as well as in enforcing the duty imposed by subsection (1).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    New Clause A

      DISCRIMINATION: CONSENT FOR ASSIGNMENT OR SUB-LETTING
      Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 21, line 3, at end insert the following Clause A—
      "A.—(1) Where the licence or consent of the landlord or of any other person is required for the disposal to any person of premises in Great Britain comprised in a tenancy, it is unlawful for the landlord or other person to discriminate against a woman by withholding the licence or consent for disposal of the premises to her.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if—

      (a) the person withholding a licence or consent, or a near relative of his ("the relevant occupier") resides, and intends to continue to reside, on the premises, and

      (b) there is on the premises, in addition to the accommodation occupied by the relevant occupier, accommodation (not being storage accommodation or means of access) shared by the relevant occupier with other persons residing on the premises who are not members of his household, and

      (c) the premises are small premises as defined in section 31(2).

      1622
      (3) In this section "tenancy" means a tenancy created by a lease or sub-lease, by an agreement for a lease or sub-lease or by a tenancy agreement or in pursuance of any enactment; and "disposal", in relation to premises comprised in a tenancy, includes assignment or assignation of the tenancy and sub-letting or parting with possession of the premises or any part of the premises.
      (4) This section applies to tenancies created before the passing of this Act, as well as to others."
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The purpose of this new clause is to deal with what I think the House will agree is a lacuna in the provisions of the Bill dealing with the disposal of premises. Subject to the small dwellings exceptions in Clause 31, Clause 30(1) makes it unlawful to discriminate in the disposal of premises. This would deal with the situation in which a landlord refused to grant a woman a lease on the ground of her sex, and it would also make it unlawful for a tenant to discriminate by refusing to assign the lease or sublet the premises to a woman on the ground of her sex.
      The new clause is designed to deal with the situation in which a tenancy agreement in respect of provisions covered by the Bill provides that the landlord's licence or consent is required to assignment or subletting and in which the landlord withholds his licence or consent on the grounds of the prospective assignee. It is right that this kind of discrimination should not escape the Bill. I commend the new clause to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 34

      FURTHER EXCEPTIONS FROM SS. 29(1) AND 30.
      Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 22, line 27, leave out "prison" and insert
      "reception centre provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission"
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a technical amendment to correct an oversight in the drafting of the Bill.
      The difficulty about the use of "prison" as an example in this clause is

      1623
      that that which is provided in prison cannot properly be said to constitute goods, services or facilities to the public or a section of the public, except in so far as the facilities are those which are afforded to visitors. In other words, prison is a bad example for the purposes of Clause 34(1)(a) because that which is provided in prison is not caught by Clause 29(1) of the Bill. Therefore, there is no point in providing an exception for it in Clause 34.
      The words which this amendment would substitute,
      "reception centre provided by the the Supplementary Benefits Commission ",
      give a different example, which does not suffer from the same defect as "prison", of a single sex establishment for people requiring special care, attention or supervision.
      Mr. Alison: I am not sure that I have followed the hon. Lady's argument entirely clearly. I am not certain why the reception centre should be that of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I cannot understand why it should not cover, and why there should not be specified in the drafting, reception centres provided by other voluntary organisations like the Salvation Army, the Church Army, and so on. Are we to understand that they fall into the category of
      "other establishments for persons requiring special care"
      and are, therefore, covered already, or is it an omission that voluntary organisations providing reception centres are net mentioned?
      Dr. Summerskill: The words,
      "reception centre provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission",
      are chosen as a good example of a place which makes provision whereby persons without a settled way of life may be influenced to lead a more settled life. This example was chosen because most people are acquainted with it. I think that the hon. Gentleman's example would be equally reasonable.
      Mr. Alison: So the hon. Lady can, therefore, categorically say that "reception centre", although the Bill specifies the Supplementary Benefits Commission,
      1624
      will also include voluntary reception centres provided by the Church Army, the Salvation Army, and so on?
      Dr. Summerskill: Yes.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 20, in page 23, line 17, column 2, leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs 1 and 1A".
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 79, in Schedule 4, page 66, line 11, at end insert—
      "1A. Until 1st January 1978, section 12(2) does not apply to any organisation of members of the teaching profession where at the passing of this Act—

      (a) the organisation is an incorporated company with articles of association, and

      (b) the articles of association restrict membership to persons of one sex (disregarding any minor exceptions), and

      (c) there exists another organisation within paragraphs (a) and (b) which is for persons of the opposite sex and has objects, as set out in the memorandum of association, which are substantially the same as those of the first mentioned organisation, subject only to differences consequential on the difference of sex.

      1B.—(1) Until a date specified by order made by the Secretary of State the courses of training to be undergone by men as a condition of the issue of certificates to them under the Midwives Act 1951 (1951 c. 53) or the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 (1951 c. 54) (as amended by section 20) must be courses approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the purposes of this paragraph.
      (2) Until the date specified under sub-paragraph (1), section 9 of the Midwives Act 1951 and section 10 of the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 (regulation of persons other than certified midwives attending women in childbirth) shall have effect as if for the words from the beginning to (but not including) "attends a woman in childbirth" where they first occur there were substituted the words—
      "If a person other than—

      (a) a woman who is a certified midwife, or

      (b) in a place approved in writing by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, a man who is a certified midwife".

      The amendment made by this sub-paragraph shall be read without regard to the sections

      1625
      35A and 37A inserted in the said Acts of 1951 by section 20(4) and (5)
      (3) On and after the said date the words to be substituted for those, in the said sections 9 and 10, mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) are—
      "If a person who is not a certified midwife".
      (4) An order under this paragraph shall be laid in draft before each House of Parliament, and section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (Parliamentary control by negative resolution of draft instruments) shall apply accordingly."
      No. 83, in Schedule 6, page 67, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 7 to end of line 8.
      No. 84, in page 67, leave out from beginning of line 11 to end of line 12.
      Mr. Fraser: This group of amendments deals with two somewhat controversial matters—single sex unions in the teaching profession and male midwives. Both were the subject of reversals between Committee and the Bill coming back on to the Floor of the House.
      On the single sex unions, we have given consideration to anxieties which have been expressed and have come to the conclusion that it would be right to give the Joint Four teaching unions, which appear to be the only ones involved, a period of two years' exemption from the provisions of the Bill. That is the same concession as is made in respect of arrangements for multi-sex trade unions. I hope that these provisions will be welcomed.
      I turn now to male midwives. The Government are aware of the strong feelings in some quarters that men may not be acceptable to some women as mid-wives, even though there has been general acceptance of the principle of eliminating discrimination here. One problem is that there is no real evidence—there cannot be any evidence without experience—about the difficulties which may arise from admitting men to midwifery training and practice. It has always been the Government's intention to proceed carefully in this sphere and, as hon. Members will be aware from previous debates, the Bill contains wide safeguards.
      The Government's amendments made during the passage of the Bill in another place have the aim of making further safeguards and at the same time paving the way for obtaining evidence on the practical problems. The amendments
      1626
      introduce a transitional provision for a limited entry of men into midwifery under carefully controlled conditions before any general relaxation of the barriers is made.
      The effect of the second half of Amendment No. 79 and Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 is to allow the present legal barriers to male midwives to be removed on the coming into force of the statute, but at the same time to impose fresh transitional restrictions which could only be removed by a statutory instrument which would be laid before Parliament in draft.
      The effect of the transitional restrictions is to confine the training of men to become midwives to courses approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State and, similarly, to restrict the employment of men who qualify as midwives to particular places. Our intention is to approve courses initially at only two midwifery training schools, selected in consultation with the Central Midwives Board and the health authorities. Employment would be only at hospitals associated with the training schools. Progress would be carefully monitored and firm evidence on which to base discussions on a general relaxation of barriers should emerge.
      These have been matters of controversy. I hope that, although the amendments will not entirely remove the controversies, at any rate they will take some of the edge off them.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Under-Secretary of State said that it had always been the Government's intention to proceed with care in these matters. That was not the impression that we gained at the outset of the discussions, but I am glad to learn that that is the intention.
      These amendments are welcome. I still think that the teaching unions and the midwives should have been left out of the Bill. A certain amount of time and trouble would have been saved. The situation now would have been better for both of them. However, the Government have come some way to meeting us and we, therefore, accept that improvement.
      The fact that only two midwifery training schools will be used is encouraging news. I already had that information from the midwives, but it is good to have it confirmed by the Minister. I suggest that to use more would seem to be an unnecessary waste of money at this

      1627
      time when the National Health Service is in a more critical condition than when we discussed these matters in the summer. Are these courses ready, or will they be affected by the inquiry to which the Leader of the House referred during business questions this afternoon? If the Minister can give any information about that I shall be grateful, but the amendments are welcome in that they are an improvement on what was there before.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 36

      DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
      Lords amendment: No. 21, in page 24, line 14, leave out "or could result".
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take the following Lords amendments:
      No. 22, in page 24, line 17, at end insert:
      "or which would be likely to result in such an act of discrimination if the persons to whom it is applied were not all of one sex".
      No. 23, in page 24, line 22, leave out "can" and insert "would".
      Mr. Fraser: These amendments arise from an undertaking that I gave to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison). When we discussed Clause 36 on Report, the hon. Gentleman expressed reservations about "could result" or "would be likely to result" or "can", and I gave an undertaking to consider the matter. These amendments were made in another place as a result of that consideration.
      Sir Stephen McAdden: Clause 36 deals with discriminatory practices, and we are invited to consider Lords Amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 23 to that clause. I intervene only to point out that before the measure has been passed British Railways have started to remove "Ladies Only" notices from railway carriages.
      I am taking the matter up with Mr. Richard Marsh. He tells me that this was done in anticipation of the Bill
      1628
      becoming an Act. Having further considered the matter, British Railways' solicitor has advised them that the measure is not as restrictive as they thought it was. I seek an assurance from the Minister that there is nothing under this heading of discriminatory practices that will prevent British Railways from doing what they have been doing on certain lines for a long time, and that is to provide "Ladies Only" compartments, a practice that is much valued by ladies who travel on certain lines where there have been instances of attacks on females. I hope that the Minister can give such an assurance and confirm that the solicitor to British Railways has got in right for once.
      Mr. John Fraser: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit in which I reply. I should like notice of that. There is nothing in the law that prevents or compels British Railways from having "Ladies Only" compartments. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point about safety and security. Perhaps I may undertake to examine the matter and write to him about it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 37

      DISCRIMINATORY ADVERTISEMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 25, line 3, after "publication" insert "of the advertisement".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 25, in page 25, line 4, leave out "it was effected" and insert "the advertisement was published".
      Dr. Summerskill: These are drafting amendments, designed to clarify the meaning of subsection (4). They were prompted by comments in another place by Lord Drumalbyn.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 42

      CHARITIES
      Lords amendment: No. 26, in page 26, line 30, at end insert—
      "(3) In the application of this section in England and Wales—

      (a) "charitable instrument" means an enactment or other instrument passed or made for charitable purposes, or an enactment or other instrument so far as it relates to charitable purposes;

      (b) "charitable purposes" means purposes which are exclusively charitable according to the law of England and Wales.

      (4) In this application of this section to Scotland "charitable instrument" means an enactment or instrument passed or made by or on behalf of a body of persons or trust established for charitable purposes only."
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 62, in Clause 77, page 47, leave out lines 9 to 14.
      Dr. Summerskill: These amendments are largely technical and clarificatory. They transfer the definition of charitable instrument from Clause 7, the definition clause, to this clause, which deals with charities. They also effect a small change in the Scottish definition to bring it into line with the English one.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 45

      COMMUNAL ACCOMMODATION
      Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 27, line 32, leave out subsection (5).
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 28, in page 27, line 44, at end insert—
      "( ) Neither subsection (3) nor subsection (6) is a defence to an act of sex discrimination under Part II unless such arrangements as are reasonably practicable are made to compensate for the detriment caused by the discrimination; but in considering under subsection (6)(b) whether the use of communal accommodation could lawfully be refused (in a case based on Part II), it shall be assumed that the requirements of this subsection have
      1630
      ben complied with as respects subsection (3)."
      Mr. Fraser Mr. Fraser The effect of the two amendments is to correct a defect in the drafting of the clause. It is intended that where a woman is refused a benefit in the employment field under this clause reasonable steps should be taken to compensate her for the detriment not only where the accommodation consists of communal accommodation but also where other benefits are refused because they are necessarily associated with communal accommodation. The amendments ensure that the clause has that effect.
      Quest/on put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause B

      DISCRIMINATORY TRAINING BY CERTAIN BODIES
      Lords amendment: No. 29, after Clause 45, in page 28, line 4, at end insert the following Clause B—
      "B.—(1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in relation to particular work by a training body in or in connection with—

      (a)affording women only, or men only, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or

      (b)encouraging women only, or men only, to take advantage of opportunities for doing that work,

      where it appears to the training body that at any time within the 12 months immediately preceding the doing of the act there were no persons of the sex in question doing that work in Great Britain or the number of persons of that sex doing the work in Great Britain was comparatively small.
      (2) Where in relation to particular work it appears to a training body that although the condition for the operation of subsection (1) is not met for the whole of Great Britain it is met for an area within Great Britain, nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by the training body in, or in connection with—

      (a)affording persons who are of the sex in question, and who appear likely to take up that work in that area, access to facilities for training which would help to fit them for that work, or

      (b)encouraging persons of that sex to take advantage of opportunities in the area for doing that work.

      (3) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by a training body in, or in connection with, affording persons access to facilities for training which would help to

      1631
      fit them for employment, where it appears to the training body that those persons are in special need of training by reason of the period for which they have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities to the exclusion of regular full time employment.
      The discrimination in relation to which this subsection applies may result from confining the training to persons who have been discharging domestic or family responsibilities, or from the way persons are selected for training, or both.
      (4) In this section "training body" means—

      (a) a person mentioned in section 14(2)(a) or (b), or

      (b) any other person being a person designated for the purposes of this section in an order made by or on behalf of the Secretary of State,

      and a person may be designated under paragraph (b) for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) only, or of subsection (3) only, or for all those subsections."
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 30, in Clause 46, page 28, line 17, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
      Mr. Fraser: New Clause B consists mainly of provisions from Clause 46 allowing a limited degree of positive discrimination in training which have already been agreed by the House. Only subsection (3) of the new clause is entirely new to the Bill, and it results from the Government's view that there is one more area where training bodies should be able to make special provisions for providing benefit to women without any fear of a breach of the terms of the Bill. This is the area of special training for persons who, for domestic or family reasons, have been out of full-time employment for some considerable time.
      A woman—or a man—coming back to the labour market may find that her old skills are no longer in demand or they need modifying. It could be that the ex-housewife could benefit from a more general course which would enable her to readjust to a pattern of working life after a long time away from employment In any case, she will have special problems which result from her absence from the labour market.
      Under the Bill as it left this House, a course confined to women returning to the labour market would have been un-lawful,
      1632
      and a training body confining a course to women and men who had been out of the labour market for domestic reasons might have been challenged to show under Clause 1(1)(b) that this was "justifiable".
      I hope the House will recognise that there is merit in providing special courses for mothers or fathers who have had family responsibilities to help them train for a return to the world of employment and widen their opportunities. For that reason, I commend the new clause to the House.
      Mrs. Millie Miller: The worrying thing about the original Bill was the suggestion that there could not be positive discrimination. For that reason, I am sure the House will welcome the introduction of this new clause, which will help considerably in an area where women often find the greatest discrimination, and that is when they return to work after having raised their families or undertaken a domestic responsibility and find that they cannot get a suitable type of training. I am sure that many women will be pleased to see these provisions included in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause C

      TRADE UNIONS ETC.: ELECTIVE BODIES
      Lords amendment: No. 31, after Clause 46, in page 29, line 27, at end insert the following Clause C:
      'C.—(1) If an organisation to which section 12 applies comprises a body the membership of which is wholly or mainly elected, nothing in section 12 shall render unlawful provision which ensures that a minimum number of persons of one sex are members of the body—

      (a) by reserving seats on the body for persons of that sex; or

      (b) by making extra seats on the body available (by election or co-option or otherwise) for persons of that sex on occasions when the number of persons of that sex in the other seats is below the minimum,

      where in the opinion of the organisation the provision is in the circumstances needed to secure a reasonable lower limit to the number of members of that sex serving on the body, and nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done in order to give effect to such a provision.

      1633
      (2) This section shall not be taken as making lawful—

      (a) discrimination in the arrangements for determining the persons entitled to vote in an election of members of the body, or otherwise to choose the persons to serve on the body, or

      (b) discrimination in any arrangements concerning membership of the organisation itself."

      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The clause provides that trade unions and other bodies to which Clause 12 applies may take special steps to encourage persons of one sex to become members or to train persons of one sex for posts of any kind within the organisation and encourage them to take advantage of opportunities for holding such posts, where that sex has in the past been under-represented among the members or officials of the organisation. In effect, this takes account of the fact that in many unions women may need some special encouragement if they are to overcome any diffidence and any assumption that union affairs are more naturally the preserve of men, and come to play a full and equal part within the bodies that represent them.
      New Clause C seeks to take this principle one step further by allowing the reservation or creation of places for persons of a particular sex on committees, delegate conferences and other elected bodies within the organisation. I think we have to accept that, for a multitude of reasons, those women who participate actively at all levels within their unions together with men are the exception rather than the rule. A number of unions have attempted to alter this pattern by steps designed both to encourage women to participate fully in union affairs and to ensure that women are seen to be working alongside men on the decision-making bodies of the organisation. The Government feel that for the Bill to force those unions which have chosen this means of encouraging women's participation to abolish those arrangements at once would be a retrograde step of no benefit to either sex. Should other unions choose to follow the example of the few who have made such arrangements, we feel they should be allowed to do so.
      1634
      Over time, we hope that it will generally cease to be necessary to take any special steps to ensure the representation of women, and a further amendment, which was agreed in another place and which we shall be considering shortly, will enable this new clause to be amended or repealed entirely when no longer needed. More and more a person's sex should become an irrelevance in the selection of representatives—men and women alike will put themselves forward and be chosen on merit. Until that day comes, and in the interests of speeding its arrival, I hope hon. Members will agree to the new clause contained in the Lords amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 57

      RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS ON FORMAL INVESTIGATIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 34, line 20, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
      "(2) The Commission shall prepare a report of their findings in any formal investigation conducted by them.
      (3) If the formal investigation is one required by the Secretary of State—

      (a) the Commission shall deliver the report to the Secretary of State, and

      (b) the Secretary of State shall cause the report to be published,

      and unless required by the Secretary of State the Commission shall not publish the report.
      (4) If the formal investigation is not one required by the Secretary of State, the Com mission shall cither publish the report, or make it available for inspection in accordance with subsection (5).
      (5) Where under subsection (4) a report is to be made available for inspection, any person shall be entitled, on payment of such fee (if any) as may be determined by the Commission—

      (a) to inspect the report during ordinary office hours and take copies of all or any part of the report, or

      (b) to obtain from the Commission a copy, certified by the Commission to be correct, of the report.

      (6) The Commission may if they think fit determine that the right conferred by subsection (5)(a) shall be exercisable in relation to a copy of the report instead of, or in addition to, the original.
      (7) The Commission shall give general notice of the place or places where, and the times when, reports may be inspected under subsection (5)."—[Mr. John Fraser.]
      Read a Second time.
      Mrs. Colquhoun: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, after subsection (2), insert—
      '(2A) Without prejudice to other matters that may be included in any reports of the findings in any formal investigation, the Commission shall include in each report a statement of their findings regarding the relevance of the matters so investigated to the operation of the Equal Pay Act 1970'.
      I hope that this amendment to Lords Amendment No. 32 will be acceptable to the Government. However, I do not expect it to be because I believe that they will follow the pattern that they established during the Committee stage of the Bill, when nearly every amendment to improve the Bill and to make it a Bill that had real meaning to women, was opposed by them and supported by Opposition Members. Where are those hon. Members today? Is it not about time that we televised the proceedings of the House so that the empty benches in the House of Commons would be revealed to the British nation? It can be truthfully said that the Government obtained consent for this basically bad Bill in a coalition between Labour and Conservative Members. It is interesting that the only real opposition to the Bill was that of the four Labour women Members of the Committee. I hope that this message will go out from the House to women who genuinely care about feminism.
      On that basis alone this cannot be a good Bill. It is no good the Government constantly patting themselves on the back about it. There are vast areas of sexually discriminatory legislation—for example, pensions, taxation, and social security—which remain on the statute book.
      It should be made clear that not all women have been deceived by the grandiose descriptions given to the Bill by some politicians. In particular, the Women's Liberation Movement does not share this House's general satisfaction with the Bill. Until the question of equality of treatment is dealt with, to talk of equal opportunities and about the ending of sex discrimination in society is both hypocritical and illusory.
      Why do I and my hon. Friends believe that this amendment is important and significant? It is important because even at this late stage the amendment can go some way towards making the Equal Pay
      1636
      Act effective. Both measures are due to be implemented in 1975. The Equal Pay Act is to be fully implemented. Who better to monitor the workings of that Act than the Equal Opportunities Commission? It is an integral part of its job because there is no doubt that employers have found and are constantly finding ways and means of avoiding equal pay, for example by job evaluation schemes which place more importance on physical strength than on manual dexterity. However, many women's jobs have completely disappeared. One of the things that worries me about combating blatant discrimination under both these measures is that they combat only the blatant discrimination which results from and does not cause women's inequality. Legislation such as this will have only a limited effect on the rôles that women play in the economy.
      5.15 p.m.
      In the present serious economic situation, sexual rôles will, as in the past, be enforced even more strongly. There is no doubt that a clear sexual division of labour saves money for employers and the State, while fierce competition between men and women for a decreasing number of jobs weakens trade unions. There is no doubt also that sexual division of labour is at the root of women's inequality. Social conditioning maintains that division. Women today have two rôles to play in our economy. The first is that of housewife—unpaid labour. The second is that of cheap labour. In the words of the 1974 Government handbook,
      "Women form the only substantial reserve which can be employed or dismissed with relative ease according to economic fluctuations"
      More than half the women over 15 years of age go out to work and they receive approximately half the pay of men. The increase in the labour force over the past 15 years is accounted for by married women in unskilled and semiskilled jobs. If, for example, they received unemployment benefit in their own right or earned the same as men, a massive redistribution of income would be needed. I suspect that that massive redistribution will not happen unless we monitor the effects of the Equal Pay Act.
      Far from working for pin money, in 19 per cent. of the households women are the main breadwinners and it is essential that the Equal Opportunities Commission

      1637
      should monitor what will happen to women when the Equal Pay Act becomes fully operative. It would be unthinkable that that Commission should not do so. I cannot understand why it should be necessary at this late stage to table an amendment such as this, and why those who drafted the Bill did not think about this aspect in the first place and table a similar amendment.
      The Equal Opportunities Commission must have some such rôle to begin the important work that this House hopes will end discrimination. The Commission will be able to examine the trade unions and what they are doing about fighting for equal pay for their women members. It can look further into the blatant male chauvinist prejudice on the part of employers and even on the part of some members of trade unions. It will be able to issue reports and will have the people and machinery to do the job. Today, Parliament can give that Commission this job by law.
      For far too long women in our society have been big business to employers. It will be a new departure to monitor closely and carefully an Act of Parliament, for more often than not Acts of Parliament are legislated for and then forgotten. It would be tragic if that happened over the Equal Pay Act because 44 per cent. of all women who work are single, separated or widowed.
      I commend this amendment to the House and to the Government. I hope that the Government will not say that it is implicit that the Equal Opportunities Commission has the power to do this job. For once, let us write the powers in so that that Commission knows what its job is. At the end of the day let there be a reconciliation between the Government and the women members of the Standing Committee. I hope that during the last stages of the Bill the Government will have the dignity, the civility and the good common sense to accept what is, after all, a logical amendment.
      Miss Jo Richardson: I wish to give my warm support to the amendment to the Lords amendment, because it has merit. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) that the Bill is totally bad. I have in the course of a number of speeches said many nasty
      1638
      things about the Bill, but I believe that it is a good Bill at the end of the day, the best that we could have secured in the circumstances.
      I should have been much happier if the Government had accepted all our amendments. However, they have gone some way towards meeting us by noting some suggestions which we made in the form of an amendment on Report in another place. I am very grateful for that.
      I am pleased—I think that I speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) in this respect—that the Bill has reached this stage and is about to go on to the statute book because, limited though it is, it will do much to improve the general status of women.
      I welcome the extended provisions of Clause 47 which I believe arise directly from an amendment which we tabled on Report in this House. I am grateful to the Government for having taken up that amendment.
      The amendment to the Lords amendment has merit because, although the Equal Opportunities Commission is making formal investigations and although the Government may say that what we seek to achieve is implicit, anyway it would be sensible to make it explicit that the Commission will have the job also of monitoring the Equal Pay Act.
      We all know that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act by itself, without the sex discrimination legislation, and laudable though the intentions are of the Equal Pay Act are being evaded and have been evaded since 1970. Employers have been getting round the Act. They have been regrading staff. They have been creating new unisex grades into which to push women who were previously in a different grade so as to pay them less than men who do similar work.
      Conditions of employment have been deliberately, almost insidiously, changed over the past few years, often in a way which the women themselves do not appreciate, so that the provisions of the Equal Pay Act shall be evaded. Jobs have been reclassified. I know of many cases where male members of staff have been promoted, perhaps unnecessarily and not on merit, simply because of the firm's desire to avoid complying with the provisions of the Act.

      1639
      With the Equal Pay Act coming into full operation at the end of 1975, what better opportunity is there to see how the Act is working and whether some of the bigger private enterprise firms are operating it as it should be operated? As the opportunity will be afforded to the EOC to look into the matter when it is making a formal investigation, we should wherever appropriate lay upon the Commission the duty of carrying out this monitoring. I hope that the Government will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended. Our only intention is to make the Act as workable and as strong as possible.
      Mr. Greville Janner: As a male chauvinist beast I should like to add at least one fairly deep voice to the outcry which has emerged from our benches. I am desperately in favour of equal pay and against sex discrimination. Equally, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) that this is a Bill cooked up by those who wish to see women sent back to the kitchens for ever.
      The Bill is a perfectly sensible start and, if it works properly, it can do much good. My worry is whether it will work as the promoters of the Bill hope that it will. I support the amendment to the Lords amendment because I think we are all entitled to see as often and as clearly as possible how the legislation is working in practice.
      I have two major worries. The first is that the effect of the Bill in the main will depend upon a complaints procedure that will be operated through industrial tribunals. It is right that these informal tribunals should deal with this territory along with unfair dismissals, employment protection, maternity pay, redundancy pay, and so on.
      It is wrong that those who wish to obtain rights under these various enactments should not have the benefit of legal aid. Unless a woman who seeks to enforce her rights and fights her employer has a pretty tough union behind her she is very greatly disadvantaged, because her employers will have legal aid to fight the case and she will not.
      In an ordinary case before one of these tribunals it does not matter much. Indeed, in some cases there is much to be
      1640
      said for there not being legal representation in what are essentially informal procedures, but when it comes to arguing a difficult point of law or considering whether a new Act of Parliament is being properly applied, it is grossly unfair that the claimant should not have the benefit of legal representation, although in practice the employer will always have that benefit.
      No doubt the chairmen will continue to do their valiant best to ensure that justice is done, but it is not possible for a woman applicant in a case such as this to present her case with sufficient accuracy; to quote the authorities; to compete with a man who is, after all, a trained, qualified, skilled advocate—or, indeed, a woman who is a trained, qualified, skilled advocate, that woman acting on behalf of the employers.
      The employee must too often appear on her own. The employer seldom does so. The Bill cannot change the legal aid rules, although I understand that the Lord Chancellor can do so without even coming to the House with new legislation. Meanwhile, for this, the first of my reasons, let us have the legislation and its effects monitored as carefully as possible.
      The second point is more subtle but, I believe, far more dangerous to women's rights. It is the fear that many of us have that the total effect of the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Employment Protection Act maternity benefit provisions as they will be, will be to encourage employers to evade the new law en masse, on the same basis and with the same sorts of impropriety as employers in totally different circumstances evaded the anti-closed shop provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.
      In other words, when given the choice between a man and a woman to employ for a managerial or executive post, employers will tend to choose the man and to put against the name of the woman who is not employed the one word "unsuitable". Monitoring should take place.
      As the provisions of the Bill come into effect I fear that vast harm may be caused. The reason for that is simple. Women, at last, will get equal pay, but there will be difficulties. There will be those employers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) correctly pointed out, who will attempt to

      1641
      evade their responsibilities by regrading. However, I believe that in the main most employers will seek to comply with the Act in due course. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking shakes her lovely head, but I believe that that will happen. I believe that in 10 years' time people will look back on the days when there was not equal pay as an age of barbarism. I believe that they will be unable to understand how such a distinction was made. Further, I believe that maternity pay for six weeks will be accepted in due course.
      Mrs. Colquhoun: It is not long enough.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Janner: I know that my hon. Friend feels that that period is not long enough. I voted with my hon. Friend against the Government because I believed that that provision should have come in at an earlier date and that it should not be necessary to wait two years.
      The combination of equal pay, combined with its being more expensive to employ a woman of childbearing age and with the duty of an employer to take a woman back into the job that she left at any time within 21 weeks, and if necessary to dismiss the replacement—that being unfair dismissal if the replacement has been employed for six months or more unless he or she has been told that it would be necessary to go when mother returns—with the additional risks of trouble before industrial tribunals will induce employers to seek to evade these combined new statutes.
      Let me make my position perfectly plain. I support these combined new statutes. However, as my hon. Friends well know. I am concerned that the combination of these measures will destroy the very equality which they are designed to create. I am afraid that they must recognise that risk. If they do not recognise it they are closing their eyes to reality. Proper monitoring must take place so that we know what is happening. It is no good making laws and asking people to comply with them, giving people rights before tribunals which are not as real as they would appear to be because people cannot enforce them through lack of legal representation, and then not watching with the greatest possible
      1642
      care to ensure that such rights are implemented in a fair and proper manner.
      These are new laws. They are part of a vast assembly of much-needed employee protection. These are protections in addition to those given to men in industry. It is right that women should now be given this protection, but it is wrong that those who have campaigned for it so valiantly and for so long should fail to recognise the difficulties which will undoubtedly be created in implementation.
      The amendment seeks to set up a form of monitoring in connection with the investigations and inquiries which will be set up in any event. It would seem that the Government could accept the amendment as it would help in the monitoring of important rules. It would help in the initial stages at least to ensure that these real attempts to overcome the difficulties that have existed in the past will not die as a result of deliberate frustration by employers. That applies to both male and female employers. Indeed, some of the people most prejudiced against women are themselves women. We must ensure that the accusation cannot be made that women do not have the representation that they should have from the law. We must ensure that these measures are not misused by industry by any of the methods, however subtle, outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking.
      Mr. John Fraser: Perhaps you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to begin by saying something totally irrelevant. I was reminded of this matter by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). On the last occasion when I replied to my hon. and learned Friend in the House I may inadvertently have suggested that the Wig and Pen Club was a discriminatory institution. I wish to correct that suggestion. In fact, it is not a discriminatory institution. I make that correction especially in view of the number of letters I have had from women on the subject.
      I turn to the points that have been raised in the debate. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not denigrate or devalue the effectiveness of the tribunals. During the time in which they have operated, notwithstanding the absence of lawyers, they have had a

      1643
      remarkable record of success, not least perhaps because they have the assistance of conciliation officers in the early stages of proceedings.
      Mr. Greville Janner: I did not say that there was an absence of lawyers. I said that there was an absence of lawyers on the side of employees when lawyers are present on the side of employers. With respect, I do not denigrate the work of the tribunals, in spite of that unfairness.
      Mr. Fraser: I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend says that. We must make it clear to those who intend to present their cases before the tribunals that their chances, on past performance, are fairly high. I do not dissent from the proposition that there may well be circumstances in which the assistance of a lawyer on behalf of the complainant is necessary. Of course, the Lord Chancellor's committee is considering legal aid before tribunals. I am not suggesting that there may not be some difficulties, but on the whole the tribunal system, even without legal aid, has been extraordinarily successful. I do not think that anything we say in the House should deter people from making use of the system when they present cases under the unfair dismissal provisions, under the Equal Pay Act, or under this measure.
      I hope I do not misunderstand my hon. and learned Friend's emphasis, but I think he was suggesting in one part of his speech that the Equal Pay Act, the operation of the Employment Protection Bill and the operation of this measure may reduce the chances of employment and promotion for women. It was implicit in what he said that employers might find it less attractive or too expensive to take them into their workforce. During the run-up to the Equal Pay Act there has been no evidence that that is the case. The country as a whole, and employers and unions in particular, have accepted the spirit of that legislation. I rebut any suggestion that this kind of legislation will reduce opportunities for women.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) said that this is a limited Bill. Indeed, it is a limited Bill. It does not deal, for example, with social security or taxation
      1644
      although it deals with pensions. However, the fact that it is a limited Bill does not mean that it limits the opportunities of women. The Bill deals with employment and the supply of goods, services and facilities, and to that extent it is a radical measure. It is a widespread measure, a measure equalled in only very few countries. My hon. Friend is right in saying that it does not extend to social security or taxation, but I do not believe that those are areas which limit the opportunities of women, although they are areas that must be considered. I hope that the Equal Opportunities Commission will consider them, but I must assert that the Bill is a radical measure which will do a great deal to improve the opportunities of women.
      I now turn to the matters raised in the amendment and the arguments behind them. The amendment seeks to provide that progress towards equal pay and the operation of the Equal Pay Act should be monitored by the Commission. We were well aware that there was a necessity for the Commission to interest itself in the operation of the Equal Pay Act. For that reason, in Clause 50(1)(c), there is placed upon the Commission the duty not the power,
      "to keep under review the working of…the Equal Pay Act 1970."
      That is a duty which is imposed upon it. It is not an option for a discretion but something that the Commission is obliged to undertake. We have imposed that duty upon the Commission. In Clause 64(1)(d) we give the Commission a power to serve a non-discrimination notice in respect of any act which is a breach of an equality clause. That is the phraseology which is taken from the amended Equal Pay Act. We are giving the Commission not only the duty to keep under review the working of the Act but the power to serve a non-discrimination notice in respect of non-observance of the Act.
      Finally, we recognise that there may be some women who are unable themselves to present their cases to the industrial tribunals. In Clause 72 we give the Commission the power to represent women before tribunals. It is a power that will be enjoyed in addition to a similar power to be exercised by the Department of Employment. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will study carefully those provisions in the Bill.

      1645
      I turn to the technical effect of the amendment. There are circumstances in which the Commission might undertake an investigation into, say, the conduct of single-sex schools. It would be inappropriate for that body to add provisions relating to the Equal Pay Act 1970 since it would be entirely irrelevant to that type of investigation. The same argument would apply if the Commission were to conduct an investigation into the provision of banking and credit facilities.
      I ask my hon. Friends to consider another proposition. I hope that some investigations will be undertaken by the Commission into the working of the 1970 Act. If we were to be entirely logical and symmetrical in our thinking, we would need to give an obligation to the Commission to state its findings on the sex discrimination legislation. That would underestimate the sense and fail to recognise the duties of the Equal Opportunities Commission. In cases where equal pay was being investigated, it would be of the essence that any report should deal with those matters. If such a body were to investigate matters concerning equal pay and equal opportunity, it would address itself to matters relevant to the Equal Pay Act 1970. But the obligations and powers already exist and to include such a provision would add nothing to the situation. Indeed, it would be an unwieldy addition.
      I accept that the question of equal pay needs to be monitored. I have greatly concerned myself in monitoring the progress of equal pay, and indeed I have done so even before the legislation comes into operation. Where I have disc over discriminatory collective agreements, I have not hesitated to refer them to the Industrial Arbitration Board. There have been regular checks by my Department, including visits to individual firms, to check the progress towards equal pay. Indeed evidence has been published in the Department of Employment Gazette about progress in that regard. We have undertaken a widespread publicity campaign to ensure that people understand their rights under the Act.
      The Department of Employment is very much better equipped to get at the details of the operation of the Act than is the Equal Opportunities Commission because of the information flowing into the Department dealing with wage rates and collective agreements. I give an assurance
      1646
      that my Department will continue that monitoring process, although I am not saying that I regard the Equal Opportunities Commission as having no part to play. Indeed it is given powers in the Bill to enable it to play an important part.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the matter to a Division. I hope that I have given them some reassurance about the contents of the Bill and the responsibilities which I regard my Department as undertaking. I promise to bear these matters in mind as the legislation becomes a reality.
      Mr. J. W. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that up to the present time not one employer or employers' organisation has yet informed the Department that it will be unable to operate the requirements of the Equal Pay Act?
      Mr. Fraser: Nobody to my knowledge has informed me that he will be unable to operate the requirements of the Equal Pay Act. Some concerns—although not very many—when we were considering the limitation of wage increases in the current year thought that they would get away with it then. That was the reason for our making equal pay the only significant exception to the £6 a week maximum.
      Question put and negatived.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 59

      NO FURTHER SANCTIONS FOR BREACH OF ACT
      Lords amendment: No. 35, in page 35, line 19, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
      "(2) In subsection (1) "sanction" includes the granting of an injunction or declaration, but does not include the making of an order of Certiorari, mandamus or prohibition.
      (3) Subsection (2) does not affect the remedies available under section 63(2), notwithstanding that subsection (2) would prevent those remedies being obtainable in the High Court.
      (4) In relation to Scotland in subsection (1) "sanction" includes the granting of an interdict or of a declarator or a decree ad factum praestandum, but otherwise nothing in this Act shall affect any right to bring any proceedings, whether civil or criminal, which might

      1647
      have been brought if this Act had not been passed."
      5.45 p.m.
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment is primarily designed to correct two defects in Clause 59. The first defect was that the clause, as it stood, would have allowed a person to seek an injunction in respect of a contravention of the employment provisions of the Bill. Since only a court may grant an injunction, this would mean that a court could have found itself dealing with a "Part II case" without the matter ever having been referred to an industrial tribunal. The amendment corrects this defect.
      The second defect was that Clause 59 did not exclude the High Court's jurisdiction generally to make declaratory judgments. Thus, it would have been possible for an aggrieved person to bypass, say, a county court and go straight to the High Court for a declaratory judgment. The amendment ensures that the powers to make declarations are restricted to those expressly given to tribunals and county courts or sheriff courts by the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 61

      CONCILIATION IN EMPLOYMENT CASES
      Lords amendment: No. 36, in page 36, line 12, at end insert:
      "(2A) In proceeding under subsection (1) or (2), a conciliation officer shall where appropriate have regard to the desirability of encouraging the use of other procedures available for the settlement of grievances."
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment places a statutory duty on conciliation officers to encourage the use of voluntary grievance procedures, or any other appropriate procedures, in cases under this Bill and the Equal Pay Act. In practice, conciliation officers, who are part of ACAS, already do this in appropriate cases relating to unfair dismissals, but the amendment will give this practice a statutory basis. It will ensure that all parties to disputes will, where appropriate, be encouraged, but not compelled, to use voluntary procedures wherever these exist.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: I very much welcome the amendment which is very much in line with what some of us have been saying for some time. It is a considerable improvement.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 63

      CLAIMS UNDER PART III
      Lords amendment: No. 37, in page 37, line 42, leave out "four" and insert "two".
      Miss Lestor: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment will reduce from four months to two months the period between the submission of a complaint to the Education Ministers and the time when the complainant could take proceedings in the county court. The Government accept that it is reasonable to expect the majority of complaints to have been dealt with within the shorter time. If this does not prove possible in a number of cases, the Education Ministers will continue to consider the complaints after the two months period has elapsed, and to issue a direction if this is appropriate.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 68

      PERSISTENT DISCRIMINATION
      Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 41, line 1, leave out "72" and insert "63".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment corrects a printing error.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 71

      HELP FOR AGGRIEVED PERSONS IN OBTAINING INFORMATION ETC.
      Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 42, line 34, leave out from "manner" to "omitted" in line 6 on page 43 and insert:
      "the Secretary of State shall by order prescribe—

      (a) forms by which the person aggrieved may question the respondent on his reasons

      1649
      for doing any relevant act, or on any other matter which is or may be relevant;

      (b) forms by which the respondent may if he so wishes reply to any questions.

      (2) Where the person aggrieved questions the respondent (whether in accordance with an order under subsection (1) or not)—

      (a) the question, and any reply by the respondent, whether in accordance with such an order or not, shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, be admissible as evidence in the proceedings;

      (b) if it appears to the court or tribunal that the respondent deliberately, and without reasonable excuse".

      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 40 to 45.
      Mr. Fraser: We held a lengthy, slightly erudite debate on this matter during the Report proceedings. A number of constructive and useful criticisms were made. The purpose of these amendments is to take account of the criticisms made mainly by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). They were discussed in the House of Lords and I hope will prove acceptable to this House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 73

      PERIOD WITHIN WHICH PROCEEDINGS TO BE BROUGHT
      Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 44, line 28, leave out "three" and insert "six".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment increases from three to six months the period from the date when the act complained of was done, within which proceedings may be brought in a county or sheriff court in respect of that act. Industrial tribunal proceedings would remain subject to their normal three-month limitation, which is in fact prescribed in subsection (1).
      The institution of county or sheriff court proceedings however are rather slower, more formal, and more elaborate;
      1650
      and the potential litigant has to consider the question of cost and, possibly, apply for legal aid.
      Having considered the matter, the Government concluded that a three-month period would be an unreasonably short period within which to require county or sheriff court proceedings to be instituted and we therefore decided to recommend a six-month period.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 50, in page 44, line 43, leave out from "if" to end of line 45 and insert
      "in all the circumstances of the case, it considers that it is just and equitable to do so".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      As it stands, Clause 73(5) enables a court or tribunal to entertain a complaint out of time if it considers that it was not "reasonably practicable" for the complaint to have been brought within the prescribed period. In this amendment we are proposing that courts and tribunals should have a rather more generous discretion to entertain complaints out of time than that which is allowed them by the "reasonably practicable" test.
      The principal argument in favour of extending this discretion is that because the individual complainant has to decide in which forum to bring her complaint, provision ought to be made for the complainant who institutes proceedings in one forum, only to discover that they should have been brought in the other, and that she is out of time in that other forum; that is, they should be able to entertain out of time complaints if it is "just and equitable" to do so.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 74

      VALIDITY AND REVISION OF CONTRACTS
      Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 45, line 40, at end insert—
      "(4A) An order under subsection (4) may include provision as respects any period before the making of the order."
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

      1651
      This amendment is largely clarificatory. Subsection (2) of Clause 74 provides that a term in a contract which is discriminatory against a party to the contract shall be unenforceable against that party; and subsection (4) that such terms are to be capable of revision by a county or sheriff court on the application of either party to the contract. There will be cases where justice and equity require that an order revising a term should make provision for the period between the time when the term became unenforceable and the date of the making of the order. The amendment makes it clear that orders may relate to this period.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 45, line 32, at end insert—
      "(4) Subsection (3) does not apply—

      (a) to a contract settling a complaint to which section 60(1) of this Act or section 2 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 applies where the contract is made with the assistance of a conciliation officer;

      (b) to a contract settling a claim to which section 63 applies."

      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it may be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 53.
      Dr. Summerskill: These amendments are purely consequential on Lords Amendment No. 51. They do no more than adjust the order of the subsections in Clause 74.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    New Clause D

      EDUCATIONAL CHARITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Lords amendment: No. 54, after Clause 74, in page 46, line 3, at end insert the following Clause D:
      "(1) This section applies to any trust deed or other instrument—

      (a) which concerns property applicable for or in connection with the provision of education in any establishment in paragraphs 1 to 5 of the Table in section 22, and

      1652

      (b) which in any way restricts the benefits available under the instrument to persons of one sex.

      (2) If on the application of the trustees, or of the responsible body (as defined in section 22), the Secretary of State is satisfied that the removal or modification of the restriction would conduce to the advancement of education without sex discrimination, he may by order make such modifications of the instrument as appear to him expedient for removing or modifying the restriction, and for any supplemental or incidental purposes.
      (3) If the trust was created by gift or bequest, no order shall be made until 25 years after the date on which the gift or bequest took effect, unless the donor or his personal representatives, or the personal representatives of the testator, have consented in writing to the making of the application for the order.
      (4) The Secretary of State shall require the applicant to publish notice—

      (a) containing particulars of the proposed order, and

      (b) stating that representations may be made to the Secretary of State within a period specified in the notice.

      (5) The period specified in the notice shall not be less than one month from the date of the notice.
      (6) The applicants shall publish the notice in such manner as may be specified by the Secretary of State, and the cost of any publication of the notice may be defrayed out of the property of the trust.
      (7) Before making the order the Secretary of State shall take into account any representations duly made in accordance with the notice.
      (8) This section does not apply in Scotland."
      Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments No. 55 and 61.
      Miss Lestor: In response to an amendment moved during Report stage by my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), I said that the Government were sympathetic to the intention underlying the amendment which was concerned with charities, although for a number of reasons it could not be accepted as it stood. I said that the Government proposed to introduce an amendment relating to educational trusts, and the new clauses fulfil the undertakings that I then gave.
      The new clauses permit trustees of educational trusts whose objects are restricted to benefiting persons of one sex

      1653
      to apply to the Education Ministers for an order removing or modifying the restrictions so that the benefits can be made available to persons of the other sex. The Government believes that the new clauses are in accordance with the spirit of the Bill. They will enable, for example, trustees providing scholarships for men only to apply for approval to make them available also to women. They will also make it easier for the trustees of an independent single-sex school to move towards co-education.
      New Clause D relates to England and Wales. New Clause E is a separate clause relating only to Scotland and is designed to take account of the different legal framework governing educational charities in Scotland. Amendment No. 61 is consequential upon the new clause. The intention is that orders made under the new Clause D are not, with the exception of orders modifying enactments, to be subject to the procedural requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Clause 76. In Scotland, schemes for the reorganisation of educational endowments under Part VI of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 are normally made by statutory instrument unless they relate to a small endowment—that is, one with an annual value of less than £500—in which case a simplified procedure applies. Amendment No. 61 also ensures therefore that similar procedures apply to orders under new Clause E.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Clause 75

      POWER TO AMEND CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF ACT.
      Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 46, line 7, leave out from "and (3)" to end of line and insert "(Discrimination: Consent for assignment or sub-letting) (2) 31, 33, 34, and 42 to 45 (Discriminatory training by certain bodies) and 46"
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
      Dr. Summerskill: These amendments have two main purposes. First, they update Clause 75 to take account of the new clauses which have been added to the Bill both here and in another place. The amendments add to the provisions already covered in Clause 75(1)(a): subsection (2) of new Clause A, the new clause relating to consent for the assignment or subletting of premises; Clause 33, the voluntary bodies exception; Clause 45, the communal accommodation exception; and new Clause B, the clause dealing with discriminatory training. These are all new exceptions which may need to be amended in the light of experience. The amendments also add new Clause A to the clauses specified in clause 75(1)(b).
      The second purpose of these amendments is as follows: Amendment 57 provides that four provisions will be subject to amendment or repeal by order made by the Secretary of State. Such orders, like the other orders which may be made under Clause 75, will be made by statutory instrument subject to an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
      The four exceptions concerned are political parties—Clause 32, elective bodies of trade unions—new Clause C, the exception for provisions relating to death or retirement in partnerships—Clause 11(4) and the exception for provisions relating to death or retirement as they affect trade unions and other bodies in Clause 12(4).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 76

      ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 59, in page 46, line 24, leave out "46(2)(b)" and insert
      "(Discriminatory training by certain bodies) (4)(b)"
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This is a drafting amendment consequential upon the amendments to Clause 46 which we discussed earlier.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Clause 78

      TRANSITIONAL AND COMMENCEMENT PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS
      Lords amendment: No. 63, in page 50 line 28, at end insert—
      "(5) An order under this section may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into operation, including such adaptations of those provisions, or of any provisions of this Act then in operation, as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act."
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The amendment relates to the Secretary of State's power to bring in the Sex Discrimination Act by Commencement Order and seeks to empower him to make transitional adaptations of provisions in the Bill. This power is needed as a consequence of Lords Amendments Nos. 73 and 76 to Schedule 1, which are designed to incorporate the provisions relating to equal access to occupational pension schemes into the Equal Pay Act. The equal access provisions will not take immediate effect. They have to run in line with the Social Security Pensions Act and that is why the transitional power is needed.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 80

      APPLICATION TO CROWN
      Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 50, line 40, leave out "Subject to section 17".
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment Nos. 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74 and 75.
      Dr. Summerskill: The main purpose of this group of amendments is to carry out the Government's intention to include in the Bill a clause creating a general duty on a Minister of the Crown or Government Department not to discriminate in considering persons for, and in making, public appointments. The Government intend by the new Clause F which would be inserted by Lords Amendment No. 70 to make an unequivocal declaration of public policy in this matter.
      The new clause applies to offices held by persons appointed by Ministers of the Crown and Government Departments where there is no relationship which is properly analogous with an employer/employee relationship between the person appointed and the appointing Minister or Department. Subsection (2) introduces a duty not to discriminate in the arrangements for considering and making appointments, and provides that this duty shall not extend to a case in which such discrimination would not be unlawful under Part II if the Crown were the employer. In the nature of things this kind of public duty is not capable of enforcement under Part II of the Bill, but there is the possibility of enforcement by prerogative writ under Clause 59.
      All the other amendments—except part of Lords Amendment No. 68 which I will come to in a moment—are in some sense consequential on the new clause. Lords Amendments Nos. 64 to 67 and 69 and that part of Lords Amendment No. 68 which deletes the existing subsection (3) clarify the application of Clause 80 so that it applies only to "service of the Crown" which in substance involves an employer/employee type of relationship.
      Lords Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 74 and 75 to Schedule 1 keep the Equal Pay Act in step with Clause 80, since both of these relate to employer/employee relationships.
      That leaves the part of Lords Amendment No. 68 which deals with armed services cadet forces. The purpose of this amendment is to enable the cadet forces to be opened to girls on a controlled entry basis.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 1

      EQUAL PAY ACT 1970
      Lords amendment: No. 73, in page 53, line 19, leave out from "childbirth" to end of line 20 and insert—
      "(1A) An equality clause and those provisions—

      (a) shall operate in relation to terms relating to membership of an occupational pension scheme (within the meaning of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975) so far as those terms relate to any matter in respect of which the scheme has to conform with the equal access requirements of Part IV of that Act; but

      (b) subject to this, shall not operate in relation to terms related to death or retirement, or to any provision made in connection with death or retirement."

      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With that amendment it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 76.
      Mr. Fraser: The purpose of these amendments is to incorporate into the Equal Pay Act 1970 provisions which will extend the requirement of equal treatment for men and women so as to include terms and conditions of employment relating to access to membership of an occupational pension scheme. The provisions were previously included in the Social Security Pensions Bill. This provision will come into operation at the same time as the corresponding provisions of the Social Security Pension Act, that is to say, in April 1978.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      TRANSITIONAL EXEMPTION ORDERS FOR EDUCATIONAL ADMISSIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 77, in page 62, line 29, leave out from "Commission" to" unless" in line 30 and insert
      "on any application under paragraph 6 may if they think fit make a transitional exemption order, but shall not make such an order".
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      1658
      The amendment corrects an omission from the Scottish paragraphs of the schedule.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES COMMISSION
      Lords amendment: No. 78, in page 65, line 10, at end insert—
      "Proceedings and business
      10A.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Commission may make arrangements for the regulation of their proceedings and business, and may vary or revoke those arrangements.
      (2) The arrangements may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, provide for the discharge under the general direction of the Commission of any of the Commission's functions by a committee of the Commission, or by two or more Commissioners.
      (3) Anything done by or in relation to a committee, or Commissioners, in the discharge of the Commission's functions shall have the same effect as if done by or in relation to the Commission."
      Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      The purpose of the amendment, which was prompted by an amendment tabled in another place by Lord Colville, is to make express provision enabling the Equal Opportunities Commission to make arrangements for the conduct of its business, including the delegation of its functions.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 4

      TRANSITIONAL AND COMMENCEMENT PROVISIONS
      Lords amendment: No. 80, in page 66, line 23, leave out from beginning to "section" in line 24, and insert "3.—(1)".
      Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords Amendment No. 81.
      Mr. Fraser: I intend at the appropriate time to move the amendment on the Order Paper in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos. 80 and 81. The Government's substitute amendment will have the effect of leaving the substantial intention of the Lords amendments in the Bill. It is intended that in future the Equal Pay Act should apply to terms of employment relating to marriage in the same way as it applies to other terms of employment. However, it is also intended that, where an employer has an obligation to pay a marriage gratuity to a female employee under a contract made before the Sex Discrimination Act received Royal Assent, he can honour that obligation without incurring a similar obligation in respect of male employees.
      The intention of the other House was that the amendments should allow this policy to be implemented without allowing other forms of sex discrimination in matters related to marriage, which are contained in existing contracts of employment, to be excluded from the provisions of the Act. Unfortunately, owing to a subsequent amendment made in another place, these amendments are now technically defective. The Government amendment will secure the intention of the Lords amendments whilst removing the defect therein contained.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords amendment disagreed to.
      Amendment made to the Bill in lieu of Lords Amendments Nos. 80 and 81:In page 66, line 23, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—
      '3.—(1) Section 6 of the Equal Pay Act 1970 (as amended by paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to this Act) shall apply as if the references to death or retirement in subsection (1A)(b) of the said section 6 included references to sums payable on marriage in
      1660
      pursuance of a contract of employment made before the passing of this Act, or the commutation, at any time, of the right to such sums.
      (2) In relation to service within section 1(8) of the said Act of 1970 (service of the Crown) for the reference in this paragraph to a contract of employment made before the passing of this Act there shall be substituted a reference to terms of service entered into before the passing of this Act.'—[Mr. John Fraser.]

    Schedule 5

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords amendment: No. 82, in page 66, line 29, at end insert—
      'Factories Act 1961 (c. 34)
      1. In section 15(2) (unfenced machinery: operations carried out by specified male persons) the word "male" shall be omitted."
      The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (c. 49)
      2. In section 21(6) for the word "woman" there shall be substituted the word "person".'
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      On Report, I gave an undertaking that we would try to seek amendments to operate this protective legislation on an equal basis, but I pointed out that there might be some difficulty over Section 20 of the Factories Act. The amendment fulfils the undertaking in general, but, as I forecast, it proved too difficult to amend Section 20 of the Factories Act in this Bill. However, as I also promised the House on Report, we have accordingly made a request to the Health and Safety Commission to undertake an early review of this section of the protective legislation. I am advised that the matter can be dealt with only in that way.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

  PRICE CODE
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection is not yet here to move the Price Code order. May we have your guidance? What happens when a Minister fails to attend? Does it mean that the House should adjourn or go on to other business?
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Fraser): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was about to raise a point of order myself, but on second thoughts, following the arrival of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, my point of order might be bogus and therefore I shall not detain you any longer.
  6.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I apologise to you and the House, Mr. Speaker, for being delayed. I am afraid that the message that reached me was rather misleading, indicating that the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Sex Discrimination Bill was expected to last another 45 minutes. I apologise if I have caused any difficulty to the House.
  I beg to move,
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1293), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the Opposition Prayer on the Order Paper,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Counter-inflation (Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges) (Amendment) Order 1975 (S. I., 1975, No. 1294), dated 4th August 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be annulled.
  Mrs. Williams: We are debating the orders concerned with the changes to the Price Code that are required as a result of the discussions on the Counter-inflation policy which the House held in July. It would be best if I were to begin by outlining the effects of the two orders.
  The first is the Price Code order itself, which amends the Price Code by strengthening the sanction against excessive
  1662
  pay settlements. It ensures that all firms subject to the code are prevented from passing the costs of an excessive pay settlement through into their prices. The order makes separate provision for each of the relevant sections of the code.
  With regard to manufacturing and service firms, the largest proportion of the total, the costs of excessive settlements are to be disallowed in the operation not only of the normal allowable costs but also of the low-profit safeguards in the code. To override the safeguards in this way may seem Draconian to some, but having improved the safeguards as a result of our review of the code last year, and thus making them accessible to larger numbers of firms, we could not contemplate immunising such a significant section of industry from the effect of the sanctions. By applying the sanctions to all firms which breach the limit, whatever their profit situation, we intend to leave negotiators with no illusion as to the effects on their firm or industry of exceeding the pay limit.
  For firms using escalation, or variation of price clauses, such as the construction industry, the cost of excessive settlements will be disallowed from price increases under these arrangements, and the order makes it clear that the disallowance will also apply to variation of price contracts which are governed by indices, where the indices reflect costs arising from excessive settlements.
  For distributors who are not covered by normal allowable cost rules and who invoke the low-profit safeguards the code will prevent any increase in gross profit margins to compensate for the increased costs of an excessive settlement. In other words, the gross profit margin will not be allowed to reflect excessive settlements.
  For distributors whose profit margins are above the safeguard levels no extra provision is needed to apply the sanction, because they would in any case be forced to absorb the costs of an excessive settlement from their existing profit margins.
  For nationalised industries the sanction will apply in the same way as for the private sector, as a deduction either from an industry's allowable cost increases or from price increases justified under the provisions which permit a surplus of 2 per cent. on turnover or a 10 per cent. return on net assets.

  1663
  Finally, for firms whose labour costs form less than 15 per cent. of total costs—and I acknowledge that these may include not only capital-intensive firms but those whose labour costs are small for other reasons, such as a high raw material content—the disallowance of cost increases will be increased to achieve the same effect on these firms' margins as if labour costs had represented 15 per cent. of their total costs. In other words, the minimum amount considered to be allowable for labour costs will be 15 per cent., and that will be allowed for even if the firm spends less than that on labour, even in the event that it breaks the guidelines.
  The order also includes a separate provision of concern to the self-employed. It re-establishes control over the self-employed whose business expenses amount to less than 10 per cent. of their profits or gains. All those whose business expenses amount to more than 10 per cent. of their profits or gains are already covered by the Price Code as it at present exists. A pay limit makes little practical sense for people in this group, but we thought it right to bring them back within the scope of price control—where they were a few months ago—at a time when wage and salary earners are being asked to make sacrifices as regards their pay increases.
  I turn now to the second order. Procedural requirements have aroused more interest and caused greater difficulty in the House in some ways than the form of the sanction itself. This is understandable because prenotification affects all manufacturing and service firms with sales of over £5 million—that is to say, the great bulk of British industry—and because it is not easy to strike a balance between the need to ensure adequate scrutiny of pay settlements which enter into price increases and the desire to avoid unnecessary delay which could affect a firm's cash flow because it cannot pass on legitimate cost increases. After full discussion with the CBI and the Price Commission I hope that we have now struck the right balance.
  Hon. Members will be interested to know what has developed out of the discussions which took place during the recess. They will recall, as this was fully debated in July, that the procedure involves
  1664
  the submission by firms to the Price Commission of data about the pay settlements which enter into their price notifications.
  The commission passes the information about a pay settlement to the Department of Employment, which looks at the settlement to see whether it conforms with the pay limit. If, in the light of that investigation and also of any further discussions which may be initiated by the firm or the Department, it appears to the Department that the settlement has exceeded the limit, the Secretary of State for Employment issues a certificate to the Price Commission, which will then operate the sanction, refusing to allow the cost of such a settlement to be reflected in a price increase.
  The problem has been to provide for adequate time for the notification period stage, to ensure a proper scrutiny of new information about a pay settlement, and to enable further information or clarification to be sought from the firm concerned in case of doubt. The House will know that the present normal period of notification is only 28 days for the price increase. This additional cycle of activity can make that 28 days inadequate.
  In the consultative document which we were debating in the House just before the recess, I proposed a clock-stopping arrangement which would have meant that the time taken to obtain and assess further information from a firm would not count against the normal 28-day notification period. In other words, if a firm took more than 28 days, the clock would be stopped for the additional time.
  Because of the administrative difficulties and uncertainties which clock stopping involves—it is in many ways an artificial procedure—we considered another alternative which might be effective, that of allowing a 56-day period of notification, but taking away from that period any number of days before the lodging of a price application in which firms had voluntarily lodged information about their relevant pay settlements. In other words, if a firm lodged information about its pay settlements 20 days before the beginning of the price notification period of 28 days, there would be only an additional period of eight days which would be counted against it.
  However, the CBI assured me that it would much prefer to urge its members

  1665
  to make full use of the voluntary advance procedure under which firms may send information about relevant pay settlements to the Price Commission anything up to 28 days in advance of their price notifications. Thus, a firm can send details about a pay settlement, or for that matter about an intended pay settlement, at any time in the month before that in which it intends to make a price application. The CBI argued that an extension of the statutory 28-day notification period would be equivalent to tougher price controls for all firms, whether or not they comply with the Counter-inflation policy, and that this was not the Government's intention in introducing this sanction.
  I have, therefore, accepted the CBI assurance that it would urge firms which are members of the CBI to use the voluntary procedure, on the understanding that in the few cases which may occur where the advance procedure is not used, and where clearance of the price notification might not be completed within the statutory 28 days, the firm might have to delay its price increase or it might have to face the risk of an order from the Price Commission to roll back its prices if a settlement subsequently turned out to be outside the guidelines of the Counter-inflation policy.
  Basically, what we have got is a voluntary policy under which firms would be allowed to notify pay increases up to a month before they put in a price application. It is understood between the CBI and myself that if these arrangements do not work satisfactorily the CBI will accept the inevitability of reverting to one of the other alternative policies—that is, either clock stopping or a lengthening to 56 days. All of this has been set out in the published exchange of letters between the Director-General of the CBI and myself. I will go into the details a little later, but I am bound to say that this proposal is working quite well.
  We have now had the first indications of how the policy is working. The position is that a good many firms are using the advance procedure. It is fair to say that a growing number of firms are doing so, evidently as they learn about it. Until 6th October, the last date for which I can give the House information, the Price Commission had referred to the Department of Employment 163 price notifications in which there were increases
  1666
  in remuneration since the White Paper was introduced. In that period of 163 price notifications, there were 155 advance notices of pay information.
  The House must recognise that this is not exactly a parallel figure because some of the notifications of pay settlements could be related to price notifications that have not yet been received. Some of them, in other words, are within the 28-day period before a price application is lodged. It does show a high corelation between price applications and voluntary information about pay settlements. This was something about which I know the hon. Lady and her colleagues were concerned during our July debates. I am pleased to say that it appears to be working pretty well.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Can the right hon. Lady say whether she has disallowed any of those price determinations on the grounds of pay settlements being above the White Paper level?
  Mrs. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will deal with that point a little later. First, I want to deal with one or two other important points which I wish to record for the purpose of assisting firms in this exercise.
  There will be far more notifications within the next few months because the period of pay settlements is now upon us. Both in November and December, particularly November, there are a good many pay settlements due to be made under the 12-month rule. We urge firms as far as possible to use the voluntary procedure and, wherever they can, to give the full 28 days notification or as close as possible to that so that this voluntary procedure can go on as smoothly as it has up to now. If the trend continues I am hopeful that the voluntary procedure will work so smoothly that there will be no need to resort to any extension of the period.
  I want to say a word about the information that is required from firms regarding pay settlements. It may be alleged that this information appears formidable. Indeed it has been so alleged in an article which appeared recently in The Times. I do not deny that it imposes burdens upon firms, although we have done our best to minimise requirements so as to make them consistent with effective

  1667
  scrutiny. The Price Commission has issued a pro-forma to firms to assist them in presenting the information needed. We have had a good many indications from the firms that they welcome this help from the Commission. It is also fair to say that the information required is substantially less than the information required for the purposes of the old Prices and Incomes Board or its successors. We intend to try to keep the information needed as simple as we possibly can.
  May I say a word about the last order which is not before us—No. 1295? It is one which we do not have to debate for statutory purposes and deals with the requirement of firms which do not have to prenotify but have to make regular reports to the Price Commission or which have to keep records to show what their pay settlements have been.
  We recognise that the CBI, while it does not particularly like this extra burden, has very much welcomed the counter-inflation policy and has shown a willingness to co-operate with it.
  I will now tell the hon. Gentleman that there has been no case, up to now, of a firm having to notify to the Price Commission. There has been no case yet in which the Price Commission has found that a settlement has been outside the guidelines of the Counter-inflation policy. That does not mean to say that there may not be such cases. I wish to make it clear that, if there are, it will certainly be my responsibility, as one of the Ministers involved, to make quite certain that there will be a full application of the sanctions against any such firm. This is because I believe it to be overridingly in the national interest that the Counter-inflation policy should work. I want to make no bones about that. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of both sides of industry, the nation and the House that we achieve a major reduction in the rate of inflation.
  The House will want to know how things are progressing. It is fair to say that a deceleration in the rate of increase in labour costs means, among other things from the point of view of companies, that the productivity deduction bites less hard on their margins. Therefore the policy advanced is very much in the interests of growth and future investment.
  1668
  I turn now to the figures for inflation to bring the House fully up to date. In August, as the House will be aware, the year-on-year figure of increase was 26·9 per cent., but the three-monthly figure, on an annual rate, had fallen from the 53 per cent. of May, about which the hon. Lady was understandably scathing, to 32·6 per cent. in July and then to 152 per cent. in August—the lowest three-monthly rate since last October.
  I take the three-monthly rate as well as the annual rate so that the House will know that I am not trying to play with figures, but it is fair to look at both because it is fair to look at the trend as well as the year-on-year figures. I will whenever possible give the House both so that we can argue which is the more representative.
  It is also fair to say that there are encouraging notes in respect of wholesale price increases in the case of manufactured goods, both on a monthly and on a three-monthly basis. The figure of increase in September was the smallest since the second quarter of 1973. That gives us good reason to believe that the present deceleration of price rises over the last three months will continue in the immediate future.
  I wish that I could be as sanguine about raw material and fuel prices. Alas, I cannot. The House will know that the OPEC countries decided to increase crude oil prices by an average of 10 per cent. and that oil is a basic material for many of our industries, including food manufacturing and the whole of distribution.
  World food prices have also been hardening recently, especially of wheat from North America and of dairy products and meat, partly because of poor harvests in some parts of the world such as the Ukraine and partly because of the entry of very large purchasers on a substantial scale into the North American markets for grain. It would be pointless to suggest that this country is not affected substantially by deals with which it may have nothing to do between large purchasers and large suppliers of grain.
  At home, both the potato and the vegetable crops were adversely affected by the summer's long drought.
  In August, materials and fuel bought by the food manufacturers went up by 7½ per cent., in September by 3 per cent.

  1669
  Although the inputs in manufacturing industry, as distinct from food, rose rather less, there was an increase of 6½ per cent. in the third quarter, which again was the highest for at least six quarters, I think I am right in saying.
  All this means that there are still costs in the pipeline, including some past pay settlements as well, which are not yet fully reflected in prices. So we shall see, or are seeing, a marked and substantial improvement at present. It would be optimistic to suppose that there will not be a further hump to be got through, most of it the result—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) laughs, but he should not laugh because this is a matter of the most intense concern to this country. I hope that he will not laugh, because it cannot be in the interests of hon. Members on either side to regard an increase in raw material and oil prices as being in the interests of this country. I do not much care what one's politics are when I say that: it is bound to be the case.
  I hope that that hump will be the last hump and that, by the turn of the year—I have said this before—the improvements which flow from the considerable slowing down in commodity price increases—not a straight fall, but a slowing down in the rate of increase—the lower pay settlements and, it has to be added, the considerable squeeze on company profits over the last few quarters, will all be reflected in prices. I have little doubt that that will be so.
  On the pay side, the Government's Counter-inflation measures have received a widespread welcome. Hon. Members will know that during the recess there was a substantial demonstration of support by the trade union movement in September when the General Council's report, "Developing the Social Contract", was carried by more than two to one. Since that vote, a number of unions which opposed it, including such substantial unions as USDAW and SOGAT have announced their intention of supporting the policy despite having gone on record as part of the minority at that time.
  It is still early days in the new pay round, but the agreements already made are very encouraging. They cover about 1½ million workers in a wide range of
  1670
  occupations—local authority manual workers, workers in the grocery trade, both of them relatively low-paid, but also plumbers, bakers, shipbuilders and a substantial section among car workers who would not normally be described as being in the low-paid category. All of these have accepted settlements in accordance with the policy. In some cases, this acceptance has involved a complete renegotiation of an existing pay settlement to bring it into line with the policy. Hon. Members should not be unaware of what a difficult exercise that can be.
  I repeat that in no case so far has it been necessary to impose a sanction under the price code, but I am not so sure that I can continue to be so sanguine in the immediate future. I hope so, because it is in the interests of all concerned that we should not have to use that sanction if it can be avoided.
  I should now like to say something about a number of Press reports which have appeared on the general subject of the Price Code. I hope that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) will agree that this would not be an appropriate evening to discuss the future of the Price Code in great depth and that she will not hold it against me if I, therefore, do not do so, but it would be helpful if I said a few words about how I see the future of price policy developing.
  First, it is not my intention to make any fundamental changes in the price controls before the end of the current phase of the pay and prices policy, which lasts only till next summer. Indeed, it would be extremely foolish to do so. We made it clear in our White Paper, "The Attack on Inflation", that we believed it to be essential to keep price increases to a minimum and to maintain a strict control of the Price Code and the Price Commission. For that reason, we took powers under Section 2 of the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act to extend by order price control powers to the end of July 1976 and, if absolutely necessary, to the end of July 1977.
  I do not want to give the impression that I would wish to go till the summer of 1977. Obviously, prices policy must be closely related to how the economy develops. It is, frankly, too early to say at this stage what the shape of price

  1671
  controls will or should be after the summer of 1976. It is too early for a straightforward reason, which will, no doubt, be adduced by others contributing to the debate—that we do not yet know and cannot yet guess whether the targets in the Counter-inflation policy will actually be achieved.
  If they are achieved, and if we do get inflation down to 10 per cent. by the summer of 1976—as I have said, we are at least on a reasonable course to achieve that—the Government, the CBI and the TUC will want to do everything possible to encourage worth-while investment and create new jobs by the summer. The present Price Code is not appropriate either to a period of recession, or, for that matter, to a period of encouraging manufacturing and distributive investment. So I would not suggest that the Price Code in is present form would be the right answer if we can move rapidly towards growth by next summer.
  Equally, because I do not know whether we shall have achieved that state so quickly, and also because there are circumstances, beyond the control of any British Government, which might determine how rapidly that target might be achieved, it would be the height of foolishness for me to make a statement about the look of price controls in the summer. What I will say—I have said it before—is that it will be of the highest priority to move as soon as we can on to the basis of more rapid growth and of higher investment.
  I recognise that the Price Code will have to be changed for that purpose but the primary job must be and still is, in the Government's view, that of defeating inflation. For this purpose, we do not believe that a major relaxation of the Price Code at this time would be appropriate. The achievement of our target depends upon the contribution that both the unions and industry can make. So it is to some extent in the hands of both sides of industry—though not totally, for the reasons I have indicated—whether we achieve that target and how quickly we can reach a position from which we can again begin to grow and to encourage investment.
  6.39 p.m.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move,
  1672
  That a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must speak first to the motion of the Secretary of State. She can discuss the two motions together, but the formal movement of her motion must come later.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It is probably for the convenience of the House that we discuss the two orders together. Having said that, I must protest strenuously at the outrageous way in which the House has been treated over this debate. These orders are complex, significant and far-reaching in their effects, yet this is the first opportunity that the House has had to discuss them, over two months after they have been in force, and probably only for a short period.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the hon. Lady think that we should have recalled Parliament to discuss these orders? The attendance in the Chamber hardly suggests that would have been the view of Parliament.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: The orders should have been discussed before the recess, and they would have been if the Government had not been suffering from legislative indigestion. They are very important orders, and when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made representations to the Leader of the House, he indicated on a number of occasions that ample time would be made available for this debate. These orders are, after all, the nuts and bolts of the Government's Counter-inflation policy and, in some ways, are even more important than the Act itself. We were assured that we would have ample time to discuss them, possibly before they came into effect. During the proceedings on the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill, we received a number of unsatisfactory replies from the right hon. Lady. Some were contradictory and confusing and, when we expressed our concern, she indicated that there would be ample time to discuss the orders. She said:
  "The details are open to change and are likely to be filled out before an order is made. There will be a closer definition of what is meant by a settlement and how large a group will constitute a group for the purposes of a settlement. All the matters will be discussed by Parliament."—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 1158.]

  1673
  These matters were not discussed by Parliament before the orders were laid or the regulations came into force. If the Opposition had not tabled a Prayer against one of the orders tonight, it could not have been discussed at all. This is typical of the way the Government have handled every aspect of their Counter-inflation policy. The way this debate has been handled bears all the familiar trade marks. These orders have come before the House late and we did not have an opportunity to discuss them before they came into force.
  The orders representing the legal implementation of the Government's pay policy and this debate, coming as it does a year and a week after their re-election, will loom from this Session of Parliament like a tombstone on the grave of their broken promises and their complete failure to contain inflation.
  The Secretary of State presented the orders with her customary attention to detail and her customary expressions of concern about inflation, but she can take little comfort and deserves none from the fact that 20 months after she took office, we now have the situation, where we are told that for the first time since the 1930s some of the poorest families in this country are going hungry and the price index for the lowest paid is rising faster than for anybody else. That is hardly an achievement in terms of social justice.
  How can we take seriously the Government's expressed determination to tackle inflation when their own spending is at such terrifying levels and the public sector borrowing requirement has not been adequately curtailed? Even the reference in the orders to the £6 pay limit throws doubt on the Government's policy. The White Paper, Prime Ministerial statements, answers to questions and that circumventive document that was pushed through all our letterboxes, have proclaimed that the £6 is a limit and not an entitlement and that some employers might not be able to pay it. I ask the House to note those words, "some employers may not be able to pay it".
  It is true that USDAW has settled for £5·20 a week, but this represents a pay increase of more than 20 per cent. and will put £30 million on the country's food and grocery bill. We are told that it is considerably more than the union
  1674
  would have settled for outside the contents of this policy. Since then, local authorities have been called on to pay the full £6 without a word of dissent from the Government and with nearly the whole bill to be borne by ratepayers.
  Is that what the Government mean when they talk of protecting people against inflation? I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether, in the sense that this is meant in the Government's pamphlet, she believes that nationalised industries are able to pay the full £6. Their prices have gone up twice as fast as prices in the private sector and the pay of their workers has gone up even faster. They have enormous losses and even larger debts. Are the consumers and the taxpayers to be left to pay that bill? The House and the country will welcome an indication from the right hon. Lady whether she thinks that nationalised industries are able to pay the full £6, because there is nothing in these orders to restrain them. The rules for conformity with the Price Code have been tightened as far as nationalised industries are concerned, but we have still seen nothing like the imposition of cash limits on the nationalised industries about which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke during the debate on the White Paper. It would be interesting to hear the Government's proposals. Until they are made, this policy is virtually meaningless as far as nationalised industries are concerned.
  It is time that the Government made clear their position, too, and their policy on whether the £6 is a limit or an entitlement. The Secretary of State referred to the decision of the TUC, but the Congress has only agreed on a £6 entitlement. It would be interesting to know whether that is now the Government's policy since they have claimed an agreement with the TUC.
  I am as aware as anyone else of the need to help the lower paid. However, are the Government and the TUC, in their expressed concern for the lower paid, going to give an undertaking that, if the policy in these orders is used as a method of levelling up for the lower paid, we shall not have that used as a springboard for the restoration of differentials next year with a resulting further fierce burst of inflation which would erode any benefit to the lower paid?

  1675
  It may suit the Government to speak with a forked tongue on these matters, but until they make clear their position, they have not got a policy. And references to £6 in these orders are highly inflationary, especially when we are now re-importing our own home-bred inflation through higher raw material prices caused by the fall in the value of the pound and the fact that the Government have allowed inflation to run riot for the past 20 months. Now we are perhaps more vulnerable than any other developed nation in the world to every rise in oil prices and every tremor in the commodity markets. The Government have brought us to the point where every cold breeze that blows can give us pneumonia.
  Mr. Ridley: In the early part of this year, commodity prices were falling quite fast, but inflation in this country was going up even faster. How can my hon. Friend feel that commodity prices affect the rate of inflation after that unpleasant experience?
  Mrs. Oppenheim: At that time, pay was rising extremely quickly. We have now missed the boat and are likely to find that, even if pay is restrained, we shall have to take on board not only high prices for commodities but even higher prices because of the fall in the value of the pound. We have the worst of all worlds.
  There is now real doubt whether the Government's target figure for the end of next year can be reached and the shadows of the International Monetary Fund are lengthening daily, with all that that implies. Yet still we get half-truths, half-policies and non-policies from the Government. These orders are just part of the charade which their policy has become. They represent a bureaucratic tangle of complicated rules and regulations, the main purpose of which is to make one sector of the community believe that Government policy is what it is not, while making the other sector believe that the policy is not what it is.
  The most important and overriding impression one gets from the regulations is that their complexity and their very nature highlight the fact that the Price Code itself is a totally unsuitable vehicle for pay restraint. In view of the time
  1676
  which has elapsed since the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act was before the House it might be propitious now to remind the House of the assurances the Secretary of State gave on that occasion, with perhaps less than her usual candour, that the effect of Section 3 would be very little different in the imposition of sanctions on employers than those provisions already existing under the previous Act and under the Price Code. She said,
  "There is nothing new in the way of sanctions in this legislation, despite what some hon. Members seem to think."
  She also said of hon. Members,
  "they will be aware that nothing proposed in the Bill goes beyond that Act with respect to the possibility of the creation of criminal offences or the possibility of penalties against employers or employees."—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 1120–21.]
  What she omitted to say was that as the Price Code is now being used for something entirely different from that which was originally intended, there is all the difference in the world, particularly since companies can now be penalised for something over which they might have no control.
  Having given repeated assurances that the powers under Section 3 were not likely to be used to enable further amendments to the Price Code and new sanctions to be imposed, the Secretary of State had to concede, following an amendment we moved to the Bill, that there could be further amendments and new sanctions under the powers taken in the Bill, and that we have not seen the last of amendments to the Price Code yet. This evening she has tried very clearly to explain and describe the regulations as best she can, but they are very complex and so obscure that two documents of guidance have already been published, one by the Price Commission and one by the CBI.
  I am afraid that they will still be very obscure to many companies and I wonder whether the Government have thought for a moment just how high will be the cost of all this additional record keeping and the provision of information, required especially for companies in category 3 and below. Many of these companies and distributors will have to collect this information and keep these records for the first time, and they will have to carry

  1677
  this burden on top of the additional burdens that the right hon. Lady imposed upon them last year.
  Even category 1 and 2 companies will have to avail themselves of continuing specialist professional advice, and that is very expensive. Like category 3 companies they will have to make available more information more often. It will need to be extremely detailed and will relate both to the irrelevant as well as the relevant pay settlements. As all that will come under the category of allowable costs the expense will be passed on in higher prices, and so that makes the whole exercise seem slightly counterproductive.
  However, the companies will be grateful to the Secretary of State for the concession she has given over the non-imposition of the 56-day limit between notification of pay settlements and the implementation of price increases. This period is to be restored to the existing 28-day pre-notification period. Nevertheless, this is a very temporary concession for a trial period. Its continuance will depend on the extent to which companies are able to avail themselves of the voluntary early notification period.
  Paragraph 3.9 of Price Commission data sheet No. 15 makes quite clear how qualified this concession is. No assurance is given that these delays will not take place. All that is said is that if companies avail themselves of the voluntary procedures the risk of delay will be reduced. That is nothing like a bankable assurance. I do not need to say how damaging—how irretrievably damaging in some cases—these delays will be.
  What of the decision about pay settlements? Once again we are obliged to the data sheet which says in paragraph 2.7 that the decision whether pay settlements are or are not within the limits is a matter solely for the Secretary of State for Employment. I am sure that that revelation will hardly fill everyone with a great deal of confidence when they remember with what zeal the right hon. Gentleman defended every obvious breach of the social contract, and we all know what the consequences of that have been. If he is to be the sole arbiter of every pay settlement he will be very busy indeed.
  1678
  This brings me to a relevant and disturbing point raised in a memorandum presented to the right hon. Lady last July by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. It was claiming that there was no adequate definition of a pay settlement because there was no statement as to what groups constitute the subject of separate settlements where composite pay agreements affect several groups. In Committee the right hon. Lady gave assurances in column 1103 on 24th July that if further guidelines were sought from her Department the Department would be very pleased to provide them. Later in that debate she said:
  "There will be a closer definition of what is meant by a settlement and how large a group will constitute a group for the purposes of a settlement ".—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 1158.]
  But all we know from the definition in the orders is that any settlement for a group of 100 employees or more is a notifiable settlement, and that does not meet the point put to the right hon. Lady in the document submitted to her by the accountancy bodies. Nor does the only other definition in Statutory Instrument 1294 on remuneration of employees. It is a pity that the right hon. Lady has not found it possible to enlarge on this definition. Where the effects of a policy can bear beavily and unfairly on companies with, in some cases, disastrous effects for the company and its employees, the least one has a right to expect are definitions which can be simply interpreted and over which there should be no confusion at this late stage.
  Then there is the considerable effect of incremental payments on costs and prices. Where these are very substantial they will appear unfair to those whose pay is much more restricted. The Secretary of State has done her best to close the loophole, but with a policy which is dependent on a maze of complicated regulations, some of which are too loosely defined, some of which are over-precise and some of which are subject to enter-pretation difficulties, there will be loopholes, there will be injustice and there will be damage.
  As the whole framework of the Price Code starts to groan under the new burden being imposed upon it, and as the

  1679
  Price Commission is put under severe pre-sure the whole ramshackle edifice could collapse. Quite apart from the right hon. Lady's remarks on the Price Code today, she has often said that it was high time the code was replaced. However, these orders are aimed at the continuation of the Price Code.
  It is ironic that they should have come on a day when we read in the Press that the CBI has made a special appeal to the Secretary of State telling her that the Price Code is crippling their efficiency and their investment and is causing them a great deal of damage. It is more ironic because in a speech on 10th October at a Merseyside dinner she said,
  "perhaps this is as important as any individual element, the attack on inflation forms part of an overall strategy to act on all domestic factors contributing towards inflation and blocking modernisation and growth."
  I submit that the Price Code in its present form, with the imposition of these regulations, as the CBI has quite rightly claimed, is doing precisely that.
  Today, once again, we have had from the right hon. Lady reassurances and counter-reassurances. She has made the complex sound simple to us. However, as I listened to her I could not help thinking of the Red Queen in "Alice Through the Looking Glass", when Alice complained:
  "One can't believe impossible things."
  The Red Queen replied:
  "I dare say you haven't had much practice…. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
  I should not dream of describing the right hon. Lady as a Red Queen. She may be a pink queen, but she is certainly not a red one. Nevertheless, she puts a great deal of strain on our credulity when she asks us to accept that these orders are simple and likely to be effective because—
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): She did not say that.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: She gave that impression.
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady should withdraw that statement.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: If the Government do not expect these orders to be effective why are we debating them?
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Lady must not give the impression that she is quoting me unless she is. I am sure she will accept that.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Similarly, I hope that the right hon. Lady will accept that the impression she has given is that the Government hope that these orders will be effective. I believe that they are likely to provide the worst of both worlds and impose the greatest bureaucratic burden on employers and provide a good many loopholes for employees.
  However, at present, I am suffering from a stab of compunction. I believe that I have been too caustic about these regulations and that I have not been fair when criticising the drafting quite as brutally as I have. In many ways, as the right hon. Lady knows, with the addition of a few new stringencies and twists, much of what is contained in these orders reproduces word for word the regulations that were made under the Conservative Pay Code in 1973.
  So what we are debating today is nothing new. We are merely witnessing an operation in plastic surgery in which part of the Pay Code is being grafted on to the Price Code. At least the Government might have had the honesty to change its name to that of the "Pay and Price Code", because that is what it has become. That is why I find the right hon. Lady's statement in her speech in Liverpool rather surprising because she said,
  "The pay limit is something that the TUC has proposed. It is not a Government imposition".
  If that is not what these orders are, then I am sorry, I do not know what they are and the whole policy belongs in a phantasy world with Alice and the Red Queen.
  Even at best, that part of the Government's policy which these orders implement is nothing more than a sticking-plaster patch on a serious wound. Nothing has been done to deal with the fundamental problems of structural inflation which are causing so much of our present trouble.
  I hope that I speak for all my hon. Friends when I say that we do not intend to divide the House on these orders, because we have given the Government an undertaking that we shall not obstruct

  1681
  their legislation. Unlike the present Government, we are giving their policies a fair chance.
  However, I should like to put it clearly and unequivocally on record that we consider it highly unsatisfactory to use the Price Code in this way and we consider it deplorable to make employers and small companies the scapegoats of the Government's own failure.
  7.4 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: My complaint against the timing of these orders is rather different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), namely, that they have been put down for discussion after the Sex Discrimination Bill. I complain that that irrelevant trivia should take precedence in timing over an order of fundamental economic significance at a time when our economy clearly needs some wise guidance.
  I might also find myself guilty of some form of sex discrimination if I were to pursue my doubts about both the speeches we have heard. Therefore, I must be as moderate as I can for fear of chastisement by the law.
  I agree with the right hon. Lady on one point—this might not be such a popular cause to espouse for those who sit on the Opposition side of the House—namely, that the rate of inflation has been coming down. In my opinion there is no doubt about that. Although it is traditional politics to say that under the Conservatives inflation always goes down and under the Socialists it always goes up and that the Conservatives always build more houses, and so on, one should give credit where credit is due. Credit is probably due to my noble friend Lord Barber for his fine piece of economic deflation at the end of 1973 which caused a drop in the rate of inflation. I believe that this was borne out in an article by Mr Utiger in the Financial Times to which the right hon. Lady made glancing reference.
  Incidentally, I believe that the right hon. Lady presented the CBI as being highly satisfied with the orders and, indeed, with the conduct of the Price Code. I should like to quote one sentence from the article, namely:
  "The Price Code must be abolished."
  1682
  That is the view of the chairman of the CBI prices negotiating team. Let it be made clear that the CBI is beginning to turn against the Price Code and the right hon. Lady must not invoke it in her aid.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: If I gave that impression, it would have been a false one. I do not think I did. There is a distinction between the attitude of the CBI towards the use of the Price Code for Counter-inflation purposes which it does not like but has accepted, and the attitude of the CBI towards the Price Code itself on which it has made not only on this occasion but on numerous occasions both to myself and the Government representations which preceded mine about its dislike of the Price Code.
  Mr. Ridley: Let it be understood that the Price Code must now be abolished. That is now the view of the CBI. At least we are making some progress. Indeed, I believe that my hon. Friend's speech showed that we are making quite a lot of progress. The only disappointing feature is that the right hon. Lady has still not seen the light.
  I should like to reinforce this point by quoting another passage from this article:
  "Competition in very depressed markets is holding prices and profits below the level permitted by the Code. The Price Commission's report shows that profit margins in the first three months of 1975 had fallen on average to only half the reference level."
  Therefore, inflation is abating, but the level of prices is not as high as would be permitted by the Price Code. Inflation abatement has not been brought about by the Price Code. If that were the case, prices would be bumping on the ceiling. I ask the Government, and I want an answer: what on earth is the point of the Price Code if it is not causing inflation to moderate? Inflation is moderating and there can be no doubt about it. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree with the Price Commission that prices are not bumping on the ceiling of price limitation. Therefore, what is the point of the ceiling?
  This question is of enormous importance, and it is not one which the Under-Secretary of State, who I hope will reply, can lightly shrug off. He may say "That

  1683
  is just temporary. In due course the economy will get going, competition will slacken, and manufacturers will try to put up their prices." If that is what will happen it will mean that just at the time when production and investment might be stimulated by some increase in economic activity the lid will be firmly held on the whole thing. We have only to look at our industrial production and levels of industrial investment to see how disastrous that lid has proved in the past.
  The Government must face the fact that production in this country is now about 4 per cent. below the level of production during the three-day week. I remember the Prime Minister taunting the Conservatives all through the summer. To practically everything one said he shouted, "Three-day week", as if it were a sort of schoolboy taunt that stuck and hurt—"Three-day week minus 4 per cent. to you and snubs." That has been the effect of Labour policies and the effect particularly of price control. I hasten to add that I was not saying snubs to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I was looking anxious because, although I realise that both Front Benchers went a little wide, we must try to keep to the two orders. It is not the whole of the Price Code which is under consideration.
  Mr. Ridley: I have a lot to say about the orders, but I should be grateful if I could complete one point on the wider scene. I will then come to the orders.
  I want to refer to investment. The right hon. Lady makes herself out to be a moderate member of the Labour Party, somebody who has the best interests of the mixed economy at heart, a social democrat to the core, and one who forswears extremism and militancy and the horrible tendencies appearing on her Left wing. Yet she is presiding over the destruction of British industrial investment.
  The one single thing which is causing more damage to investment in the private sector is the fear of price controls. When the right hon. Lady rose to that Box today and said that she had not decided by how much she should tighten the screw after the summer of 1976, she was
  1684
  frightening off another £1 billion of private sector investment. That was the effect of her words. If she would now interrupt me and say "I undertake to take this silly lid off as soon as any price starts to touch it" she would get a large upsurge in investment straight away. If she undertook not to reimpose price controls, that would be the effect.
  Which does the right hon. Lady want to do? Does she want to encourage investment? Does she want to see British private sector investment increasing? Or does she want to stick to this policy which, by the admission of the Price Commission, is in no sense affecting the rate of inflation? How stupid can one be and how much damage can one do with the best of intentions? If the right hon. Lady is really such a benign, wise, middle-of-the-roader, she will not play into the hands of the Left wing by causing such a lack of profitability in British industry that it can no longer invest.
  I now turn to the orders, which are very strange. There are three major categories of firms which are not affected by the orders. The first category comprises firms which are largely or entirely involved in exports, because there is no control of export prices. Even a firm which has quite a high proportion of exports only can claim that it does not matter how much it pays its workers because its goods are being exported. I am delighted that some people should be free, but the worker on the shop floor will say "How strange this is. I am making a pump for the home market and can only have £6 a week, but Bill, who is making a pump for Afghanistan, can have as much more as he likes. What is the logic of that?" That is one defect.
  Secondly, small firms will not tell the right hon. Lady that they have paid more than £6 a week. They will not tell her anything. Indeed, quite a lot of medium-sized firms will not tell her, either. Yet this is the whole idea of prenotification.
  One does not say to schoolchildren "Will you write in every month and tell the head teacher how many sweets you have stolen from the sweetie shop?", because they will not do it. It is not human nature. If they write in, they will make a nil return. It is no wonder all the returns made to the right hon. Lady have been nil returns. Nobody will write in and admit that he has broken the pay

  1685
  guidelines, because he knows that he will be clobbered with this order and super conditions will be imposed on his price increases which will damage him. The right hon. Lady will not get any telltale answers. That is another large area of exceptions.
  Thirdly, the right hon. Lady mentioned builders. How will the right hon. Lady know whether a builder, who quotes separately for every job and for every job quotes a different rate for concrete, excavation, form work, steel fixing, plastering and painting, dependent upon the conditions of the job, has put up his prices? It is impossible. Therefore, to start with there will be areas in the economy where the Pay Code does not bite. I am delighted that there should be such areas. I wish that there were more.
  Let us consider a situation where the Pay Code will bite and will be enforced through the Price Code. That is the purpose of the orders. Let us suppose a firm in the private sector is forced by threats of industrial action and whatever else to pay an increase which is greatly over the pay limits contained in the White Paper, and, by some mischance, the Secretary of State for Employment finds out. He will tell the Price Commission and the Price Commission will put a stop on the next price increase. The effect will be to reduce that firm's profits, if not to turn them into a loss. That will mean either that the firm goes bankrupt or that, at best, it is unable to make as much investment as it would otherwise have done. That will hit investment. It will cause the firm to become uncompetitive and eventually it will shrivel away and die. The Secretary of State for Industry will then come along and say that that firm has failed the nation. There will be a sit-in, because he will ask the chaps to sit in. We shall then have to fork out I do not know how many millions of pounds to salvage that bankrupt firm which has been bankrupted by the orders before us. What good does that do? It seems remarkable as a policy.
  What happens once that firm is nationalised? Suppose it were British Leyland or a straightforward nationalised industry like the Gas Board and, by dint of industrial action, strike threats and holding the community to ransom—all
  1686
  those emotive phrases which we hear—the workers extract £10 a week. The nationalised industry will then be asked to control its prices lower than it would otherwise have been allowed to do according to the complicated formulae, and it would make a bigger loss at the end of the year. If it were the Post Office, instead of losing £350 million it would presumably lose £450 million, £500 million, or whatever the figure may be. As a result, the Government would have to print another £100 million which they have not got. If they print another £100 million, they make inflation a little worse. If this policy were ever applied—I suspect that it will not be applied—its effect would be to worsen slightly the rate of inflation.
  In view of that, could not the right hon. Lady use her nut and withdraw these orders, withdraw the Price Code, scrap the whole thing, wrap it all up, and get on with helping the attack on inflation by doing what she can to stop the Government spending so much money? That is what is required.
  There is one further objectionable feature. I hate being personal. I never am if I can help it. However, the Secretary of State for Employment will be in the position of deciding which settlements are within and which are without the White Paper guidelines. The temptations will be very great. The Secretary of State is a man of complete probity and honour, but even such a man will be tempted to overlook unpleasant things—and he has his political prejudices just as we all have. What is the citizen's redress against being singled out from many who have exceeded the pay increase limit for special treatment by the right hon. Gentleman?
  Imagine, for instance, if the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) were appointed to that position in the next Government reshuffle. His desire is to turn all the private sector into public sector, and he could with the greatest of ease, by referring pay settlements left, right and centre, conduct a vendetta against private sector companies, letting through perhaps one or two in Bristol, South-East but not others anywhere else. Such a policy would be objectionable.
  Indeed, the risks of ministerial fiat, of government by ministerial whim, are

  1687
  again increased by this policy. The long and short of it is that it is highly bureaucratic, with hundreds of civil servants passing around pieces of paper. Its net effect is mildly—I say mildly because I am a man of moderate claims—inflationary. It increases the area open to political decision-making clear of this House, and I feel that this should be the last time that the House lets through any of these orders. They do not help, but exacerbate the situation. I hope that my hon. Friend's near conversion to understanding the damage that this order can do will be reflected in her and my other hon. Friends combining to throw out the next order made under this legislation.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), and it is a pleasure to follow him in this debate.
  It is a great pity that when we are discussing measures of this importance, which, let us face it, will result in sanctions being available to be imposed upon employers, there is such a poor attendance in the Chamber. There may be special reasons for that.
  But for many reasons this day is a sad and sorry one. It is a sad day because the sanctions which this order embodies are not particularly attractive to the Secretary of State or, indeed, to the Government as a whole. I think that the right hon. Lady is on record on several occasions as being most reluctant to consider such proposals as these. Indeed, there was a discussion on the Prices Bill when the right hon. Lady removed a half-proposal to that effect.
  It is a sad day also because we are debating the imposition by the back door of a pay policy which the Government are unwilling or unable to impose by the front door. There can be no doubt that the order deals primarily with pay policy, and not with pricing policy, and, although it was foreshadowed during the debate on the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Bill that an order would be laid to provide these powers, the fact that it has been so laid and is now in force and we are having a retrospective debate on it accentuates the sadness of the day, because we are that little bit further
  1688
  along the road to the inevitability of wishing to use these powers.
  I believe that when legislation is enacted it always encourages the use of it. More legislation encourages more use, and orders that are made and passed are likely sooner or later to be used, because the Government can reasonably say "If we have taken these measures and gone to this trouble and defined the area in this way, and the orders are available, why should we not see that they are used and try to have a dummy run to see whether they are effective?" I am, therefore, sad on that ground, too.
  A much more important matter was raised in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury, and that is that these measures will not have an effect that is likely to be helpful in the present situation, where both sides of the House are agreed that the prime priority is the attack on inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury suggested that these measures may have a counterproductive effect. That could be so, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that sanctions are now available, and these require careful definition.
  I am not as sanguine as the Secretary of State that what is before us is not a difficult task but a simple one. The right hon. Lady suggested that this was not too great a complication with which to face British management at this time, yet we did not get an answer to the first simple question that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester asked: "What is the pay limit?" Is it £6 flat, or is it a combination of various features within this figure of £6?
  If one looks at the order, one notes that it deals with remuneration and says that remuneration
  "in relation to any employee includes any benefit, facility or advantage, whether in money or otherwise, provided by the employer or by some other person under arrangements with the employer, whether for the employee or otherwise, by reason of the fact that the employer employs him."
  I accept that that is the terminology that is inevitably used to describe remuneration, but in so far as the Government are seeking to employ sanctions, and where the £6 limit is a matter to be defined, we might ask who should define it. That

  1689
  would be done by the Secretary of State for Employment. But when we come to discuss benefits in kind available, let us say, within the coal mining industry, is the value of the coal that miners take home—and they are fully entitled to do that—to be deducted from the £6 to which they may or may not feel they are entitled, or do they take less coal? We want to know precisely how remuneration and the £6 limit will be defined.
  When it comes to the imposition of £6 within the food manufacturing and food distribution sectors, this must be a grave risk. We are talking about 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. increases being put on to the food manufacturing and distribution sectors at a time when there is the completion of the equal pay movement, and when this is a considerable burden.
  But it is not just a matter of defining remuneration. It is that the particulars required are so comprehensive. The order requires
  "in relation to each employee, the date of the last settlement relating to his remuneration which was implemented before 12th July."
  It also requires in relation to each employee
  "the date of making each settlement…relating to such remuneration or to that and other remuneration, the persons by whom it was made the persons to whom it applies and the date of its implementation."
  All this involves a great deal of additional work, and it must involve some marginal increase in industrial costs. Many smaller companies are within the ambit of the code for the first time, and they will be taking this on board while they are still smarting from their efforts to deal with multi-rate VAT. I suggest that this is a substantial burden in which the Secretary of State is involving management. It is a difficult burden, and it comes at a particularly difficult time.
  The arrangements require more time for consultation. I welcome the information given by the Secretary of State that, on the whole, the prior consultation procedure is working well. I am glad that guidelines are being issued, but I should welcome confirmation from the Minister that the guidelines issued by the CBI and by the Price Commission have the blessing of the Department of Employment and that what we are getting are definitive guidelines in this highly sensitive area. Can the right hon. Lady assure
  1690
  us that the interpretation given by offices of the Department of Employment in different parts of the country will be identical when it comes to giving advice to employers on whether settlements are within the guidelines? This is a valuable service, and it would be a disaster if one found different interpretations in different parts of the country.
  However, our main concern is whether coming at this time and in this way these orders will serve a useful purpose. Those of us who have been involved with the pricing policy on the two prices Bills have seen the code come and go and be amended favourably and unfavourably. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury pointed out, there is now sufficient evidence that the code has ground steadily further and further into the management problems of industry until industry has reached a point where it has little more to give.
  It is obvious from the Price Commission's report that profit levels are seriously undermined, and from the economic conditions that pricing is more or less dictated by market considerations and not by artificial factors. Therefore, it is quite natural for the Confederation of British Industry to seek an end to the use of the Price Code.
  When the Secretary of State suggested that no review would be undertaken for the remaining 12-month period until mid-July 1976, she also suggested that what was in hand was in line with her general policy for growth. She believed that there could be a climate conducive to more investment. However, I think she must recognise the enormous lead time required for the results of investment to show in higher production. It would be difficult to delay decisions of that kind for, say, 12 months and to assume that a rapid return to full employment and investment could be achieved overnight. I am sure that the right hon. Lady does not expect that to happen. However, Governments have frequently waited too long before reacting to the pleas of British industry to release it from the straitjacket of the Price Code in order to increase and encourage investment. If the Secretary of State seriously believes that investment will be required for 1976–77, action should be taken now within the code. I urge her to consider most carefully the timing of the follow-through

  1691
  from the present most difficult economic circumstances.
  I am not persuaded that these orders are easy for industry to handle. They are difficult, costly in management time and costly to the small companies that come within their scope. I greatly regret that we are discussing sanctions, because once the principle of a sanction is enacted, although it be the principle of a pay policy, it would be possible for sanctions to be imposed via the code for other purposes; for example, employment policy, regional policy and possibly political purposes. I am sure that the Secretary of State has no intention of doing that.
  However, the principle of establishing the Price Code as a vehicle whereby pay policy can be enacted by sanction suggests that we are opening a door which is capable of being wildly misused if the Government are not careful.
  Therefore, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, I hope that we might not have more orders of this kind and I look forward to the day when perhaps a fuller House might be debating not merely orders but the possible removal of the Price Code altogether, with the recognition that that would be a far more profitable day's work than that in which we are currently engaged.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), described the Government's Counter-inflation policy as a charade. That is a formidable indictment. I am certain that with the passage of time her astringent observations will receive increasing endorsement. Certainly she will have a ready ally in my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  Tempted as I am to follow these macroeconomic debates, which have often been features of consideration of orders under successive prices and incomes legislation, I shall restrain myself and consider the statutory instrument which is before the House this evening. It has immense implications as a sanction for policy.
  Quite early in the lifetime of this Government the idea was floated that the
  1692
  Price Code might be used as a sanction for a pay policy. It received a rather angry retort and reaction from those elements of the Labour Party whose memories were still green with the belief that there would be no statutory control of wages under this Government.
  Therefore, I am grieved this evening that the Labour benches are graced by not one member of the Tribune Group. Where have all the radicals gone? Where is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? I had thought that he would carry the torch even in these dark times to demonstrate that there is still a thread of continuity and scepticism within the Labour Party, where there are grave doubts about the value of a Price Code as a sanction for a wages policy. However, in his absence the industrial working class must be represented as well as possible by my hon. Friends and my self. I am sure that we are wholly equal to that.
  The question has been raised, will this policy work? This evening we have a chance to consider some of the mere mechanics of the application of the order. I agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friends that there are wider forces at work in the economy that make orders of this kind irrelevant to the overall movement in the rate of inflation. That is not the issue under consideration. The issue under consideration, whatever our doubts may be about the efficacy of these orders as a means of countering inflation, is the reality in the burden they will impose upon industry, which has to comply with the law. The fundamental charge that is being levelled this evening is that this it literally an intolerable burden. I do not want to use exaggerated language to deal with this situation—that tends to be more characteristic of others in public life. However, as we sit calmly legislating at 7·40 in the evening I do not believe that we have the slightest idea of what this will mean for the company secretaries of those companies that have to report under this legislation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) advanced the argument, how did one deal with the more exotic forms of remuneration? He instanced the miners' concessionary coal. The National Coal Board does not have to notify under the provisions of this legislation. However, I shall take as an

  1693
  example a mythical company that could be located in any of the constituencies of my hon. Friends who represent rural seats.
  Although it is a mythical company it is, none the less, typical because it has three characteristics. It is large enough to have to notify, report and conform to the requirements of the statutory instrument. It has canteen facilities and a system of company transport to bring workers to its premises from the surrounding villages. There is nothing unusual or strange about a company that has those three characteristics. The question that immediately comes to mind is, how does one treat what may well be an increasing subsidy content in the canteen account? Almost certainly the canteen meal will be bearing a subsidy. How is that subsidy treated if it increases during the period under notification? How does one assess whether the workers whose remuneration is being notified have taken the meal entitlement? Some may use the canteen facilities; others may not.
  These are not absurd or barrack-room lawyer point. They are exactly the day-to-day issues that will immediately confront anyone seeking to interpret the statutory instrument. Such people will note, as has been observed by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey, that
  "'remuneration; in relation to any employee, includes any benefit, facility or advantage, whether in money or otherwise".
  I turn from how the canteen facility is to be assessed and interpreted and, above all, notified, to the second facility—either subsidised, or, as is often the case, free transport. How is the increasing value of that facility to be calculated? If the mythical factory were located in the constituency of Oswestry, where the Crossville bus fares have been increased very substantially, and if the company's travel arrangements were paralleled by a Crossville bus service, some idea could be gained of the benefit which might be implicit where free travel is still being provided and where otherwise the worker would have to go by public bus service. Often, those who will be collected by the company travel arrangements will be conveyed from villages where there is no bus service. In those circumstances how does one calculate the remuneration or the facility or advantage implicit in that situation? One thing is certain. Free
  1694
  travel to work, if that is one of the conditions of employment, is a facility of considerably enhanced value today compared with a year ago.
  Company secretaries and all who will have to fill in these forms will want to know how they are to cope with this situation. When the Under-Secretary answers it will not be for him to say that this is something that can be determined in conversation with the regional offices. These judgments should be made known in the House of Commons legislating tonight, so that there will be an understanding that there shall be parity of treatment in this important aspect of remuneration.
  I have made this point only in respect of subsidised canteen facilities and subsidised travel arrangements. I assure the Under-Secretary, who, I trust, will take my word for it, that there are many other aspects of what I will call exotic remuneration in industry and commerce today, and the straightforward wage content of a company's total wage cost is a diminishing factor. Therefore, it is all the more important that the Under-Secretary should be explicit about how these other fringe forms of remuneration are to be dealt with.
  It will be evident to a wider public in the country as it is already crystal evident to my hon. Friends and myself that what we are seeing burgeon forth is a most complex and bureaucratic form of control. We are moving to a situation where industry and commerce will be burdened by so much form filling, so much reporting and so much notifying that the time will be ripe for a bonfire of controls. The Prime Minister boasted in a previous incarnation that he once conducted a bonfire of controls. I fear that he has learned badly in the period since those days of the early 1950s. It will be left to these benches.
  I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester well and advise her to take a crash course in incineration because sooner or later there will have to be evidenced a political will to sweep away this policy and the bureaucracy that goes with it.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: These orders give effect to the

  1695
  sanctions under the Government's Counter-inflation policy and embody the policy whereby firms which offend against the pay limit will not be able to get the price increase under the code that they would otherwise have got.
  The orders represent the culmination of months of delay, talking and thinking about how to deal with inflation that the Government have been undertaking. Manoeuvre after manoeuvre has been gone through—U-turns, W-turns. Z-turns, bends, hoops, spirals and loops, and we have eventually ended up exactly where we started—with what is in effect a statutory incomes policy.
  The Chancellor was determined, above all, to win the General Election, and all national interest was subject to that end. So he determined that no action would be taken to bring inflation under control. He was determined to buy his country in the cheapest market and sell it in the dearest.
  The Prime Minister's broadcast during the recess was nothing less than a repudiation of the very means by which he seized power. He used his broadcast to adopt the very policies that he had set out to undermine and to make unworkable.
  During all these months of delay and inaction we have had the spectacle of inflation being allowed to rip. Inflation, which was at 13 per cent. when the Government came to power in February, 1974, has doubled to an annual rate of over 26 per cent. and now it exceeds even that of Italy, which has succeeded in getting its inflation rate down to under 16 per cent.
  Some people may attempt to draw comfort from the statistics which have appeared in the last few days about the wholesale price index. At times I thought that the right hon. Lady was almost presenting those figures as the last cloud of a dying storm. However, if we look ahead, we can see that there are plenty of clouds over the sea. There are plenty of reasons for thinking that inflation will get worse, even if it gets better in the next few months. There are plenty of reasons for thinking that the Government will not be able to meet their target of getting inflation down to 10 per cent. by the end of next year.
  1696
  The right hon. Lady dwelt at some length on the statistics—the wholesale price statistics and input prices. What she did not relate in any great detail was that input prices rose by 3½ per cent. in September alone and that costs to the food industry rose particularly sharply She did not dwell on the effects that are bound to be reflected increasingly in the Index of Retail Prices in the months ahead—effects of the depreciation in sterling, effects of the devaluation of the green pound, effects of the increase in oil prices, and effects of the increases in telephone charges and postal charges which have yet to work through the system.
  On top of all that, we have the prospect of world demand picking up in other countries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been extremely keen that other countries should rush into reflation and so help to solve some of our problems. However, as soon as that begins to happen it will make it even less likely that this country will be in a position to meet its inflation target.
  To reply to what the right hon. Lady said about the slowing down in inflation, even if inflation has slowed down in the past few months it has done so only at a massive cost—namely, a great rise in unemployment. We remember the period when we were told that there was no other way to deal with inflation other than through the social contract. The social contract was held out to be the gateway to the promised land. We have now discovered that the Government knew all the time that unemployment was another way of slowing down inflation. At the same time as accusing their political opponents of wanting to espouse that policy they sensibly got on with it themselves. They used the policy they were so quick and hypocritical to condemn in their opponents.
  I must confess that I was a little alarmed when the right hon. Lady talked about resuming growth next summer. If there is any lesson that has to be learned from the past I should have thought it is that cost increases after a period of prolonged inflation can continue in the pipeline for perhaps years. Certainly the one thing that would undermine any trend towards a reduction in the rate of inflation would be for the Government to decide that next summer was the moment to get back on the path of rapid growth.

  1697
  Let the right hon. Lady tell that to the holders of sterling and we shall see what it will do for confidence in our currency.
  The right hon. Lady has also been at some pains to say that the orders do not represent the implementation of a statutory policy. However, these orders, together with the clause in the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act, talk about specific pay limits and statutory sanction which is embodied in the orders. There is the sanction of not being able to obtain the price increase to which one would otherwise be entitled. The Act from which the orders derive refers to "a sanction against…remuneration".
  The right hon. Lady may argue that one could envisage a situation in which an employer could concede a wage claim over and above the £6 limit and the Government would not be intervening unless the employer made an application for a price increase. Strictly speaking that is correct, but we all know that in the present situation, with wages a high proportion of firms' total costs, firms do not have that added flexibility. In fact, if firms are refused the freedom to pass on increased wage costs in prices there is imposed a full-blooded statutory incomes policy.
  Does it make any difference to say that what we have is not a statutory policy, that we have a voluntary policy and if it does not work we shall introduce a statutory policy? Is there any distinction between a statutory policy and a policy that is imposed with the threat that if it is not accepted a statutory policy will follow? I do not believe that that is a distinction which can be maintained.
  It is because the Government have been so reluctant to admit that the orders represented a statutory policy that we have had so little light cast on some of the ambiguities and problems to which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) referred. If it had been admitted from the start that this was a statutory policy we could have had a proper White Paper explaining how some of these matters were to operate rather than leaving it to the public and to Members of Parliament to consult documents made available by the TUC and the CBI. The Government have proceeded by way of the back door. Without doubt these two orders represent the implementation of another statutory incomes policy.
  1698
  We would complain about the basic unfairness and inappropriateness of the way in which the Secretary of State is now using the Price Code, to which we have many other objections. We have the added objection that the right hon. Lady is now using it for a purpose for which it was never originally intended. She is using it in an unfair way by imposing the burden entirely on employers. To listen to the right hon. Lady or to read the legislation one would have thought that it was a case of employers stuffing pound notes down the pockets of unwilling trade unionists. Why should a firm have to bear all the penalties of this legislation? Why should a firm have to choose between bankruptcy or conceding a wage claim and then being penalised by the Government? Why, too, if the employer gives way to an inflationary wage claim, should he lose the whole of the claim as an allowable cost as opposed to just that part in excess of the limit stated in the original legislation from which the orders stem?
  I also have a number of detailed points to make about the orders. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), I am glad that the Government have abandoned the attempt to halve the notification time from 56 days to 28 days. I welcome the understanding that the right hon. Lady has come to with the CBI on that matter. I hope that the notification period—I know that the CBI had some doubts about the matter—will work out and prove to be operational.
  I ask the Under-Secretary of State why it is that those firms which have labour costs of less than 15 per cent. should be treated as though their labour costs were 15 per cent. That hardly seems to be fair. What proportion of firms fall in that category? What is the reason for that provision?
  We have had further enlightenment about the £6 entitlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) dwelt on this point. My hon. Friend wanted to know whether or not it was an entitlement. Different noises have been made by different people who support the £6 policy. Clearly, the effect in different sectors in our economy could be very different. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey pointed out that a £6 increase in the retailing industry or the food industry could be

  1699
  extremely large in percentage terms and could have very damaging results.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry referred to the treatment given to benefits in kind. On the back of one of the forms that are sent out to firms it is set out specifically in notes to Part 3 that
  "improvements in conditions other than pay which count against the pay limit include for example reduction in standard working hours, holiday improvments, overtime and shift premia, any other benefits in cash or kind."
  How are these matters to be assessed? Above all, how is the poor person presented with this form expected to fill in the box at the bottom which reads "Answer Yes or No"
  We do not apologise for repeating that we do not agree with using these orders to drag in the Price Code for purposes for which it was originally not intended. One result of doing that has been the unfortunate fact that the Price Code will now remain in existence beyond March 1976, when it would have expired.
  I listened with some concern to what the Secretary of State said about the policy and code remaining broadly unamended in existence until July 1976. It is increasingly clear that the code is becoming unworkable and is getting out of date and that the structure on which it was originally based is becoming absurd. The reference levels for profits relate to the years 1967–72. The base date for prices is 30th April 1973. It is true that the reference levels allow the two best years out of the last five years, but these regulations cannot be flexible enough to allow for changes which have taken place over the period which now amounts to nearly a decade.
  I appreciate that the Secretary of State has made concessions about productivity deductions. Those concessions are welcome, but as long as there remains a distinction between real and allowable costs, the pressure will continue to increase on industry. What the code represents is a noose placed around the neck of industry. As long as there are different movements between allowed costs and the costs of the real world, not the costs in the imagination of the gentlemen in Whitehall, the stranglehold on industry will become tighter and tighter.
  1700
  On top of this there is the ratchet effect of the productivity deduction. The Government, by allowing the Price Code to continue in existence well into 1976, seem to think that there is some invisible pool of productivity on which firms can draw for ever. They try to take away productivity twice, first in the form of a productivity deduction and then via the calculations on unit costs. Any improvement in productivity that leads to lower costs has to be passed on as a deduction from allowable costs. Firms which manage to increase productivity will have it deducted twice over. Now that the Price Code is being extended long beyond the period originally intended it means that it is becoming a major disincentive to a firm seeking to improve its productivity and the efficiency of its operations.
  There is another major objection against continuing the Price Code. We may argue in this House whether the cause of inflation stems from wages, or whether it is ultimately a monetary phenomenon. But what is not argued is that we have a profit-led inflation. That argument is advanced by nobody in this House, yet the effect of the Price Code and unit costs deduction has been to squeeze profits disastrously.
  I agree with all the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). We have seen the disastrous effects on the food industry. At one time the United Kingdom had the finest food industry in the world, but it is slowly being strangled by the noose of price control and is undermined by the 10 per cent. cut in gross profit ceilings.
  We reached a period when the Government began to realise that they were taxing inflationary profits. They came to the view that some of the attacks they made on excessive profits were exaggerated. We then had a period when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made speeches about it and we moved to a period when that right hon. Gentleman spoke of stock appreciation and of relieving firms from that element of tax. However, we have still had no adjustments in the Price Code to take account of that factor. No amendment has been tabled to that end. It is hardly surprising that profits have been so badly hit by the noose placed around the neck of private industry. No wonder profits have plummeted by half and that

  1701
  the return on capital is only 6 and 7 per cent. at a time when it costs at least 12 per cent. to borrow money.
  The Price Code is now in many ways becoming harmful. My hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey, Cirencester and Tewkesbury and Oswestry dealt with the vast army of bureaucrats and the jungle of regulations now being created. We are now creating a new profession half way between an accountant and a solicitor who seem to spend most of their time following changes in the Price Code and writing letters to Whitehall. They are the people who talk in the "newspeak" of today in which a company is not a company but a "profit margin unit". We have a vast bureaucratic machine absorbing far too much time of both the governed and the governors. We have profit calculations belonging to pre-inflation days. We have feeble proposals to deal with shortages when they arise—and shortages always arise from price controls of this kind. We block one anomaly merely at the expense of creating another.
  These matters have little to do with the problem of inflation and how we should deal with it. It reminds me of the Duke de Morny who was one of Napoleon III's ministers and was an insomniac. He passed a law through the French Assembly that prevented swallows sitting on telegraph wires at night. One cannot deal with inflation in that way. It cannot be done by laws to squeeze profits and profit margins.
  What the Government propose to do remains fundamentally inadequate. Until the Government get at the root cause of inflation, public spending, their attack will be destined to fail and will be as futile as trying to clap with one hand. When the Government get to grips with inflation, we shall give them our full-hearted support—but not before.
  8.8 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): Those of us who take an interest in the affairs of this House will be surprised that the Opposition this evening, given this first opportunity in the reassembled House of Commons to discuss the serious issue of inflation, have not advanced one single constructive suggestion during the entire debate. We have, of course, become accustomed to
  1702
  that from the Opposition in debates on the Price Code.
  The level of seriousness with which the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) treated the debate was illustrated by her absurd suggestion that what was most at fault was the fact that the Government had waited two months before debating this order. She was more impassioned about that point than anything else for there was a good deal of jollity in her speech. It is curious that the hon. Lady should have fastened on that procedural point but not bothered to refresh her mind about what had happened previously. She claimed that we had not had an opportunity to discuss these matters.
  I do not come to these debates as do some hon. Members with a prepared speech that bears no relationship to anything said in the debate. I come to listen to what is being said and seek to answer any points that require reply. The hon. Lady has not taken advantage of this debate to raise any new point. She preferred to jest about my right hon. Friend and to describe her as a character from Lewis Carroll. The hon. Lady reminds me of a character from Lewis Carroll—the Duchess, whose advice was:
  "Speak roughly to your little boy,
  And beat him when he sneezes;
  He only does it to annoy,
  Because he knows it teases."
  That describes the attitude of the hon. Lady.
  We are taking steps to give backing to a voluntary wage policy agreed to with remarkable unanimity by the trade unions and acquiesced to by industry at large. There was not one word of congratulation to either side of industry for the statesmanlike attitude which they have always displayed in difficult times. I suppose that the hon. Lady's attitude is not surprising as she comes hot foot from the atmosphere of the Conservative Party conference and has not yet come down to earth to debate the real issues.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: As the hon. Gentleman mentioned Blackpool, will he say whether the TUC Congress at Blackpool accepted a £6 limit or a £6 entitlement?
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady knows what is the policy of the Government for

  1703
  whom I speak. Members of the Government have stated on many occasions both inside and outside the House that the £6 limit dealt with in this statutory instrument is a limit. There is no ambiguity about that. To suggest that there is ambiguity is throwing dust in the jurymen's eyes.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: The Minister says that there is unanimity on this policy. Does he agree that Mr. Len Murray believes that the £6 is an entitlement?
  Mr. Maclennan: Mr. Len Murray speaks for himself. I speak for the Government. It would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman adopted the more extreme arguments of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, as he is normally a reasonable man. The hon. Gentleman demonstrated his reasonableness tonight.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester spoke, as did a number of her hon. Friends, about the unsuitability of the Price Code mechanism as a vehicle for a sanction, but she did not say whether she believed that a sanction was necessary. She did not even say whether she thought that it was appropriate to have a wage restraint policy. The country would like to hear answers from the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend to those questions.
  The one bull point which the hon. Member for Gloucester might have made had there been a debate two months ago, about which she was so disappointed, would have been that there were differences of views, which have been happily resolved, over the period of notification of wage claims. Perhaps that is why she would have preferred the debate to have taken place two months ago, so that she could have inflated a soluble difference of view into a major criticism of a modest measure. That is characteristic of the way the hon. Lady proceeds in these debates. She proceeds by hypotheses, by "ifs" and "buts" and suggestions of horrors which may be in store.
  That line of argument was colourfully taken up by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). He gave it a concrete form when he spoke about exotic methods of payment. He sought to involve me in the work done with some Byzantine tortuousness by the Pay Board
  1704
  —the creation of a Conservative Government—in seeking to analyse in advance how certain payments, which he described as exotic, would be treated.
  I shall not deal with those hypothetical questions down the rural highways and by-ways which the Opposition would like me to follow. However, I do not believe that that creates the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I base my opinion on my experience of how these claims and notifications have been dealt with. The majority of the notifications received have raised no difficulty which has not been capable of being solved by means of a simple telephone call.
  Mr. Biffen: I am glad that it is so easy. In that case the hon. Gentleman will have no difficulty in disposing of my questions. The statutory instrument speaks of remuneration and of
  "any benefit, facility or advantage, whether in money or otherwise."
  Does that cover subsidised canteen facilities and subsidised travel arrangements?
  Mr. Maclennan: The answers to those questions in general terms were set out in the Department of Employment Gazette in August. If there are difficulties in interpreting these general rules or the general answers which the Department has given to the questions most frequently posed, the answer is to telephone the Department of Employment to discuss the issue.
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim Mrs. Sally Oppenheim rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Lady widened the debate and no doubt expects answers to questions.
  Mrs. Oppenheim: Those are questions which the hon. Member is paid to answer.
  Mr. Maclennan: I shall answer those questions about which I hold responsibility. Detailed questions on the interpretation of specific pay settlements are clearly matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I am informed by my right hon. Friend that there have been virtually no serious problems of interpretation in the two months since this policy was initiated. I know that it is good clean fun, and is often done in this House, to set up Aunt

  1705
  Sallies and to knock them down, especially when the House is rather thin, but I do not think that the hon. Lady will expect me to give an extended answer to such questions.
  Mr. Biffen: Will not the Minister go further than that? I am sure that he wishes to help the House. I assure him that the thinness of the attendance in the House bears no relation to the importance of the argument, as this debate will be widely read by those who have the responsibility for carrying out the terms of the statutory instrument, whatever they may think of it. I suggest that subsidised canteen facilities and subsidised travel arrangements are a widespread and legitimate practice in industry and commerce and that it is wholly reasonable for a Member of Parliament to ask such questions. It does not help to keep the temperature of the debate at a nice low level to be told that we can telephone the Department. Surely questions can be posed in the Chamber and ought to be answered not merely for my benefit but for the benefit of the wider public who read Hansard.
  Mr. Maclennan: There is no mystery about it. The general principle is clear. These subsidiary payments—or exotic payments as the hon. Gentleman prefers to call them—are specifically referred to in Part 3 of the Price Commission's pro-forma. That they are generally to be counted against the £6 limit is clear.
  Any answer beyond that must be related to the specific circumstances of the individual claim or the individual settlement. It would not be helpful to firms which are genuinely seeking an answer for me to go beyond enunciating that general principle. If they have a specific difficulty, let them bring it to the Department, which will seek to assist them, as it has already done in a number of cases.
  The hon. Member for Gloucester has described these documents as obscure and burdensome. In so far as they are couched in legal language, I assent. Statutory instruments frequently are, but, as one of her hon. Friends said, other assistance has already been given. There was some criticism that two documents had been produced seeking to explain the statutory instruments in simple language. The Price Commission has produced
  1706
  its data sheet, a simple document which raises few difficulties of interpretation. I beg to differ from her if she thinks that there is any problem of interpretation of intention in these orders. I know that she enjoys throwing doubt on assertions when, perhaps, there is little doubt, but she failed tonight. The position is abundantly clear and simple and the mechanism whereby firms can resolve any doubts is clear and simple, unlike the procedure produced by the Conservatives when they were in Government, which involved the Pay Code and all the labyrinthine interpretations which had to be put on it. We have learned from experience and we are happy to learn from the experience of the Conservative Government on this.
  The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) made his usual thoughtful speech—in marked contradistinction to his Front Bench—and raised several matters that merit consideration. He asked how we should deal with the question of advice being given in various centres and whether that advice would be consistent The advice given stems from one central point, the Special Information Unit which was set up by the Department of Employment at the beginning of August. Most of the queries received indicate that the main essentials of the policy are well understood by people in industry. That is almost incontrovertible. There has been a noticeable decline in the number of questions coming to the Department of Employment about interpretation and, as my right hon. Friend said, we are approaching a season when more settlements are made.
  The hon. Gentleman asked the most serious question that was asked in the debate—whether these measures will be effective and helpful in countering inflation. Whatever view one may take of the internal dialogue which goes on constantly on the Opposition benches about the ingredients of our inflation, few would deny that wage costs were contributing unacceptably to the level of inflation and that, in accepting a policy of wage restraint, the trade union movement is contributing most helpfully to tackling the nation's problems.
  In reply to the second half of the question as to what is the impact of the Government's action on the profitability of industry, the effect of this Price Code

  1707
  amendment is neutral in so far as industry co-operates in holding the line on the wage limit. Industry will not suffer in seeking to make this policy effective, and there can be little doubt that what industry would welcome more than anything is the overcoming of the inflation which exercises us all.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that in some industries the size of—dare I say it?—the entitlement is of such a scale that it constitutes an inflationary wage settlement? I think of the food manufacturing and distribution industry where it is about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent.
  Mr. Maclennan: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that there are problems for the food industry if the limit is to be interpreted as an entitlement and not as a maximum, but, as I stressed earlier, it is a maximum and not an entitlement.
  There is nothing in the Price Code amendment that imposes a new burden upon industry. That that is so is clear from the representations that we received after the consultative document was produced and from the nature of the debate, especially on the earlier Bill from which the order stems and which concentrated on the procedural aspects and not on the substantive questions. They concentrated on notification requirements and not on the possibility of the sanction being invoked. From what has been said in the debate it is clear that it is recognised that these sanctions are a shot in the locker which it is hoped it will not be necessary to pull.
  From the experience of two months of this policy I can report that it has not been necessary to do so. I say that in full recognition that the policy has not yet come under full stress. If both sides of industry co-operate, as they have done to this date, in seeking to bring their interests within the greater interests of the country in countering inflation, we can with optimism look to the success of this policy.
  I am glad that the House has had this debate and that we have had it so soon after the Summer Recess.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1293), a copy of which was laid before this House on 5th August, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Is the Prayer to be moved?
  Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Not to be moved.

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

  ISLINGTON (HOME LOSS PAYMENTS)
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael O'Halloran: I welcome this opportunity to raise a subject of great concern to Islington council tenants, ex-gratia payments to certain Islington council tenants who, under the Housing Act 1974, were ineligible to claim home loss compensation under the Act as they moved prior to 31st July 1974. I am raising this matter not in general terms but in the specific instances of the tenants of Cranworth House, Loraine Estate, N.7, and Asker House, Tufnell Park Estate, N.7. The compensation involved in the ex-gratia payments we are asking for amounts to under £22,000.
  Islington Borough Council has, over the past few years, undertaken a considerable amount of rehabilitation work on its older properties, mostly blocks of flats owned formerly by the Greater London Council. Two such modernisation and rehabilitation programmes were scheduled for Loraine Estate, on Chelmsford House and Cranworth House, and on Asker House. The tenants of Asker House were moved during the course of 1974 and the former tenants rehoused elsewhere. Whilst these tenants would not have been eligible for compensation for home loss under the Land Compensation Act 1973, they became eligible under the Housing Act 1974, which came into force on 31st July 1974.
  All the tenants of Chelmsford House were removed before that date, so I am concerned only with the situation which has arisen in the case of Cranworth House

  1709
  and Asker House. All the tenants of these two houses were informed of their pending removal at the same time and should have been moved by May 1974, when none would have been eligible for compensation, as in the case of the tenants of Chelmsford House. However, as most were moved after 31st July 1974, it seems to me that they should all be treated equally in respect of any home loss compensation.
  But the situation has arisen whereby seven tenants of Cranworth House and 26 of Asker House were not eligible for compensation since they moved before the qualifying date, 31st July 1974.
  I have here details of these tenants, supplied by the Islington council borough valuer, showing that the total compensation which would have been paid to them had they moved after 31st July would amount to £4,419 in the case of Cranworth House and £17,559 in the case of Asker House—an insignificant sum, as I am sure the House will agree.
  I appreciate that under the letter of the law—the Housing Act 1974—these tenants are not eligible for any home loss compensation. My concern is that a minority should be at a disadvantage compared with the remaining majority of tenants of these houses who moved after 31st July simply because they cooperated with Islington council by accepting the first offer of alternative accommodation made to them, thus moving before the qualifying date. They therefore, through no fault of their own, became ineligible to claim compensation while those tenants who either did not accept the first offer of alternative accommodation made to them, or who were not made an offer until a later date, became eligible for such compensation in spite of the fact that all had been given notice of removal on the same date.
  This differentiation in treatment has given rise to a considerable amount of bitter feeling locally and it is generally felt that all tenants of the houses concerned should have been treated on an equal footing regardless of the actual date of their removal. I therefore raised with the Islington council the question of making an ex-gratia payment to the 33 tenants concerned, and through the council the matter was raised with the
  1710
  Department of the Environment. In its letter of 14th March 1975, addressed to the borough valuer, the Department wrote:
  "The terms of section 130(2) of the Housing Act 1974 are quite specific in providing that the amendments to section 20 of the Land Compensation Act 1973 which were made by Schedule 13 of the 1974 Act—which confers entitlement to home loss payments on people moved permanently from their homes for the carrying out of improvement works—are effective only in the case of those displaced on or after 31st July 1974. Whenever a new provision, or as in this instance an extension of an existing provision, is introduced a firm starting date has to be laid down. It is understandable that people displaced before 31st July 1974 from the two blocks mentioned in your letter will feel aggrieved because they failed to qualify for home loss payments but I am afraid there is clearly no question of their being entitled to payments as the law stands. Nor would it be right for the starting date imposed in the Housing Act to be set aside by sanctioning under section 161(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 the making of ex-gratia payments to people who moved before 31st July 1974. The Secretary of State's power of sanction under the section is used exceptionally in those isolated cases where although the proposed expenditure would be illegal it would not be directly contrary to the relevant statutory provisions. The making of ex-gratia payments to tenants who were displaced before 31st July 1974 for the carrying out of improvements works would, it is concluded, be in conflict with the intention of the provisions in the 1974 Act and for that reason I am afraid sanction cannot be given."
  I particularly draw the attention of the House to the last section of this letter:
  "Nor would it be right for the starting date imposed in the Housing Act 1974 to be set aside by sanctioning under section 161(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 the making of ex-gratia payments to people who moved before 31st July 1974. The Secretary of State's power of sanction under the section is used exceptionally in those isolated cases where although the proposed expenditure would be illegal it would not be directly contrary to the relevant statutory provisions."
  My contention is that, since there is no question of a general request for ex-gratia payments to be paid to council tenants who moved prior to 31st July 1974, but only for sanction to be given by the Department to the 33 tenants of two particular blocks of flats so that they may be treated on the same footing as the majority of tenants of these flats who received home loss compensation, their cases are proper cases for sanction to be given by the Secretary of State under Section 161(1) of the Local Government 1972 Act.

  1711
  I therefore raised the matter with the Ombudsman. Sir Alan Marre has stated that there is no question of maladministration. In his letter of 1st August 1975 he said:
  "there is a provision in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act which expressly precludes me from questioning the merits of a discretionary decision in these circumstances. I must therefore conclude that there is no action I can take in this case."
  I take this to mean, and I am sure that the House will agree with me, that the discretionary decision could have been a different one and sanction could have been given by the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment under Section 161(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 to the expenditure by Islington Borough Council to make ex-gratia payments to these tenants about whom I am concerned.
  This being the case, I consider that the decision for discretionary sanction by the Secretary of State to ex-gratia payments by Islington Council to these 33 tenants should be reconsidered. I urge this first so that all tenants of Islington council properties who were given notice of pending removal on the same date should be treated equally—by receiving either home loss compensation under the Housing Act 1974 or an ex-gratia payment under Section 161(1) of the Local Government Act 1972; second, because the sum involved is so small—less than £22,000; third, because this is a specific case which affects only 33 tenants in the Borough of Islington and will not and cannot affect others or be applied in other cases; and fourth, to enable the people of Islington to see that our Government are using their discretionary powers to ensure that justice is done, and is seen to be done, in cases such as this.
  I said that Islington has a vast housing programme of older properties and I give the council full credit for the job that it is doing—especially the housing committee. Like me, it wants the tenants treated fairly. That is why I appeal to the Minister to look again at the position with a view to resolving it satisfactorily.
  8.40 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Gordon Oakes): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) for
  1712
  raising this matter on the Adjournment. I appreciate the real concern which he has expressed on behalf of his constituents. I can assure him that I fully understand their feelings even though, as I think he may know, I shall not be able to give him an answer which gives them any encouragement.
  My hon. Friend quite rightly and movingly spoke of the often distressing circumstances in which many ordinary people, including council tenants, find themselves when they are forced to move from homes to which they have grown attached over the years to make way for redevelopment or so that a housing estate can be modernised and improved. I was myself a member of the Committee which considered the previous Government's Bill—now the Land Compensation Act 1973—which introduced home loss payments. Although welcomed by both sides of the House, these provisions were nevertheless very closely examined and keenly debated. We were indeed able to make a significant advance on the previous Government's original proposals by reducing the qualifying period from seven years' to five years' residence.
  As a Labour Government we have been able to extend the provisions still further through the Housing Act 1974. As a result, home loss payments can now be made to council tenants who have to move home so that essential improvements can be carried out. It is this further provision in the Housing Act which lies at the root of the problem my hon. Friend spoke of when referring to the unfortunate position in which some of his constituents found themselves when moved by Islington council from Asker House on the Tufnell Park Estate and Cranworth House on the Lorraine Estate.
  I join my hon. Friend's tribute to Islington council, which stands out among London boroughs and, indeed, among many local authorities, in the way that it is modernising its older council property in this way.
  The situation, as my hon. Friend explained it, was that, although the tenants were all apparently told by the council of their impending removal at the same time, some moved before 31st July 1974 and some after. The significance of that magic date is that it was the date

  1713
  on which the Housing Act 1974 received Royal Assent, and by virtue of Section 130(2) of the Act the new provisions which it introduced as respects home loss payments apply only to people actually displaced on or after that date. This means that those tenants who moved before 31st July 1974 had no statutory entitlement to a home loss payment whereas those who by chance happened to move after that date were more fortunate and did get payments.
  I can appreciate that those of my hon. Friend's constituents who missed getting a home loss payment will naturally find it difficult to understand why all the tenants involved in the modernisation scheme are not treated equally regardless of when they moved. As my hon. Friend has said, it will often have been the case that those tenants who were the most co-operative and accepted the first offer of alternative accommodation failed to get a home loss payment whereas those who were more selective and less prepared to accept the first dwelling offered to them might well as a result have secured for themselves the bonus of a home loss payment.
  I also recognise that many of the tenants have stressed how happy they were in their existing houses which they had furnished and decorated at no small expense and that normally they would have been quite unwilling to move, especially when this meant that they had to spend substantial amounts in order, for example, to curtain and carpet their new homes. The tenants excluded from receiving a home loss payment by the provisions of the Act will no doubt say—and I would not attempt to deny it—that they have suffered just as much distress and upheaval as their more fortunate neighbours, and, quite understandably, they feel very bitter about it.
  By comparison with the eloquent and moving manner in which my hon. Friend has argued on behalf of his constituents, I fear that my reply may seem cold and unsympathetic. Certainly I would not wish to give any such impression, and, as my hon. Friend will, I hope, accept, it gives me no pleasure to give an answer which I know he and his constituents will find it hard to accept.
  I can assure my hon. Friend that the Secretary of State and the Department
  1714
  have looked at this case very thoroughly to find a way in which we might assist. Nevertheless, there is another side to the coin and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the opportunity afforded by this debate to explain briefly some of the reasons which lie behind the Department's policy in dealing with those cases.
  First, I should make it clear that this is not a new problem. It has occurred, I imagine, in the past with every new benefit conferred by statute where elegibility for a payment has to be defined by reference to some form of commencement date, and it will inevitably happen again. Indeed, the original home loss provisions of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which the Housing Act has now extended, were also tied to a starting date, in that case 17th October 1972—the date when the proposals were first made public in the White Paper which preceded the legislation.
  The circumstances that my hon. Friend has now described are virtually identical with the many similar cases which hon. Members on both sides of the House have in the past drawn to the Department's attention in connection with that first starting date. The most common case then was the slum clearance scheme, which resulted in some people being rehoused before the starting date and failing to get a payment, but others having the good fortune to move at the right time and so getting the payments they were entitled to. I think my hon. Friend will accept that the circumstances there are not so very different from those he has just described.
  But the answer we had to give then is the same as I must give now. The provisions of both the 1973 Act and the recent Housing Act are quite clear. Only those people who moved on or after the starting date—in the case of the Housing Act 1974, 31st July 1974, when the Act received Royal Assent—can have any entitlement to a home loss payment and there is no provision in either of the Acts for any discretionary payments to be made to those who moved before.
  It is a hard fact that whenever a new benefit like this is introduced there must be some starting date. Unlimited retrospection is just not feasible on grounds of either the expenditure involved or simple practicability. The further back

  1715
  in time that one takes any entitlement, the more difficult it is to ascertain the facts and determine whether or not the person was really entitled to a payment. In the case of the original provisions of the 1973 Act, the date of the White Paper was thought to be a justifiable starting date because advance notice had in fact been given of the new scheme.
  But the extensions to the 1973 Act, although important and valuable in themselves, were not central to the theme of the 1974 Housing Act and, therefore, no specific announcement was made of their impending introduction. It therefore seemed most appropriate in that case to choose Royal Assent as the starting date. I might add too, in fairness, that we could very well have decided to bring this particular provision into operation at a later stage by a commencement order, and, indeed, this was the way in which the rest of the Act was largely brought into effect. We decided, however, that entitlement should start as soon as the Act was passed and, therefore, made express provision to that effect. I hope hon. Members will accept that this action does at least demonstrate our concern that there should be no delay in making these benefits available to those for whom they were intended.
  But, whatever starting date we had chosen, the problem would have been the same. The moment one has a dividing line in any enactment it is inevitable that some people will fall on one side of it and some on the other, and to those who fail to qualify the choice of a starting date must inevitably seem arbitrary and unfair. Nevertheless, there is no real way round this, and, hard though it is for those who have been unlucky to accept the situation, I am afraid there is no remedy which I can offer in a case where the Act so clearly states that there is no entitlement to a payment.
  I must emphasise that point because it has been suggested by my hon. Friend that there is a solution to the problem and that it lies in the discretionary power which my right hon. Friend has under Section 161 of the Local Government Act 1972 to sanction extra-statutory payments by local authorities.
  I shall, if I may, try to explain a little of the nature of this power and of the policy which governs its use as I
  1716
  believe this is of central importance to the matter we are debating.
  The power is to authorise expenditure by a local authority which might otherwise have been subject to challenge by the district auditor. The district auditor's duty is to consider, in relation to the council's accounts, whether a council's actions have been ultra vires. He has powers—by application to the court, or certifying that money should be recovered from a person or persons—to seek redress wherever he finds that an item of account is contrary to law. All London councils are subject to the scrutiny of the district auditor. Any item of account which is sanctioned by the Secretary of State under Section 161 is thereby removed from the purview of the district auditor. In other words, he cannot apply to the court or certify items which the Secretary of State has sanctioned.
  These powers are used only in the most exceptional circumstances and only after the individual circumstances of each case have been thoroughly and carefully examined. This point is of cardinal importance. If Section 161 were widely invoked and extensively applied, the effect would be virtually a circumvention of statute—in short, legislation by administration. I am sure that no hon. Member on either side of the House could accept or sanction that. We are, therefore, obliged to be very strict in invoking that section.
  This is even more the case when we have a situation such as that which my hon. Friend has described. Here we have an express provision in a statute that only those displaced after a certain date shall be entitled to a payment. To use the discretionary powers under Section 161 in such a case would clearly be in contravention of the statute itself, and this, as I hope hon. Members will agree, cannot be accepted or condoned.
  My hon. Friend also had another point. He argued that this was an exceptional case and that, in view of the small number of tenants involved and the fact that the payments would not be substantial, the Secretary of State could use his discretionary power without creating any precedent. But, as I think the House will appreciate from what I have already said, this case is not unique. We had exactly the same sort of case in connection with the original starting date in

  1717
  the 1973 Act, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the case of his constituents is far from being the only one which has come to the Department as a result of the starting date in the Housing Act 1974.
  I cannot conceive that the House would think it just for the Secretary of State to single out this one case for special treatment, and for the reasons that I have given a general use of the power would be equally unacceptable.
  When, therefore, the Islington Borough Council wrote to my Department on 21st February this year asking for extra-statutory payments to be sanctioned for those of its tenants who had been rehoused before 31st July 1974 the Department was bound to refuse its application for the reasons I have given, and this it did,
  1718
  after careful consideration of the circumstances of the case, in its reply dated 14th March.
  In short, I have every sympathy with the circumstances in which my hon. Friend's constituents find themselves, and I assure him that I understand the way they must feel. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has taken this issue as far as any hon. Member could take it by raising it on the Floor of the House. However, there is no way in which I can alter the fact that as the law stands his constituents have no entitlement to a home loss payment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Nine o'clock.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (OFFICIAL ENGAGEMENTS)
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LANCASHIRE)
  TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LANCASHIRE)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders)
  Public Service Vehicles (Arrest of Offenders)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  "Children of God" Sect
  "Children of God" Sect
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Voluntary Services Unit
  Parliamentary Elections (Postal Voting)
  Parliamentary Elections (Postal Voting)
  Bail
  Bail
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
  Bedfordshire District Boundaries
  Bedfordshire District Boundaries
  Terrorism
  Terrorism
  Television (Welsh Language)
  Television (Welsh Language)
  Mini-cabs
  Mini-cabs
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Radio Amateurs (Channel Islands)
  Radio Amateurs (Channel Islands)
  Football Violence
  Football Violence
  Wakefield Prison (Control Unit)
  Wakefield Prison (Control Unit)
  Immigration Department, Croydon
  Immigration Department, Croydon
  Police Dogs
  Police Dogs
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Rhodesian Students
  Rhodesian Students
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Mentally Ill Persons (White Paper)
  Mentally Ill Persons (White Paper)
  Hospital Doctors (Plymouth)
  Hospital Doctors (Plymouth)
  Doctors (Contracts)
  Doctors (Contracts)
  Homeless Persons (Merseyside)
  Homeless Persons (Merseyside)
  Joint Consultative Committees
  Joint Consultative Committees
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Population
  Population
  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital
  Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Fostering
  Fostering
  Medical Treatment Abroad
  Medical Treatment Abroad
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Pensioners (Full-Time Employment)
  Pensioners (Full-Time Employment)
  Family Fund
  Family Fund
  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Eastbourne District General Hospital
  Retirement Pensions (National Health Service Treatment)
  Retirement Pensions (National Health Service Treatment)
  Area Health Authorities (Chairman)
  Area Health Authorities (Chairman)
  Abortion (Deaths)
  Abortion (Deaths)
  Maternal Mortality Rate
  Maternal Mortality Rate
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sample Inquiry Return
  Sample Inquiry Return
  Industrial Alcohol (Wine Distillation)
  Industrial Alcohol (Wine Distillation)
  Hill Livestock Subsidies
  Hill Livestock Subsidies
  Sheep Carcase Exports
  Sheep Carcase Exports
  Wine and Powdered Milk Stores
  Wine and Powdered Milk Stores
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Veterinary Service (Health and Safety at Work)
  Veterinary Service (Health and Safety at Work)
  Sheep Rearing
  Sheep Rearing
  Milk Prices
  Milk Prices
  Tied Cottages
  Tied Cottages
ENVIRONMENT
  Motor Cyclists (Provisional Licences)
  Motor Cyclists (Provisional Licences)
  Tied Houses
  Tied Houses
  Pop Festivals
  Pop Festivals
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Buses
  Buses
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Bloomsbury
  Bloomsbury
  Pelican Crossing (Dunsville)
  Pelican Crossing (Dunsville)
  Selby Coalfield
  Selby Coalfield
  High Alumina Cement
  High Alumina Cement
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Rent Assessment Panels
  Caravans (Rating)
  Caravans (Rating)
  A17 (Norfolk)
  A17 (Norfolk)
  Sports Grounds (Disabled Persons' Access)
  Sports Grounds (Disabled Persons' Access)
  Construction Industry (National Consultative Council)
  Construction Industry (National Consultative Council)
  Construction Industry (National Consultative Council)
  Construction Industry (National Consultative Council)
  Construction Industry Liaison Group
  Construction Industry Liaison Group
  Denton Bypass
  Denton Bypass
  Model Aircraft (Noise)
  Model Aircraft (Noise)
  Motorway Construction Contracts
  Motorway Construction Contracts
  Rhine Navigation Commission's Report
  Rhine Navigation Commission's Report
  Trees
  Trees
EMPLOYMENT
  Fees
  Fees
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Licensed Residential Wages Council
  Licensed Residential Wages Council
ENERGY
  Offshore Drilling Contractors
  Offshore Drilling Contractors
  Coal Imports
  Coal Imports
  Power Stations
  Power Stations
  Dragon Reactor
  Dragon Reactor
  Coal Prices
  Coal Prices
CIVIL SERVICE
  Superannuation Act 1946 (Bevin Boys)
  Superannuation Act 1946 (Bevin Boys)
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Nimrod Aircraft
  Exercise Inside Right
  Exercise Inside Right
  National Drill Training Centre
  National Drill Training Centre
  Service Men (Injury Payments)
  Service Men (Injury Payments)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Chrome Ore Mining (Malagasy Republic)
  Chrome Ore Mining (Malagasy Republic)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
  Employment (Larne)
  Employment (Larne)
  Border Crossings
  Border Crossings
  Detainees (Release)
  Detainees (Release)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  International Music Day
  International Music Day
  Independent Schools (Registration)
  Independent Schools (Registration)
  Teaching Staffs
  Teaching Staffs
  Rickets and Malnutrition
  Rickets and Malnutrition
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Mortgage Loans (Local Authority Guarantees)
  Mortgage Loans (Local Authority Guarantees)
  Wine
  Wine
  Borrowing Requirement
  Borrowing Requirement
  PUBLIC SECTOR BORROWING REQUIREMENT
  PUBLIC SECTOR BORROWING REQUIREMENT
  Wealth Distribution
  Wealth Distribution
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Public Expenditure (White Paper)
  Government-Appointed Executives (Pay)
  Government-Appointed Executives (Pay)
  Securities and Assets
  Securities and Assets
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
INDUSTRY
  Nationalisation
  Nationalisation
  HS146
  HS146
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Contraceptive Sheaths
  Contraceptive Sheaths
TRADE
  Machinery Imports
  Machinery Imports
  Steel Imports
  Steel Imports
  Car Imports
  Car Imports
  Wine
  Wine
  Shoes
  Shoes
  Airlines' Routes
  Airlines' Routes
SCOTLAND
  Rates
  Rates
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
WALES
  North-South Wales Railway Service
  North-South Wales Railway Service
  Agricultural Workers
  Agricultural Workers
  Regional Development Fund
  Regional Development Fund
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAJJKS
  Diego Garcians
  Diego Garcians
  Michael Vencatassan
  Michael Vencatassan
  International Economic Conference (British Representation)
  International Economic Conference (British Representation)
  British Diplomatic Missions
  British Diplomatic Missions
  United Nations Assembly (Special Session)
  United Nations Assembly (Special Session)
  Ocean Island
  Ocean Island
  United Nations Institute for Training and Research
  United Nations Institute for Training and Research
  Tananarive (British Embassy)
  Tananarive (British Embassy)
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  European Community Aircraft Industries
  European Community Aircraft Industries
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Economic and Social Committee
  Economic and Social Committee

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

GOSFORTH TRAFFIC SCHEMES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: 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 to state how much money has already been spent on three abortive schemes to by-pass Gosforth, Northumberland; and, in view of the recent heavy increase in traffic and the ever-increasing length of vehicles, what action will be taken to protect the houses, shops, and the public in that area.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the expenditure so far incurred by the Department and its agent authorities on this scheme has been that incurred in the preparation of any schemes of this nature and cannot reasonably be labelled "abortive". Any attempt to estimate the cost of such preparatory work would make disproportionate demands on staff resources. It is hoped to reduce the amount of through traffic by suitable signposting of the Tyne Tunnel, and to safeguard pedestrians by traffic management measures.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that slightly unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask whether he will be kind enough to ensure that officials do not say that the traffic going through Gosforth is no longer than was the case in the past?—because that is completely untrue. Further, would he agree that it is important in these matters that the truth should be told and that fictitious answers should not be given?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that the members of this Government will continue to tell the truth about Gosforth by-pass as they have done in the past.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the difficulties arising at Gosforth which have been outlined by the noble Baroness are similar to those arising in many other parts of the country? Can he indicate what steps are being taken to deal with these problems which are becoming so acute and dangerous and so greatly impede pedestrians and the ordinary life of our towns and cities?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I believe that it would not be entirely true to say that the problems of Gosforth are the same as those of other parts of the country. There have been special problems about finding an alternative route through this area because it is particularly built-up and because of the problems which arose when a by-pass was originally proposed. However, steps are being taken to safeguard pedestrians in Gosforth High Street: in particular, two pelican crossings have been introduced and no-waiting restrictions have been instituted in order to try to reduce the number of vehicles parked in the High Street.

UNEMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS
3.9 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 to state the total sums paid to those persons in receipt of unemployment benefit in the last six months, and the total sums paid to those unemployed in social security benefits.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is estimated that in the six months ended 30th September, people unemployed were paid about £190 million in unemployment benefit and about £160 million in supplementary allowances.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that these are vast sums which have to be expended for social welfare and security purposes? May I ask him whether the funds that are available are contained in the financial reserves available to the Government and, therefore, if the Government anticipate

997
unemployment figures rising, would it not be wiser to use these funds for investment purposes instead of having to use them subsequently for the purpose of relieving unemployment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government accept the view of my noble friend, and a good deal of thought is being given to how best to deal with this matter in the future. My noble friend is right: these are substantial sums, and they are not lessened by the fact that if I say that they amount to only £13 million a week, when they are compared with the total weekly expenditure on social security benefits—and perhaps it may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to know that we are spending £165 million a week on social security benefits—what we are are paying to unemployed people represents only about 8 per cent. However, it is a substantial figure and we arc not unmindful of the need to think very carefully about this.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask what possible excuse or apology can be furnished by the present or the previous Government for having anticipated that unemployment would rise because of the imminence of a recession, but not having utilised the funds that were available which were intended for subsequent expenditure on social well being? Why did they not utilise those sums for investment purposes when we are told that part of the real trouble is the absence of investment? Surely the opportunity was available for Governments, both present and previous, to utilise those sums for investment which would have provided work for vast numbers of people who are now unemployed and who are receiving benefits which could have been avoided?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said and convey it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has equated the record of the previous Government with this Government, is not the present rise in unemployment at least in part due to the rate of 25 per cent. inflation which has been directly the result of the present Government's policy?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord really is not being fair. He knows as well as everybody else in your Lordships' House that this is worldwide.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in order to correctany possibility of misunderstanding arising from the supplementary question put by the noble and learned Lord opposite, may I ask my noble friend whether historically it is not demonstrable, even now, that inflation has been operating not since the present Government came into Office, but for many long years, both in my experience and in the vast experience of the noble and learned Lord opposite?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But will the noble Lord consider that inflation has not been operating at 26 per cent. until the noble Lord's Party got into Office?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, perhaps I should stand between the House and the noble and learned Lord and suggest that we move to the next Question.

LUNG DISEASES: COMPENSATION
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 are now in a position to state what provision is to be made for sufferers from serious industrial lung disease including byssinosis and asbestosis, comparable to that already made of miners' pneumoconiosis.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the National Coal Board's compensation scheme for miners suffering from pneumoconiosis is unique. It was negotiated with the unions in order to avoid costly and wasteful litigation. The Government gave the National Coal Board financial assistance only because the potential liability in respect of former miners was so great in relation to the present size and financial situation of the industry. All sufferers from respiratory lung disease are, of course, able to apply under the State scheme of National Insurance. The

999
Government have no new plans for special provision for sufferers from these diseases.
Lord HALE: Yes, my Lords, but will the noble Lord say whether it is a fact that this aspect of these diseases has now been transferred to the Minister of Employment? Since we were told that if any scheme was put forward by the employers and the employees of the industry it would receive consideration, does this transfer mean that the Minister who is responsible for dealing with the pneumoconiosis problem is now contemplating initiating discussions, which are extremely difficult? I am told that there is no serious opposition throughout the textile industry to a scheme relating to byssinosis but I have no information whatever about asbestosis, which I am afraid is perhaps a more complicated and indeed a very much more grave problem.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the coal mining scheme was negotiated between the unions and the employers. But there is nothing to prevent that happening in other industries.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend get in touch with the Railways Board to see whether workers in the railway industry suffering from asbestosis come under an arrangement similar to that of the miners? Is my noble friend aware that a number of cases have now been brought to light and that the Railways Board is trying to do the best it can in its present situation, but lacks the facilities for dealing with its employees in the same way as the National Coal Board deals with its employees in the mining industry?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I say once again that there is nothing whatever to prevent the unions and the employers from formulating a scheme to deal with the position.
BARONESS WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware how grateful I am, as are many other people who know of the disadvantages of pneumoconiosis, for the fact that this scheme has been brought in? I am delighted about this scheme, and so are the miners. We are very grateful for what has happened.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied with the numbers of the Factory Inspectorate, who are responsible for those factories where asbestosis and byssinosis are common?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that there has been some problem in the past in regard to the number of inspectors available for this work, but that is being handled.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate very deeply what has been done for the miners, as I understood this situation when I was the Member of Parliament for Slough, where there were so many ex-miners. But is my noble friend really saying that, if there are sufferers from lung diseases in other industries, it must be a matter for negotiation between the trade unions and the employers? Admitting the immediate financial difficulties, is it not the long term responsibility of the Government to see that the needs of those who suffer in this way are met?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the case of the miners, it was the unions and the employers who negotiated the scheme. The Government made an initial grant for, I think, two reasons: first, there was a backlog of about 40,000 which dated back to the time when the industry was on a much larger scale than it is now; secondly, the Government had to bear in mind that this matter involved an industry and that the scheme would promote good industrial relations, and it was very important to the national economy that that should be done.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord any figures to indicate the number of extant cases of byssinosis and asbestosis, so that one can see the size of the problem in comparison with the miners' pneumoconiosis?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords. In the case of pneumoconiosis, the figure—which is issued under the National Insurance scheme—is about 39,000; in the case of byssinosis it is 3,000, and in the case of asbestosis it is about 800.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does it not follow from what the noble Lord said

1001
that it is, relatively, a small problem with which, at the first convenient moment, the Government might easily find it possible to deal?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, it would be wrong of me not to agree that the problem is very much smaller than that in regard to the miners.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has devoted some 40 years of his life to calling the attention of successive Governments to this scourge, which affects not only the miners but those in other industries? Will he, therefore, give due weight to the representations that the noble Lord has made?
Lord JACQUES: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether there is not a particular problem in the case of asbestosis, which arises in this way: that the unfortunate sufferers from asbestosis are people engaged in a variety of different industries—they are not all in one industry, such as the mining industry—and unless the Government take the initiative to try to bring the related unions and employers together, in order to initiate a scheme of the kind which we have had in the mining industry for so long, it may simply goby default because so many different parties are involved? Among other places with which I am concerned are Her Majesty's dockyards, and is the noble Lord aware that the problem of asbestosis is particularly important there?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said.

FOOTBALL MATCH HOOLIGANISM
3.21 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 progress has been made in the endeavour to eliminate violence and hooliganism connected with football matches.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I am glad to report that since my previous Answer on the 22nd September the measures agreed upon and recommended by the Minister for Sport's Working Party are proving to be successful in practice. The number of undesirable incidents in football grounds has been substantially reduced this season, and the new measures announced by British Rail and the Traffic Commissioners in respect of rail traffic and motor coaches are proving extremely helpful. The Government welcome all these improvements, but I can assure the House that we have no intention of relaxing our vigilance. I can also inform the House that the meeting concerning research which I mentioned on the 22nd September has now taken place, and the Sports Council and Social Science Research Council are currently discussing the scope for further research.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply on a subject which, judging from the amount of correspondence I have received since my Question last month, is one of some public concern, including too the large majority of people who want to watch football matches in peaceful conditions. May I ask the noble Baroness this supplementary question? Is anything being done on my suggestion of directed community service for the offenders on Saturday afternoons and are the Government aware of the reported threat of a bus strike in Glasgow on the day of the coming Rangers-Celtic match because of the danger of violence affecting the drivers and conductors?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as possible, wherever there are facilities community service orders are being increasingly used, but I am sure the noble Lord is aware that this is still in the form of a pilot scheme and, unfortunately, so far does not cover the whole country. On his second point, the transport workers have been to see both the Minister of Sport and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to discuss this very problem; so this is also under discussion. But I would point out that the measures which have been taken are intended to bring about (and, as I explained in my

1003
original Answer, they are proving to be) an improvement in this matter. Perhaps I might add that I, too, had a great deal of correspondence on this, including correspondence from some young people who themselves felt that in some ways the conditions were very bad, but who wanted to have the opportunity to talk to somebody about the matter and to express their view of the game, not their view of the behaviour. I also had a letter from a youth officer in Manchester who said that he thought he was probably the only skilled youth worker in the country working with a group of young football supporters, and who spoke of the progress he had made because he was now working on properly planned arrangements for away matches. This is something which I hope will be taken up in many other areas.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness accept that community service orders have now really passed the pilot stage and that it is open to those in any area of the country which can satisfy the Home Office that they can be effectively operated in that area to introduce them? In fact, they are being spread very widely through the country.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much indeed for those remarks and hope that what she has said will also help to encourage and perhaps expedite action in those areas which are being rather slow in starting up this system.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not she would agree that this is a field where far more use could be made of special constables, the voluntary force in this country, either by employing these special constables themselves on or near football grounds, or else by using them to relieve the regular police on other routine duties, so freeing more of them to be available in or near football grounds?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is an interesting suggestion, but I think that since the discussions which have been started by the Home Office are now going on between the Sports Council and the Social Science Research Council one should leave it to them. But the noble
1004
Lord may be interested to know that one of the first priorities may be to develop a cross-fertilisation of ideas on crowd control techniques among individual police forces. This the Home Office is considering now, and I should have thought that it was better to leap that way and to see what results before proceeding on the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following up my question, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that in some districts in this country great encouragement is given to special constables and in others far less, and that they in fact deserve the maximum encouragement we can give them all over the country?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will certainly note that, of course.

CROWN AGENTS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 I will repeat a Statement on the Crown Agents.
TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; with one other Lords Amendment agreed to with an Amendment; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Commons Amendment and Reasons to be printed.

INDUSTRY BILL
3.28 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Beswick): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("or joint chief executives").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether we could take twice as

1005
many Amendments at once and deal with Amendments No. 1 and No. 2 together! It was put to me during the previous stages that it was inconsistent with best thinking on the structure of a board to provide for two chief executives. I thought there was much in the argument that was made, and I said that I would have a look at it. There was also the point that many noble Lords the noble Lord, Lord Nelson, I recall particularly, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as well—suggested that it would be wrong to leave the chief executive off the board. I therefore put these two Amendments to your Lordships. The first is to rule out the joint chief executives, and the second ensures that no reference at all is made as to whether or not the chief executive is on the board. I thing it is better to leave the matter open for the board themselves to decide. I beg to move.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much for having considered this point. As he said, it was pressed very strongly by your Lordships that it was wrong to have joint chief executives, and I am very grateful to him for having taken out the reference to joint chief executives by Amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2, which we are discussing at the same time, does not really seem to get us any further, because it simply says nothing. The old subsection (6) really did not say anything, either—it said that he could either be a member of the board or he need not be a member of the board—so I am sure there is no need to have this subsection. It does not really advance the case much further as to whether he is or is not to be a member of the board.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I thought that the general feeling was that we should not legislate in this sense for or against. It is now completely left out, which is the right and proper way of handling it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [General purposes and functions]:
Lord RAGLAN Lord RAGLAN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for bringing this back again, having raised it on Report; but since raising it then I have had the opportunity of consulting with my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Houghton, and of reading through the Reports of the Standing Committees on the Welsh and Scottish Agencies where this point was much discussed. I have been reinforced in my belief that this matter is no ordinary one of policy but is something which should make every democratically-minded person exceedingly uneasy at the direction the Government is taking and the powers assumed by it—powers which in my view are in any case totally unnecessary.
I agree that there can be two interpretations of this subsection. One is that the powers it confers are no more than those possessed by an ordinary individual or those which may be contained in the Articles of a private company. Yet these powers are not spelt out for the ordinary person and the Articles of a company do not have the same impact as those of a Statute setting up a Government board. I must say that one of the continual criticisms which the Labour Party have rightly had of private industry in the past has been its lack of public accountability. It seems to me that we are in very great danger of building up a public sector which will be even more difficult to hold to public account than was the private sector; because our newly-created public industry has behind it not only the power of Statute but the power and prestige of the Government.
I am aware that this Third Reading is not the moment for a long debate on a complex subject of that importance; but sometimes people ask me: "Why do you talk about this and that? Do you ever get anything done? "My answer is that, surprising though it may seem to the questioner, one often does get things done because, contrary to what one is sometimes led to believe, there are many sensible people about and if you choose something sensible to say they will listen. I am pleased to say that, due at least

1007
in part to my agitation, the equivalent subsections in the Welsh and Scottish Agency Bills appear, at first sight, to have been slightly more tightly drawn in the Commons. There was much debate on this subsection in the Committees and the Government Minister kept saying that he would look at it again, but I am sorry to say he kept doing very little.
The general point has still not been taken by the Government or their advisers; and the point is that if you insert into a Statute that a Government agency can do anything it likes so long as it is legal, then you are asking for trouble. Even if, as I have said, the subsection is read in the way which I believe my noble friend would wish, I doubt whether the Board would be held accountable in the way that they should be. We are not simply dealing with a private company where the shareholders are not particularly concerned about how the firm is run or what it does, so long as the money comes in. We are trying to get away from all that; yet we are putting it into a Government Bill, into a Parliamentary Statute.
Secondly, my Lords, I am in charge of a Government agency which spends several million pounds of public money every year; and I hope and believe that in so doing we add to the sum of human happiness; but we have not got such powers as are specified in this Bill, nor do we need them, nor do I want them, nor would I be happy to have them and nor do I feel in any way fettered by not having them. It is in my experience untrue to say that this Board needs these powers and could not work without them. They are superfluous. If the Board feel that they cannot do something and really must have the power to do it, then they can go to the Minister or to Parliament. That is what they are there for. Surely that is our very purpose in setting up a public agency.
My Lords, lastly, it has been implicit as well as explicit in all that I have said on this subject during the passage of the three related Bills that I believe—and with the passage of time have become more convinced—that the powers conferred in this subsection are dangerous. If the Government are not aware of that and do not soon become aware of it and
1008
do not cease to insert provisions of this kind when promoting Government agencies, they are storing up a lot of potential trouble for the future. I know that there are precedents for these powers. There is the Post Office Act 1969 and various Acts under the Conservative Government, including the Civil Aviation Act 1971, and so on. These precedents are therefore fairly new. They are, none of them, my noble friends' fault nor Lord Beswick's fault, nor the fault of the last Government nor necessarily a matter of great blame for the Government before it.
Perhaps no one in this House has been less stinting in his praise of the Civil Service than myself; but I know how Governments are apt to work and the pressure of time on Ministers and civil servants. This subsection, or its approximation, would have been inserted originally in some Bill because somebody thought it would be a good idea. Nobody questioned it. The Ministers were thinking of other things; and the wretched thing passed into precedent to be inserted without question in every subsequent Bill. That is how a precedent of this kind happens. No one has queried this one before.
My Lords, when I first read this subsection or its equivalent in the Welsh Development Agency Bill I could not sleep for wondering what things were coming to. If you read it as I did, it can largely vitiate the need for any other legislation than that necessary to set up the Agency and define its composition and functions. In this Bill, this is doneunder Clause 1, Clause 2(1) and Clause 2(2). My fears in this respect have been substantiated in learning of the comments of a Scottish Minister that to insert the words which are here printed:
"… specified in subsection (2) above"
as in this subsection, is widening the powers of the Bill; because it then relates the unrestricted powers conferred by the subsection to the functions of the Agency laid down in the previous subsection and it leaves the Agency less restricted by the duties and functions asset out in later clauses of the Bill. In other words, on the say so of a Government Minister, this subsection has a significant meaning. It confers powers. It is not a harmless way of saying something of no great significance. It confers powers of a wide

1009
nature which, if they are specifically related to subsection (2) makes matters worse and not, as I first imagined, better.
My Lords, the least the Government can do is to remove the words "specified in subsection 2 above". But there is altogether something very wrong indeed here, something which needs to be given deep, serious and full reflection and consideration. If I thought that dropping this subsection would cripple the agency and prevent it from being effective I would not be raising the matter. I have doubts about the eventual efficacy of the agency; but those thoughts are not for now. I believe that it should be given as good a chance as possible. The presence of this subsection (and its equivalent in Bills of a related kind) raises the fundamental question of how much power should be conferred on a Government agency. It raises questions of accountability, of democracy, of the protection of the public from the arbitrary action of a public agency which might become as great a threat as the ones suffered by the public from private companies in the past.
My Lords, I apologise for raising the matter again. I shall not press the Amendment. I shall be content with having raised the point. I think that in fact it would not be proper to press the Amendment because the terms of the subsection are common to several other Bills. The Government, the Civil Service and Parliament must have serious regard to the type of creature which is being created in these Government agencies, and do all in their power to ensure their public responsibility and accountability. That means taking more care with the powers allotted to them than seems hitherto to have been the case. I beg to move.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. He has moved it in terms of deep concern and sober reflection upon what this clause implies. I regard a constant challenge to bureaucracy as one of the conditions of democracy, and this is one of the things I have always told bureaucracy it has to put up with. The moment one yields too freely to bureaucracy, the more certainly we are moving towards the authori-
1010
tarion State. All power yielded is a curb of the liberty of somebody somewhere, and that is why we have to look with care at a sweeping clause of this kind. This clause concedes powers to the Board, not to the Government, and the Board will be an institution of bureaucratic activity in the field of industry.
One wonders what it is that this clause is supposed to provide for. It would be interesting to have a list of the conceivable possibilities that this clause might be regarded as desirable or necessary to cover. I firmly believe that if this clause were deleted from the Bill nobody would know the difference in the powers and activities of the Board, and they would be able to do their job without any substantial let or hindrance. This is a kind of long-stop clause: "We provided for everything. Now let us provide for something more and do it in an undefined way. Do not let us be specific. Let us say that the Board may do any mortal thing calculated to facilitate the discharge of the functions specified."
I am advised that in its terms this clause is common to other Acts of Parliament, but that is no reason why we should not question it whenever we see it. The common form must be under challenge, too. Do not noble Lords on the Benches opposite realise what this Government have been able to do with powers of a sweeping character taken by the previous Government. They have grumbled that Labour are doing things with the powers which the Conservatives never intended them to do. These powers have been used for purposes for which they were never envisaged by those who created them That should surely be a warning to all concerned.
My Lords, I am afraid that I was a moment late in arriving at your Lordships' House as I was at another meeting. I am sure my noble friend has made it clear that we do not propose to turn your Lordships' House inside out, to upend the Constitution, to create a crisis or anything of that kind with this Amendment. But it will be enough, at least for the present, if by moving this Amendment we can elicit from my noble friend—who was so eager to rise a moment ago—a full and comforting explanation of the powers of this clause. I am sure we all await his reply with great interest.
3.45 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has extended what he has said over a rather wide area and, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, I accept his obvious concern over this matter in the general sense. But I should confine myself to the effect that this Amendment would have on this Bill. The provision which this Amendment seeks to delete is a standard one. Comparable provisions giving public corporations the power to do all things necessary, incidental or conducive to the discharge of their functions, are to be found in all Statutes setting up nationalised corporations—for example, the Gas Act 1972, Section 6(1); the Post Office Act 1969; the Civil Aviation Act 1971, as the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, a Conservative Act; the Iron and Steel Acts of 1949 and 1967. The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, as long ago as 1946, for example, said:
"The Board shall have power to do anything and to enter into any transaction calculated to facilitate the proper discharge of their duties … or is incidental or conducive thereto."
The purpose of the provision is to ensure that the Board have the right to pursue any appropriate action—within the law—calculated to facilitate the discharge of their functions in fulfilling the purposes which they have been given. Subsection (3) does no more than that, and it does not in any way exempt the Board from the general law of the land. Without this general provision, it would be necessary to devise an exhaustive list of specific powers to govern all the possible things which the Board might need to do—a task which I am sure noble Lords will agree would be extraordinarily difficult. The Board would be in danger of acting ultra vires if they did something which was not specifically listed.
It was because doubts were expressed in Committee in another place that the Government introduced subsection (5) of Clause 2 which says:
"For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the foregoing provisions of this section relate only to the capacity of the Board as a statutory corporation, and nothing in the said provisions shall be construed as authorising the disregard by the Board of any enactment or rule of law".
Subsection (5) makes it clear beyond doubt that although the NEB are free to
1012
do anything which it is lawful for any person to do in pursuit of their functions and purposes, no special privileges have been conferred.
The National Enterprise Board are in fact in very much the same position as a private sector company. The general law with regard to Companies Act companies, to which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, referred, is that they have power to carry out the objects set out in the Memorandum of Association, and also to do anything which is reasonably necessary to enable them to carry out these objects. In the case of the NEB, the functions set out in Clause 2(2) are equivalent to the objects of a Companies Act company. Clause 2(3) is intended to do no more than give the NEB the comparable power to do things necessary, incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions. I hope that what I have said will dispel any uneasiness which the noble Lord may have felt, if in this specific case he was of the opinion that this clause conferred any new or special powers on the NEB.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his explanation. I thought that that was what he would say. I am not at all satisfied, of course, because it does not cover the wider points which I raised. It passed through my mind, when the noble Lord mentioned that if the provision was not put in there was danger of the Board being ultra vires by doing something not specifically listed, to ask: what is the point of specifically listing anything if the Board can do anything? Also, I hope that the Government will take proper note of what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said about precedent. Because something has been in being without question for a very long time, it does not mean to say it is immutable. For a radical Party to adopt that stance would not get them very far. Their whole raison d'être is that they challenge precedent and keep altering things as they go along. I must ask my noble friend whether I may come to see him and consult his advisers at some other time, regarding whether we can do something about reducing the absurdly wide powers which this provision confers upon this Board and upon other Government agencies. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.50 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be the duty of the Board to have regard to guide lines set out for them by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which will be only too familiar in its terms to noble Lords opposite, because we have put down this Amendment at every stage of the Bill in an endeavour to extract from the Government some news about these guidelines which are to be given to the National Enterprise Board. In view of what was said at Report stage, may I make it quite clear that this is not something which we have sought to get out of the Government. These are guide lines which the Government themselves promised as far back as the 9th June, when the then Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, said in another place at col. 14 in answer to a Question:
"The Government will consider the publication of a further White Paper on the working of the proposed Industry Act in the course of the review of the Bill which we have undertaken to carry out."
It has since been confirmed to us throughout the consideration of this Bill by your Lordships that these guide lines were being prepared. I still hope that we may get some assurance that the guide lines will be available to Parliament before the Bill is enacted, because in many other instances there have been cases of Bills going through Parliament in connection with which there have been documents of immense importance to the interpretation of the Bills and such documents have been pressed for and usually provided to Parliament before the Bills have been enacted. For example, I can think of the Code of Practice connected with the Industrial Relations Bill. There have also been other documents of a similar kind. I should have thought it only reasonable to ask the Government to produce these guide lines to the National Enterprise Board, in order that Parliament may fully understand what the Board are expected to do and how they are expected to act, because although the Bill gives them very specific powers, it is in the interpretation of those powers that so much good or harm can be done. It is therefore very much in the interests of the economic future of the country that
1014
industry should gain confidence in the Government which at the moment they sadly lack. I should think that these guide lines would be of the greatest importance, and so I hope that on this occasion the noble Lord will be able to give us some indication of when they will be available. I hope he will be able to say that they will be available before the Bill becomes an Act.
I know that on previous occasions the noble Lord has reproached this side of the House for asking for guide lines too soon because Amendments have been accepted and the Government wish to see what the Bill looks like when it finally emerges. But I do not think that can be accepted as an excuse in the present case, because in the case of the Community Land Bill the Government have found it possible to produce a document in advance, incorporating Amendments which they themselves wished to put into the Bill—and that was done before the Report stage. If it was possible for that to be done in that instance, I should have thought it would be perfectly proper and easy for the Government to produce their draft guide lines relating to the Industry Bill as they would like to see it emerge. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, it crossed my mind, when the noble Lord said that he had raised this matter at every stage of the Bill, to query whether it was appropriate to raise it yet again on Third Reading. If we reach decisions at earlier stages, we do not normally return to them on Third Reading, but I raise that simply as an academic point.
The Amendment which is down on the Marshalled List today does not quite represent the argument put by the noble Lord, who is asking for regard to be taken of the guide lines. I would put to him that the wording in the Amendment would not be satisfactory either to him or to us. It is not sufficient to say that the Board should have regard to the guide lines. I suppose many of us have said before in this House that we should have regard to what has been said, and have then found that it would be unnecessary to actually carry out what was said. We would wish to have something rather stronger than that, and in fact the Bill itself now goes further than the noble Lord is suggesting in his Amendment. The Amendment does not require any

1015
guide lines to be made public. It makes no provision for guide lines ever to be changed. In Clause 7 of the Bill we spell out some of these things more clearly. The powers of direction in Clause 7 permit guide lines to be given binding effect. They require that they should be reported promptly to each House of Parliament; and in Clause 37 there is explicit provision for any direction to be varied or revoked. That is the course we are pursuing and I should have thought it would have commended itself to the noble Lord opposite.
As to whether the guide lines should be published before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, I must say to the noble Lord that the argument I have advanced before gets stronger at each stage. At each stage we have had a different Bill. It would have been quite absurd for guide lines to be presented to the House on Second Reading when we now have a Bill, following the Committee and Report stages, which is completely different. The powers of the Board and the parameters of action laid down by the present wording of the Bill are quite different from what we originally intended. The guidelines we might have put before the House earlier would have been quite irrelevant, and so it was sensible to wait to see what sort of Bill will eventually reach the Statute Book. When we see that, I give an assurance that we shall draw on the points which have been raised in discussion in both Houses of Parliament, and shall put the draft guide lines before this House for their approval in due course—but this cannot be until after the Bill gets on to the Statute Book.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us that because of the changes which have been made to the Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House it has not been possible for the guide lines to be issued until the Bill reaches the Statute Book. But, of course, this Amendment enables us to ask the Government about the latest situation, which the noble Lord has just given to us. Therefore I do not think he should have been surprised to see the Amendment on the Marshalled List again on Third Reading, because we have at various times given notice of our desire to know when the guide lines on particu-
1016
lar aspects would be available. The one I wish to touch upon concerns the relationship between the National Enterprise Board and other Agencies acting in the same field, because during our debates concerning the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, and on this Bill, we have been promised guide lines which would indicate how these various bodies would be expected to collaborate with each other.
Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he could take this opportunity of telling us more about that; whether these guide lines which are to be published will help in that direction or whether separate guide lines will be issued. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, when on the Front Bench, gave an undertaking that guide lines concerned with the overlapping functions and operations of all the various bodies would have been available by now. The bodies I am referring to are not only the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, but also the British National Oil Corporation, whose area of activity will overlap with the National Enterprise Board. Then in the North and West of Scotland there is the existing Highland Development Board, so some indication to the public, to industry and to Parliament is required of the kind of guide lines which are to be given on the separation of functions. I must mention the British National Oil Corporation, because it is only recently that your Lordships' House has been able to consider proposals for that; and we were considering them again yesterday.
If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has been following the debates on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill he will know that the British National Oil Corporation is by no means concerned only with activities in the oilfields at sea. It has powers to take part, for example, in the petrochemical industry and plastics and a whole range of substances which will be used increasingly by industry as oil from our own oilfields becomes available. To quote from the Petroleum Bill, BNOC will be able to
"buy, sell and otherwise deal in petroleum and anything derived from it".
That means that both the National Enterprise Board and the Oil Corporation are likely to be getting involved with the same companies in work related to petroleum and its derivatives; for example,

1017
the chemical industry. It is therefore important that the guide lines that we were promised earlier on, on the question of separation of functions between these various bodies, should become known at an early date. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us whether these will be part of the general guide lines which he has been talking about, or whether they will be coming sooner.
I should just remind your Lordships about the situation in Scotland because the Highland Board is already operating there and its area and functions are widely understood—the Highland Board is the Highland Development Board; its main purpose is to inject money into industry through grants and loans, so it has very similar functions. Not only that, but there are to be three other statutory appointed bodies working in the same field: that is, the National Enterprise Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the British National Oil Corporation. I would remind your Lordships that the new oil activities have their main impact on the North of Scotland. So in that area there is a great danger of bureaucracy getting completely out of hand. What the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was saying on the last Amendment about the dangers of bureaucracy will certainly apply when there are four agencies there, all likely to be tripping each other up or overlapping in their activities. Can the noble Lord tell us whether these guide lines will clarify and regulate the fields and functions of the National Enterprise Board in relation to these other bodies, or are there to be separate guide lines on that point which we have discussed in earlier debates, and, if so, will they be issued earlier or later?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, in reply to what has been said I am afraid I cannot go into the question of what the guide lines would be for the Scottish Development Agency or for BNOC. I can only say what relates to this Bill. The guide lines were indicated on 3rd July. They were spelt out; they have been before the House. I know that the noble Lord has very carefully read what was said because he referred to them on other occasions. All I am enabled to do now is to put before this House a draft in detail of points that were summarised in that statement of 3rd July. I assure the House that a draft will be laid before the
1018
House as soon as possible. It will not necessarily be a matter for amendment, but it will be before both Houses of Parliament as soon as is possible. The topics covered are stated in that summary given on 3rd July.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I of course have no intention of pressing this Amendment. I think what the noble Lord said in reply to me at the beginning of his remarks was unnecessary. He knows perfectly well that this Amendment was not intended to do more than to find out what the situation was with regard to the guide lines. I still think it is very unsatisfactory that no guide lines, even in draft form, have been available to this House in the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. As I said, these guide lines were foreshadowed in June, and it is now October and nothing has been forthcoming. Regardless of the fact that the Bill has admittedly been amended in the sense that we think it is greatly improved, I still think that the Government could have published draft guide lines on the basis that they have already said that they will not accept many of our Amendments, and we could have seen the kind of thoughts that were in their mind in regard to the National Enterprise Board before we ceased to deal with the Bill. I think it very unsatisfactory, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CROWN AGENTS
4.5 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development. It is, I am afraid, a rather lengthy Statement, but as it is an important and technical matter I hope the House will bear with me. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, I wish to make a further Statement about the financial position of the Crown Agents and other matters relating to that organisation.
"My predecessor announced in December 1974 that the Government had agreed to provide a recoverable grant

1019
of £85 million to the Crown Agents to cover the writing down of asset values in their 1974 accounts as then foreseen and to provide financial backing appropriate to their operations, and that standby facilities had also been arranged with the Bank of England. I have now received the audited Accounts for 1973 and 1974 and have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The balance sheet as at 31st December 1974 shows that the Government grant of £85 million was not enough in the event to avoid a technical state of insolvency, with liabilities exceeding assets at that date by some £15 million. This was because a greater degree of writing down of asset values and provision for losses were found necessary for the period covered by the Accounts.
"I should emphasise that the Crown Agents have no immediate liquidity problems. They have still not needed to draw on the £85 million grant nor on the standby facility. I am also reassured by the thorough and energetic action which has already been taken by the new Board of the Crown Agents, under its Chairman Mr. Cuckney, to clear up the problems of the past and lay the groundwork of a more soundly based future for the organisation. I should like to pay my own tribute to their efforts.
"Nevertheless, without Government backing the Crown Agents would at present be in a difficult position, which could affect the confidence of depositors and others. I have therefore thought it desirable formally to reaffirm the assurance given by my predecessor in December 1974, that Her Majesty's Government stand behind the Crown Agents. Honourable Members will find the terms of my assurance to the Chairman in his covering report on the 1974 Accounts, and I emphasise now to the House that the Government wish to see the Crown Agents continue in being for the sake of the valuable services which they are able to render both to their many overseas Principals in the developing world and to Her Majesty's Government in their relations with overseas countries.
"Like my predecessor I am however concerned that the future activities of
1020
the Crown Agents, and their relations with Ministers, should be on a more closely defined basis. The Government have been giving much thought to the future status, structure and functions of the Crown Agents. We have decided that the right solution will be to introduce legislation which would confer independent legal personality on the Crown Agents by incorporating them, define their functions for the future and provide that specified powers of direction should rest with Ministers. This would create a well understood relationship of a kind which exists between a number of bodies in the public sector and the Ministers responsible for them. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Government in exercising the broad oversight over the activities of the Crown Agents that has been shown to be desirable by all that has happened; while leaving it to the Board to run their own day-to-day affairs. It would not disturb the traditional relationship between them and their Principals.
"My predecessor told the House in April that she hoped to publish a White Paper during the present Session giving the Government's thinking on these matters. I shall not quite be able to meet that target, but I hope to publish a White Paper shortly to set out our present view of the provisions which will or may be required in the legislation to incorporate the Crown Agents.
"Meanwhile, I should inform the House of a further complication arising from the past activities of the Crown Agents which will have to be dealt with separately and in advance of this legislation. I was informed in August by the Chairman that certain loans made by the Crown Agents, either directly or through a nominee company, might be challenged as unenforceable, on the grounds that the Crown Agents were neither licensed moneylenders under the terms of the Moneylenders Acts nor a bank for the purposes of those Acts. The Crown Agents are advised that if this matter was brought before the courts, they would have a good defence, particularly on the basis that they and their staff are exempt from the operation of these Acts as Crown servants. However, if there were a challenge in the courts the matter might take a long

1021
time to resolve. Meanwhile the Crown Agents' financial position might be seriously worsened by the withholding of loan repayments and the interest due, and in other ways.
"This would increase the potential call on the Exchequer for financial support for the Crown Agents to a degree which we should find quite unacceptable in the circumstances. It would mean that a heavy additional liability would fall on the public purse and that other creditors of those property and other companies to which the Crown Agents had made loans would be in a position to benefit by taking advantage of an uncertainty in the application of legislation. I think it is essential to put this anomalous situation right. The Government will therefore introduce a Bill, for consideration as early as possible in the next Session, to put the matter beyond doubt."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House is grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement, especially in view of the difficult financial position which has been facing the Crown Agents. We are grateful and pleased that the Government have decided to reaffirm their support and backing for the Crown Agents in order that the position of their depositors might be safeguarded and international confidence, which is so vital, might be maintained. Furthermore, the Crown Agents play an important part in providing much needed foreign exchange to our balance of payments. Consequently, we should also like to add our own appreciation to Mr. Cuckney and his colleagues for the work they have been doing over the last few months.
We cannot, of course, comment in detail on the Government's proposals to turn the Crown Agents into a public corporation until we have seen the proposed legislation itself. However, we are glad that the Crown Agents' reputation for confidentiality is to be maintained and that they are not to be turned into a Government Department, which would raise practical problems like managing World Bank loans. However, we shall have to await the legislation itself before deciding whether the Government
1022
have got right the balance between accountability and confidentiality. We agree that it is important that the position of the Agents' losses which were incurred mainly in fringe banking and property markets and the legal position under the Moneylenders Acts should be settled as soon as possible. However, I hope that the Government will ensure that the overseas principals are not put in a position of being liable for or paying these losses.
I have one detailed question for the noble Baroness. She mentioned the proposed White Paper but not the report of Judge Fay. Could the noble Baroness tell the House when this report will be produced and whether it will be published.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his very generous response to an extremely important Statement about a very tangled situation. I should like to repeat the assurances that Her Majesty's Government give to the principals—that there will be the same complete confidentiality and that everything that will be outlined in the White Paper, to which we look forward, will guarantee their position. I should like to make it absolutely clear that confidentiality will be maintained. Of course, the White Paper is still "baking in the oven" but I am quite sure that the noble Earl will be satisfied with that aspect of it when it emerges. I think that everyone in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the City, will welcome the clarification of the legal identity of this rather anomalous organisation. Indeed, it has been thought about since practically the beginning of the century and many Administrations have been concerned in trying to grasp the nettle. We have now grasped it and I very much look forward to the White Paper.
If I might refer to the Fay Committee—this is the Committee of Inquiry under Judge Fay with Sir Edmund Compton and Mr. Peter Godfrey—I cannot give the noble Earl an exact date, but it should report some time in 1976, the report will be made to the Minister and the Minister will make a report to the Houses of Parliament.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as one who has been critical of the Crown Agents and their administration right up

1023
to the year 1972, may I say how much I welcome this Statement. I believe it will clear up the absolutely incongruous status which in the past the Crown Agents had in relation to the Government and the developing countries. May I say how glad I am to hear from this Statement that the Minister will be following the policies which his predecessor laid down. I believe that now we have to have confidence in the personnel who have been appointed to control the Crown Agents and that the Government, the Crown Agents and the developing countries whom they serve will derive everything that is good from the changes which have been made.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. As he is listened to not only in this country but all over the world his words are particularly welcome.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, when the legislation for the new form of Crown Agents has been drawn up may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government will consider that the circumstances which brought the Crown Agents into being and the relations which that organisation had with its clients and depositors overseas cannot be continued in anything like the same form in the present conditions and will not try too closely to reproduce the kind of background of activity and responsibilities which the Crown Agents have had in the past because it may be that it is no longer realistic to do so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and others, I am glad that this very difficult situation is being tackled in this way and realise the tragedy that has taken place as a result of the history of the last three or four years.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have noted very carefully what the noble Lord has said and will pass on his remarks to my right honourable friend.

INDUSTRY BILL
4.17 p.m.
Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [Exercise by Board of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert ("and incidental to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Government drafting Amendment which is designed to avoid any possible confusion. I am afraid that today I cannot repeat my bargain offer of yesterday on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill when, over-generously, I gave the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the chance to withdraw my own Amendment. When the Board acquire property (and this normally means a shareholding) as a result of a direction by the Secretary of State to give selective financial assistance, the Secretary of State is required by subsection (9) of Clause 3 to reimburse the consideration given for the acquisition and the costs and expenses of acquiring it. These sums of money then count towards the Board's capital debt under the provisions of paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 2.
Owing to an oversight, the wording in Schedule 2 is at present slightly different. It refers to costs and expenses of and incidental to the acquisition. The fuller formulation is correct. Since the clause and the Schedule are, of course, intended to refer to the same sums of money, it is desirable that the wording should be the same so that there is no possibility of their being interpreted as having different legal meanings. It would clearly be absurd for the Board to assume a debt for expenses which had not been reimbursed by the Secretary of State. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [General power of Secretary of State to give Board directions]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to repeat the words just used by the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, this is a purely technical Opposition Amendment designed to try to avoid confusion, and we hope that what seems to us to have been a misprint in the Bill could prove to be the subject of one Amendment which, after a great deal of effort, we can actually get accepted. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for tabling an Amendment to remedy this cross-referencing error, which we are very glad to accept. We had in fact spotted it ourselves and intended to table an Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Upper limits on Board's powers]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 10, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) of this section").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 9 on Report and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, then said that by including the words:
"or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State"—
and I now quote what he said:
"it was not the intention to make it possible for the Secretary of State to circumvent the requirement here with regard to a 30 per cent. holding or to the investment of £10 million."—[Official Report, 5/8/75; col. 1570.]
We are here concerned with a clause which says:
"Neither the Board nor any of their subsidiaries shall acquire any of the share capital of a body corporate except with the consent of the Secretary of State"—
and then the words—
"or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State."
Broadly speaking, the acquisition would give the Board control, if the cost of the acquisition would be over £10 million. The trouble is, of course, that whether or not it was the intention to do so, this is precisely what the clause does and I think it would be impossible to deny that. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is himself inclined to think that the clause went rather too far and he outlined to us the sort of case that the clause, as
1026
amended in another place, was designed to cover. As I understand the position, when this clause was dealt with in another place it did not originally consider subsidiaries at all, and it was represented—I think from the Opposition—that subsidiaries should have exactly the same restraint put upon them as the Board. Then, because it was felt, as I understand it, that this might mean, in the case of subsidiaries, recourse to the Secretary of State for his consent in a number of minor cases, the words at line 3 on page 10 of the Bill:
"… with the consent of the Secretary of State or in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State…",
were added to the Bill, thus making it possible for the Secretary of State to adopt either procedure in any case at any time. It is left entirely to his discretion.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was good enough to say:
"… we have in Clause 10 a system of executive control which provides that the Secretary of State has to approve the making of a large investment or the acquisition of a 30 per cent. holding. That is what we should all like, I believe."—[Official Report; 5/8/75, col. 1570.]
I heartily concur with that, but there can be little doubt that the alternative procedure of giving a general authority would very considerably relax that general provision. It could be construed as meaning that a company may, by general authority, invest £10 million, as the noble Lord said—Ithink he really meant up to £10 million—in each of a number of different sales outlets. He instanced the example of British Leyland wanting to acquire a number of sales outlets in different parts of the country. This would be what I have described in my Amendment as a series of acquisitions.
Of course, the simple way of dealing with this problem would be to omit the words that I have quoted, and that would be the effect of Amendment No. 9. There would then be only the one way in which the Board or the subsidiary would have to go to the Secretary of State for consent in every case where acquisition would give the Board control or the consideration would exceed £10 million.
The Amendments to which I am speaking, namely, Nos. 7, 8 and 10, if, with the leave of the House, we may consider them all together, would in effect enable the Secretary of State to give a general

1027
authority to the Board to acquire a controlling interest in companies in the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, subject to two conditions. The first condition is that in their application the Board either specified en bloc the companies they propose to acquire, or else—and more likely, I should have thought—they specified the class of companies they propose to acquire, that being, in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sales outlets for certain products. The second condition is that no single acquisition covered by the general authority shall cost more than £250,000, and that the total value of the series of acquisitions shall not exceed £10 million.
The noble Lord may think that the figure of £250,000 which I have inserted for a single acquisition is too restrictive. He may also think that the general authority should permit the total cost of the series of acquisitions to exceed £10 million. If so, it would be possible for the amounts to be amended in another place. Even apart from the amounts mentioned—that is the £250,000 and the £10 million—I do not suppose that the wording of my Amendment will be wholly acceptable to the Government; but we are now at the Third Reading and there is no opportunity apart from this of putting the clause right before the Bill goes back to another place. Therefore, we have three choices in this matter: we can leave the Bill as it is, and that means giving the Secretary of State power, if he so chooses, to disregard the requirement for his consent to be given in every case where the Board or one of their subsidiaries propose to acquire a controlling interest, however much the acquisition is to cost.
When I say "disregard", I mean to choose the alternative course, giving a general consent. He could proceed simply by way of a general authority. I am not saying that he would do so; I am saying that he could do so, and I think I am entitled to feel greatly reinforced by what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said at an earlier stage of these proceedings. He said we must be constantly challenging the powers of bureaucracy with which he included—not, perhaps, to the liking of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—the National Enterprise Board. He also said that the powers
1028
to which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was referring, provided by one Government, are used for purposes for which they were never intended. So the powers exist. With respect, I think it is not open in this case for the noble Lord to say that they cannot be used, and would not be used, more widely if they are left as they are. So much for the first course.
My Lords, the second course is that we can accept my Amendments, knowing full well that they may need to be amended in another place, but accepting the principle that it is unnecessary for the Secretary of State to give his consent for each of a series of acquisitions when the policy of buying up a number of companies in the same class, or a number of specified companies, has been approved. What I do not think your Lordships should be asked to do is to dispense with the requirements for consent in cases where the Board propose to take a controlled interest and give a general authority enabling the Board, or any of their subsidiaries, to acquire individual bodies corporate, provided that the value of the consideration does not exceed £10 million. I do not think that this is in line with the original intentions of the Government. I do not think that it would be right at this stage to give power to do that. That is why I have limited the Amendments which I am proposing to the kind of case that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was suggesting, which really involved a series of purchases in implementation of an agreed policy.
My Lords, the other choice is for your Lordships to approve Amendment No. 9 and give the other place the opportunity to specify what they think the limits of any general authority should be, and the circumstances in which it should be given by the Secretary of State. I would urge very strongly that we ought not to leave the clause as it is. It does not make sense to stipulate the circumstances in which the Board have to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State, and then, in the same breath, to say that that requirement can be dispensed with at any time and in any circumstances simply by means of a general authority given by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, briefly I should like to add my voice in support

1029
of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It seems to me that there is a very strong case for an Amendment of this kind. The clause puts limits on the powers of the Board in terms of both the 30 per cent. or more of the votes, and in terms of the £10 million in respect of their acquisitions. It does not really seem sensible that there should also be the words,
"in accordance with any general authority given by the Secretary of State",
which could allow those limits to be exceeded in certain circumstances.
My Lords, I think my noble friend is much to be congratulated on having produced an Amendment which, on the face of it, certainly seems to accomplish what we have in mind. We know that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has considered this matter very carefully, because he said he would on Report stage. I hope that he will be able to give us some encouragement, either by accepting this Amendment, or in giving an undertaking to amend further the Bill before it finishes its passage.
4.35 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was expecting the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, to rise, as I know he felt very strongly about this matter, too. A little earlier on, I had occasion to criticise noble Lords opposite for raising yet again on Third Reading matters which had been thoroughly ventilated during the earlier stages of the Bill, but I quite recognise that in this case my arguments do not apply. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is quite right, and so is the noble Earl. I gave an undertaking to look at this. I quite understand their reasons for bringing forward these Amendments. Perhaps I may just state the position and the background.
When the Bill was under consideration in another place, the Government accepted that the need for Ministerial approval for acquisitions of shares costing more than £10 million, or where more than 30 per cent. of the equity was involved, should be extended from acquisitions by the National Enterprise Board and their wholly-owned subsidiaries to include all the Board's subsidiaries. This had the effect of considerably widening the impact of control. It brought into the scope of the Bill the business activities of com
1030
panies in which there might be substantial outside shareholders. It was to avoid the potentially wasteful and frustrating extension of Government oversight that this idea of the general consent came into being.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said something about the bureaucrats. He said that we did not want to extend the power of the bureaucrats, but that argument cuts both ways. We want to enable the National Enterprise Board or their subsidiaries to operate in a commercial way without continual frustration from, and interference by, the Government. Therefore, it was thought proper that there should be power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to give general consent in a certain category of cases. I do not believe that noble Lords opposite and I differ about this need for a general consent and I hope, therefore, that they will not press Amendment No. 8, which would have the effect of ruling out altogether the possibility of a general consent.
But when we come to the question as to how we can ensure that the general consent provision is not abused, we then get into more difficulty. As I have said, I understand—and I have expressed this understanding before—the wish for a limitation in the general case as well as in the particular case. But when one sets out to accomplish that, we are faced with certain problems. The fact is that unless we build a quite elaborate legislative pattern, it is impossible to cover every eventuality in matters of this kind. It is necessary to recognise that the proper operation of legislation depends upon observance by the Government and the National Enterprise Board of the spirit of the legislative provisions as interpreted by the Government and Parliament, and subject to the sanction of the ability of Parliament to call the responsible Minister to account for the discharge of his responsibility. I do not conceive that it is possible, even if we do not have the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the National Enterprise Board, under a general consent, would invest £9,999,000 in particular companies every Friday afternoon. I do not think anyone in the House would expect this kind of abuse to follow.
If we try to limit the amount by Act of Parliament—and I understand the;

1031
motive behind the feelings of noble Lords opposite—we get into difficulties. I should have thought that £250,000 would be too restrictive. There may be a general consent which would involve an investment of £250,000 and altogether, under the general consent, it may be not more than £250,000. I do not think that that kind of interference is what the noble Lord would wish to see. Therefore, I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment which he has so well moved.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may first comment on the reference to the bureaucrats, of course I was quoting there the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I was careful to avoid saying that this was the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, or, indeed, that it was mine in this case. We agree that if we are to have the National Enterprise Board they should work in a commercial way. We are in a real difficulty here. My advice to your Lordships would be to carry this Amendment with its imperfections. As I said, I am not sure that £250,000 was not too restrictive. I am inclined to think that a total for a series of acquisitions of £10 million would be all right; I was tempted to add at the end words to allow the Secretary of State to extend that, but this was taxing my drafting abilities rather hard and I thought we had better leave that for another place.
I think it is right to give the other place another chance to look at this, and I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in this spirit. I think if he does so it will make it possible for the other place to look at the series of Amendments in a way that they would not otherwise do. I am really asking him, in a sense, to do something which is rarely done, and that is for the
Government themselves to agree that this is something that should be looked at further at this stage. If the noble Lord cannot do that, I think he will understand if we say that we think we ought to test the opinion of the House in the Division Lobbies.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the fact is that I cannot give an undertaking as to what the other place might do if we pass this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that was not quite what I asked. I was asking whether the noble Lord would let the Amendment go through without a Division, which would be an indication from this House to another place that there was some feeling, probably in all parts of the House, that this is a matter that could well be looked at again. I will understand it if the noble Lord cannot do that, but I hope he will.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have given an assurance that there is no intention that the provisions of this general consent would be abused. I would expect that the NEB would operate within the general spirit of the law that we are enacting. I am afraid that I cannot give the undertaking the noble Lord has asked for.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I would accept the noble Lord's assurance in regard to the NEB as originally constituted under this Government, but that cannot bind the Government forever or the NEB forever. In those circumstances, I feel that we must press this to a Division.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 94; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Camoys, L.

Denham, L.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Digby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carrington, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Alport, L.

Cathcart, E.

Eccles, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Effingham, E.

Armstrong, L.

Clwyd, L.

Elles, B.

Auckland, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E. [Teller.]

Cornwallis, L.

Emmet of Amberley. B

Barnby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cowley, E.

Falkland, V.

Birdwood, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Daventry, V.

Glasgow, E.

Caccia, L.

Davidson, V.

Goschen, V.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Sandys, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Somers, L.

Harvington, L.

Newall, L.

Stamp, L.

Hayter, L.

Northchurch, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ogmore, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ironside, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Kimberlely, E.

Porritt, L.

Terrington, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Long, V.

Rhyl, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Rockley, L.

Vivian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Mancroft, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wigoder, L.

Mansfield, E.

St. Helens, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sandford, L.

Young, B.

Meston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Balogh, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Raglan, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Segal, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brockway, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lyons of Brighton. L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

McLeavy, L.

Willis, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

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

Pannell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Peddie, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.51 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("or") insert ("in the circumstances described in subsection (1A) of this section").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) The circumstances referred to in subsection (1) of this section are that the Board has applied to the Secretary of State for a general authority for one of its subsidiaries to make a series of acquisitions of the share capital of specified bodies corporate, or bodies corporate of a specified class, some or all of which acquisitions would entitle the Board to exercise or control the exercise of 30 per cent. or more of the votes at any general meeting of the respective bodies corporate; provided that in the case of no such acquisition shall
1034
the value of the consideration exceed £250,000, nor would the total value in the series of acquisitions exceed £10,000,000.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 12 [Meaning of change of Control]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 10, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("only") in line 4 on page 11, and insert—
("(1) There is a change of control of an important manufacturing undertaking for the purposes of this Part of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Part II of the Bill is somewhat complex, as noble Lords will recognise. I apologise at this stage in the Bill's progress for coming forward with Amendments that may appear somewhat greater than those normal at this stage, but I hope to be able to explain their purpose and the need for them. Quite simply, we are here concerned to close two gaps which we have unwittingly introduced into our

1035
powers, either of which could represent a serious weakness. The first arises from the present drafting of Clause 12(2), which provides that when an important manufacturing undertaking is carried on by a body corporate, there is a change of control of it only if particular events happen in relation to that body corporate. However, we have now recognised that this would prevent us from acting if a change of control of an important manufacturing undertaking arose not from a change in relation to the body corporate carrying on the undertaking, but quite simply through the sale of the undertaking—that is to say, the sale of the business. This might occur through the undertaking being sold by the body corporate to a foreign company. As the Bill is now drafted, we should be unable to prevent it. This is clearly wrong, and we seek to remedy this by providing that there is a change of control if a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires the whole or part of an important manufacturing undertaking; or if a person carrying on such an undertaking ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom. This is achieved by paragraphs (b) and (a) respectively in the new subsection (2).
This covers the sale of the undertaking to a foreign person or foreign company. It does not, however, cover the sale of the undertaking to a British company that is controlled by a foreign company. Yet it would be an obvious loophole if the powers could be circumvented through the sale of the business to a company which, although incorporated in the United Kingdom and hence resident here, was controlled—perhaps 100 per cent. owned—from abroad. We therefore propose an Amendment to make it quite clear, through the addition of paragraph (c) to Clause 12(2), that this is covered.
The Amendments which we propose are important—and I should have asked, first of all, whether I could speak to Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 together—in that they close loopholes which would detract from the main purpose of the Bill. They do not, however, introduce any new principles to the Bill. They restore effects which were in the Bill when it was introduced into another place, and which were accidentally removed by other Amendments in the other
1036
place. They preserve the essential purpose of these subsections, of stating clearly and exhaustively those circumstances which enable the powers to be used. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation, which was certainly needed, of the purposes behind this group of Amendments, closely followed by Amendments Nos. 14 to 19. I am grateful to him for making this exposition which, I hope, being on the record will be of assistance to others outside this Chamber who have similarly been somewhat in the dark as to what the final motive of this was.
I should like to register a mild protest at the manner in which this shoal of Amendments has arrived on our desks. I think that the noble Lord is familiar with the difficulties which this has posed of actual interpretation, because of the scissors and paste work. Later in the day his Department was kind enough to give us a draft of the clause, as amended. This was helpful. It might indeed have been the correct way to proceed from the beginning. With those thanks and observations, I shall conclude.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I am once again sorry to be on my feet reading. I am somewhat concerned about Amendment No. 13, and I gather that these Amendments are being moved together. It says:

(b) "a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires… part of the undertaking;

(c) a body corporate resident in the United Kingdom but controlled by a person not so resident acquires… part of the undertaking;"

I feel that if we had "a substantial part of the undertaking" this might be all right. But, so far as I can see, because it is just "part of the undertaking" the person might hold just a small part and allow for a change of control from the point of view of acquisition under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, we are talking about change of control of a company. If the part was so small, this would not arise at all. It would have to be, by its very nature, substantial enough to affect the control of the undertaking, of the body corporate, so it could

1037
not in fact be small. No action would need to be taken.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 4, after ("of") insert ("a relevant event.
(2) In subsection (1) above "relevant event" means").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("(a) the person carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking ceases to be resident in the United Kingdom;
(b) a person not resident in the United Kingdom acquires the whole or part of the undertaking;
(c) a body corporate resident in the United Kingdom but controlled by a person not so resident acquires the whole or part of the undertaking;").—(Lord Lovell-Davies.)
4.58 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 8, leave out ("that body corporate") and insert ("a body corporate carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether we can take Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17 with Amendment No. 14. These Amendments are consequential upon those which we have just agreed. In the earlier Amendments the words, "where the person carrying on an important manufacturing undertaking or part of an important manufacturing undertaking is a body corporate", now in lines 1 to 3 on page 11, were removed. This leaves the references to "that body corporate" in lines 9 and 13, and to "it" in lines 10 and 15, without antecedents. It is therefore necessary to spell out that the body corporate is one "carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking"; and that it refers to "such a body corporate". These are verbal Amendments, and do not change the meaning from that which we have just agreed. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 10, leave out ("it") and insert ("such a body").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 13, leave out ("that body corporate") and insert ("a body corporate carrying on the whole or part of the undertaking").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendent No. 17.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 15, leave out ("it") and insert ("such a body").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 11, line 18, leave out ("one body corporate is in control of another if it is") and insert ("a body corporate or individual").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took Amendment No. 19. Amendment No. 18 provides a wider definition of control, in that it extends the definition of control to the case when an individual is entitled to cast 30 per cent. or more of the votes of a body corporate. The Bill as it stood was confined to the case when a body corporate was entitled to cast 30 per cent. of votes. The extension to individuals is necessary to make quite clear the position in paragraph (c) of subsection 11(2), where the person not resident in the United Kingdom may be either a natural person—that is, an individual—or a body corporate. The Amendment therefore brings certainty of definition to this case.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("the latter") and insert ("a body corporate is in control of that").—(Lord Berwick.)
Clause 13 [Power to make orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 2, leave out from ("and") to ("that") in line 4, and insert—
("(a) prohibit").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is a slight printing error in the Amendment as it appears on the Marshalled List. In Amendment No. 20 the words to be inserted should read ("(i) prohibit") and in Amendment No. 21 the words to be inserted should start ("and (ii) prohibit"). This substitution of (i) for (a) and (ii) for (b) is necessary because subsection (1) already contains an (a) and a (b).
I will, with permission, speak to both Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. These Amendments seek to make a prohibition order simpler and more effective. As the Bill is at present drafted the Secretary of State is entitled to make an order to prohibit actions which "in his opinion" would constitute or lead to a change of control. It would clearly be unsatisfactory simply to make a prohibition order saying that anything that the Secretary of State thought led to a change of control was prohibited; to enable those affected to know what was prohibited, the order would have to list the things which he thought would have that effect. This has the considerable disadvantage that the order would have to be very long and spell out the specific actions prohibited, and its purpose could be defeated if the person concerned took an action clearly designed to achieve a change of control, or perhaps even achieving that change of control, but which was not so specified in the prohibition order. This could come about either because he took some action not foreseen by the Secretary of State; or because he took an action which, although very close to an action specified in the order, was sufficiently different to avoid the specific prohibition.
We wish to deal with this problem by enabling an order to be completely objective; if an order simply says, "I prohibit that change of control", it will allow the Secretary of State, if an action is taken to bring about a change of control, to stop that action without the specific action having been listed in the prohibition order. There will be no question here
1040
of the Secretary of State's opinion; the question whether an action did or did not bring about a change of control would here be one in the last resort for the courts. This would be in addition to the power of the Secretary of State, as before, to specify in his order particular actions which in his opinion would constitute or lead to a change of control, so that he could still specify particular actions which must not be taken. That power may be needed to deal with people acting in collusion, or through men of straw, where a change of control may be concealed behind some facade. The clause after amendment as we propose will be very similar to the powers in the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The Amendments proposed here will, I hope, appeal to the common sense of your Lordships' House. It would be wrong for the intentions of a prohibition order to be clearly and incontrovertibly breached simply because a specific action enabling this to happen had not been listed in the order. The Amendments are designed to make the order workable without widening the power and discretion of the Secretary of State in any way.
Lord ELTON: My Lords. I think that at this late stage we must take the noble Lord's word for it that the intention of this Amendment and consequently the uses to which the Amendment is put will simply be to enable the Secretary of State to make clear what the aims of the prohibition order are, and to prevent the evasion of those aims by the inadvertent omission of one possible route of avoiding that aim being taken; provided that is the only implication which can arise from it, we are satisfied.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 20.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 4, after ("control") insert ("and
(b) prohibit or restrict the doing of things which in his opinion would constitute or lead to it;").—Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 12, line 44, after ("which") insert (", at the time that the draft of the order is

1041
laid before Parliament under section 15(3) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is intended to remove doubt. As the Bill stands it is not clear whether the shares appearing to the Secretary of State to be involved in the change of control were those which so appeared when the order was laid in draft or when it was made. By necessity, of course, the order when laid would refer to the shares as they were identified on the date when it was laid. If, however, the order could vest shares which he owned only when the order was made, it would be open to the foreigner, through some marginal sale of shares, to alter his holding before the order was made, without in any way altering his control, and thus make the order invalid. Since an order cannot be amended, any such change would require the order to be withdrawn and a new one tabled. This process could be continued indefinitely and to avoid this we wish to specify that these are the shares involved when the order is laid. This is a question of removing doubt. It is more simple and I hope noble Lords opposite will have no difficulty in accepting it.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 13, line 2, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 24, 36 and 37. On Report we promised to bring forward an amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, about how to refer to the law under which a company is incorporated. These drafting Amendments do, I hope, take full account of the point he made so well on that occasion and I am grateful to him for that help.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I know that my noble and learned friend will appreciate that the Government undertook to make these Amendments. I am not learned in the law as he is but, as a fellow Scot, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken the trouble to put down these Amendments.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move formally Amendment No. 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 14 [Notices to extend vesting orders to other holdings]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 41, after ("capital") insert ("or rights").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a simple drafting Amendment to ensure that those who have a prospective right to subscribe for share capital are covered in this subsection, as they are already in subsections 14(1) and (2).
Clause 15 [Parliamentary control of orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
"(a) in a case such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 13(2) above, after the end of a period of three months from the service of a notice under section 16(6) below of the Secretary of State's intention to lay the draft before Parliament;".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report my noble friend Lord Melchett gave an undertaking that the Government would introduce an Amendment which would achieve the effect of an Amendment which had been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. This was to provide that a vesting order could not be laid more than three months after the Secretary of State had given notice of his intention to lay such an order. This Amendment is intended to discharge that undertaking. The principle having been agreed on Report, I will not detain the House by describing it further.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 20, leave out ("subsection (2) of section 13 above") and insert ("that subsection").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should inform your Lordships that Amendment No. 28 has been misprinted by the omission of the words "of that subsection" after "(c)"and before the word "exist".
5.10 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 22, after ("order") insert ("unless such circumstances as are mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c) exist at the time when the draft of the order is laid before Parliament under subsection (3) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the noble Lord has told us there is a slight misprint here. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for identifying it and I am again in his debt.
This Amendment has two aims. First, we wish to place beyond doubt the effect of the limitation on when a vesting order may be made after a previous prohibition order. As it stood, paragraph (a) of Clause 15(4) could be interpreted as meaning that once a prohibition order had been made in respect of a company, if a vesting order was not made within three months, no vesting order could thereafter be made in respect of that company. But it would clearly be wrong if, simply because a prohibition order had been made in respect of a bid for a company by foreigner A, we were on that account six months later powerless to act when it was acquired by foreigner B. We wish to make clear that the three months' time limit applies only to a vesting in relation to the prohibition order, and does not rule out a separate vesting order being made to prevent a threatened change of control, or to deal with a change of control that has already occurred. In terms of Clause 13(2), this particular time limit is confined to paragraph (b), and does not affect vesting orders made in respect of (a) and (c).
Secondly, we wish to ensure that if at any time a prohibition order is for some reason ineffective, so that a change of control takes place or is threatened, notwithstanding that a prohibition order is in force, then a vesting order can still be made. This is not, perhaps, a very likely case, but it could come about as the result of actions taken outside the jurisdiction of United Kingdom law, and it
1044
is a possibility which we should provide for. I beg to move.
Clause 16 [Contents of vesting orders]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 15, line 11, at end insert—
("(1A) A vesting order which provides for the vesting of assets employed in an undertaking may prohibit or set aside any transfer of assets so employed or of any right in respect of such assets.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33. These Amendments close a potential loophole in the safeguarding provisions. As the Bill stands, Clause 16(2) allows a vesting order to safeguard capital or assets "which will vest" under the order. But if assets were disposed of after the intention to make a vesting order had been announced but before the order came into force, they would no longer be employed in the undertaking. Consequently, they would not vest and could not be made subject to any safeguarding provisions. To prevent this occurring, the new subsection proposed will enable transfers of assets which are covered by a vesting order, and which take place after notice has been given of the intention to make the vesting order, to be set aside. This is on the same basis as the existing provision in Clause 16(6), and introduces no new principle. It merely removes an unintended disparity between the safeguarding powers which apply when a vesting order vests assets, and the powers which apply when a vesting order vests share capital. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 15, leave out ("or assets")
Page 15, line 24, at end insert ("a transfer of")
Page 15, line 25, leave out ("(2)(a)") and insert ("(1A)").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 34, leave out ("subsection (2) above refers") and insert ("this section applies").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 15, line 36, leave out ("given notice to") and insert ("served notice on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall speak to Amendment No. 35 with this Amendment. These are drafting Amendments, to refer here as elsewhere to the "serving" of notices rather than the "giving" of notices. This brings these references into line with the rest of the Bill, and particularly with Clause 35 which defines how notices may be served. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 47, leave out ("given") and insert ("served").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 18 [Territorial scope of orders]:
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. These Amendments are consequential on Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 17, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in")
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("under the law of the United Kingdom or of a part of") and insert ("in").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 20 [Arbitration of disputes relating to vesting and compensation orders]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("any dispute which arises in connection with") and insert ("a dispute which arises out of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 43. These Amendments are designed to clarify the relationship between the courts and the arbitration tribunal provided for in Schedule 3. As the Bill now stands, any dispute arising in connection with a vesting or compensation order must go to the arbitration tribunal. It is possible that this could be construed as meaning that the question of whether an order was ultra vires would have to be considered by the
1046
tribunal, and could not be considered by the courts. We think it quite wrong to prevent the courts dealing with the vires of an order, and this Amendment is designed to ensure that this unintended construction is not put on the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 17, line 33, after ("corporate") insert ("the whole or part of")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment provides that a dispute may be considered by the arbitration tribunal if a company, the whole or part of whose shares had been vested, is a party to it rather than this being confined to a company the whole of whose share capital had been vested. This is a simple consequential Amendment. As a matter of logic, the arbitration tribunal should be able to consider a dispute if a body corporate only part of whose share capital is being vested is a party to it. As the Bill is drafted, this would not be possible unless the whole of its share capital is vested. This is to be widened by the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 40. This is a misprint which should read "either of them" not "either or them".
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 34, leave out first ("or") and insert ("of").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert—
("(a) if the provisions of the order require it to be submitted to arbitration; or
(b) if one of the parties wishes it to be so submitted;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment we are to take Amendment No. 62. This brings up the possibility that all those who are parties to a dispute arising out of an order would prefer to see it settled in the courts—which may be quicker and cheaper—rather than by the arbitration tribunal. The courts are, of course, already in existence whereas a tribunal might need to be specially constituted. As the Bill stands, it is not possible for a matter to be dealt

1047
with by the courts: all disputes must go to the arbitration tribunal. This we wish to amend, to ensure that there is automatic recourse to the arbitration tribunal if any party to a dispute arising out of the order wishes to take the question to arbitration, but leaving open the possibility of resolving the question in the courts. This in no way prevents a party to a dispute taking the matter to the arbitration tribunal, but it allows the parties—if all are unanimous—to resolve the matter in the courts. I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 together. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 38.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 35, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("out of")
Page 17, line 37, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("out of").—(Lord Beswick.)
Clause 22 [Extension of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972]:
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 44:
Leave out Clause 22 and insert the following new Clause:
Extension of powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972
"22. The provisions of Part I of Schedule (Amendments to Part II of Industry Act 1972) to this Act shall be made to the Industry Act 1972 and accordingly Part II of that Act shall have effect as set out in Part II of the Schedule."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendment No. 63. These are technical Amendments whose function is to deal with Clause 22. I should say, since I appear to be carrying Clause 22 with loving and careful hands from one end of the Bill to the other, that I am not at all well disposed towards what it does and would not wish to be regarded as having fathered it in any way. That aside, it seemed to me and my colleagues that it would be to the public interest if it were presented in such a way that it could be understood by the layman without too much recourse to legal advice. Therefore, with considerable help—for which I am grateful—from the Public Bill Office, I
1048
resorted to the device of a Keeling schedule which repeats in Clause 63 the substance of the sections in the 1972 Act as they will appear after they have been amended, as well as putting down the Amendments as they are printed at present in the body of Clause 22. It is a simple operation in appearance, but it is a delicate operation. I hope that it will be to the convenience of the users of the Bill, as well as to the House, that this Amendment should be carried.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly do not intend to saddle the noble Lord with the responsibility for the Bill or for this clause of the Bill. But I commend his action in making its wording clearer, and I am glad to accept the Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it would be greatly amiss not to acknowledge my personal debt to the noble Lord, not only for his accession to that point of view, but also for pointing out two verbal slips in the drafting of the Amendment.
Clause 27 [Disclosure of information by Government]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is simply a drafting Amendment, in order to refer to "the" Treasury. God does not need the definite article, but for the time being the Treasury does.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, after ("and") insert ("the").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Clause 28 [Persons to whom duty to disclose information applies]:
5.22 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 22, line 6, at end insert:
(""employee representative" means a person who is employed by the company or companies concerned and who is elected to represent employees, or any group or class of employees, of the company or companies concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that with this Amendment it would be convenient to consider Amendment No. 69 which is the consequential Amendment to the long Title of the Bill. The

1049
House has had opportunities for full discussion at the Committee and Report stages of the Bill of the various possibilities at this point of the Bill, and this Amendment is tabled after having taken fully into account all that was said on those occasions from both sides of the House. The Amendment completes a group of amendments which the House has already made to the Bill. I commend the Amendment as the most suitable description for the purposes of this Part of the Bill; that is, the wording at the beginning of the subsection.
The Government set themselves a problem, which all of us who have been considering this Part of the Bill have also had, when they embarked on a system of compulsory disclosure. It raises the question of indicating the categories of person who can be the representatives of the workforce of a company. There are many different situations in the circumstances of different companies. Where information is being satisfactorily disclosed now under voluntary arrangements, companies use the system thought to be best and most suitable in each case.
Let us consider the Government's original proposal which was relevant to trade union representatives. That raised at least two objections. I remind your Lordships that it would not necessarily have meant employees of the company. That was the first objection. The second objection was that it would have been unsatisfactory when companies had a large proportion of their workforce—or even a majority—who were not members of trade unions; and there are tens of thousands of employees in manufacturing industry who are not members of unions.
We do not need to go into that again, but I wish to remind the House of the reasons behind our arguments in the previous debates. We have to cater for the different situations in various companies. Of course, we could have put forward another kind of Amendment to cover every possibility. That would have been a very long Amendment. It would not have been easy even then to be sure of covering every situation which exists in every company; some have works councils while others do not, and so on. But I also submit that it is not necessary to try to cover every possibility for this purpose. Certainly the Government did not undertake to do that in their original
1050
version; nor have we. If the original wording in the Bill as the Government presented it had been retained, it would not then have been clear which trade union representatives were to be designated under this Part of the Bill; for example, in some large companies there are many unions—l5 or more—whereas there is only a handful of representatives presumably expected to act in this role under this Part of the Bill. Therefore the company had the task of deciding who were the relevant ones, to use the original words. Under this Amendment it will still require common sense and reasonableness in the light of the situation of each company, and so what was recognised in the original version of the Bill also applies here.
There is a possibility, which those of us who have been concerned about getting right the wording in this Part of the Bill have recognised, of an extremist group—anarchists or whatever you like—deciding to get together inside a company and to elect a representative. I believe that that situation existed anyway. Unfortunately, extremists can do the same within trade unions as well as outside trade unions. Under the Bill as it stands at present it is still a matter for the company concerned to select the representatives for the purposes of this Part of the Bill.
The Amendment has been left to this stage, the Third Reading, in order to gain the benefit of all the previous debates on this subject, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will recognise this. There is no intention of inconveniencing the Government by leaving this Amendment to this stage. We simply wanted to take account of the views which have been put on all sides of the House, and I and my noble friends, as well as the Liberal Party, now put forward this as being what we believe to be the best Amendment for this Part of the Bill, to complete the group of Amendments that have already been passed. We think that it is necessary guidance, that it should be in the Bill, and that it conforms with the Amendments already made. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, the issue as to whether disclosure should be to employee representatives or trade union representatives has been debated many

1051
times in your Lordships' House, and it is quite unnecessary to go over the ground again at this stage. There was a substantial body of opinion in the House that in this Bill the appropriate term was "employee representative" and my noble friends on these Benches supported that view. This Amendment is really the interpretation clause for that particular term "employee representative", and on behalf of my noble friends I wish to commend the Amendment to the House.
5.26 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said, we have had a good many discussions on this point. I believe that noble Lords opposite have been wrong in the Amendments they have made to the Bill hitherto. I say that although I recognise fully the kind of doubts and anxieties they have about the wording which the Government had in the Bill. But if anything emphasises the fact that noble Lords opposite are wrong, it is this Amendment. It discloses the weakness of the case they have hitherto put forward. I seriously ask them to think again as to whether they want a situation in which employees of a company, who freely of their own decision have a professional to represent them—a trade unionist, a trade union official—and to put forward their case, find in this Bill a provision which would make it impossible for this man to represent them. Surely that is entirely wrong?
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that that would be as illogical as to have an Act of Parliament which stated that no citizen of this country shall be represented in the courts by a member of the legal profession. The trade union official stands in the same relation to the employees as does the lawyer to his client—
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will agree that there is nothing in this definition clause which prevents a trade union official from being the employee representative?
Lord BESWICK: The Amendment says that an:
"employee representative' means a person who is employed by the company or companies concerned …",
But many trade union officials—and indeed in larger companies almost all
1052
trade union officials—are not employees of the companies concerned. If there were a serious case which the employees wished to have considered, and where they had hitherto relied upon a trade union official, this provision would make it impossible for them to call upon him. I put it quite seriously to the noble Lord that it would be a mistake to have this type of definition in the Bill. I say, as I have said before, that, having sympathy for the general approach that noble Lords opposite have displayed on some of these matters, it is not in their interest to have this kind of Amendment made to the Bill.
On the other point, the other Lord has already indicated that this is a weakness in the Amendment. It would be possible for any group of persons, whether responsible or irresponsible, to demand the right to have the information given to them. Any group or class of employees—not a trade union group; not a registered trade unionist responsible over a period of years who has had a position in the company; not such people but some other group—could demand that they be so treated. I would say, looking at it from the point of view of the management of a company, that if they had to conform to the law as the noble Lords opposite intend to amend it, the managers would be in considerable difficulty. I will not say I beg of noble Lords opposite because I am sure that another place would put this right, but I suggest that this is not an Amendment which they should press.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I could comment on the noble Lord's two points. First, so far as professional trade union representation is concerned, one has to bear in mind that one is dealing with major manufacturing undertakings in this case. This is what Clause 28 is all about. It says:
"… including the outlook for the major companies in that sector, that Minister, if it appears to him that one of the following conditions is satisfied … may serve a preliminary notice on the company or companies concerned".
In the major companies it is to be expected that the elected trade union representatives would have considerable experience; and, indeed, the elected representatives of other employees would also have experience.

1053
My Lords, I gather from the further observations made by the noble Lord that he is under some misapprehension about this. We are not saying that trade union representatives should not be chosen by the employer as among the people to whom to give the information: and let the noble Lord bear in mind that, as he will see if he reads the Bill carefully, whether or not it is intended, it is the employer who chooses the people to whom he is going to give the information, and he passes that to the Secretary of State. Obviously, in a closed shop he has no option: quite obviously, he chooses the trade union representatives in the closed shop. Where there are a number of trade union representatives, then I should think he will choose those from the number of trade unions involved; if there is a works council as well he will probably choose them, too; or if there is such a variety that the works council is a better instrument to use, he will choose representatives of the works council. But the whole glory of this is the flexibility, the ability to adjust to the needs and circumstances of the particular company.
This is what we think participation and democracy is about. It is about variety, not about straitjackets and particular formulae devised, prescribed and prefabricated by a Government. This is what we are concerned with here; and I really think there is nothing here that would force an employer to choose some militant minority group. As the noble Lord said, they could demand representation, but I should be very surprised indeed if they got it, if they were chosen as employee representatives in those circumstances. Obviously, you are not going to have representatives of any conceivable kind of group. You could have groups of all kinds within a company for different purposes. What we are concerned with are the groups which are in contact collectively with the management and are those which are negotiating with the management those which are recognised by the management in some form or other, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said before. Whatever their status—whether they are staff associations, whether they are works councils, whether they are trade unions or whatever—everybody can be represented with the purpose that all employees in that organisation are represented in some way or other. This
1054
is the really important thing, that they should all be represented, and not just those who happen to belong to trade unions.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not greeted this Amendment. Though he did not like the other Amendments where "employee representatives" were inserted in the Bill, I had hoped that he would be able to congratulate us on having found the right formula at this point in the Bill. I think the objection he has raised is that there could be some trade unionists who might be the representatives but who, because they are not employed by the manufacturing company in question, would not be eligible for this operation. But in those circumstances, surely where a company had a large part or a considerable part of its workforce as members of trade unions, there would also be trade unionists who were employees.
This is not information for collective bargaining. I think it is important that I should re-emphasise this. The purposes of the Bill are to provide information in the manufacturing area involving certain companies, and it is very much an individual company matter. On Monday I was supporting an Amendment to the Employment Protection Bill in the section of that Bill on the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes. That is another Bill before this House and there is a whole section of it dealing with the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes where it is quite appropriate for trade union representatives to be acting in the normal way. But in this Bill, as we see it, it is a matter for each individual company. The information is being provided to the Government and then the Government decide, with the help of an appeals committee, what information should also go to the employee representatives of that company. It is not to be confused with the provision of information for collective bargaining purposes, which of course is where trade union representatives would come in on a wider scale.
As my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn has pointed out, in some cases this enables very large groups, perhaps the majority of employees in a company who

1055
are not members of a union, to be represented. In any case, as the Bill was originally drafted—because this has not been changed—in line 24 on page 22 of the Bill, the choice of the employee representatives is with the employer. The company has to decide, under the original version of the Bill, on the relevant trade union representatives. As I indicated earlier, if a very large company has 20 trade unions who cover membership of the employees, that could be quite a difficult choice. If there were tens of thousands of employees and there were only about a dozen people in one union, presumably that would not be a relevant trade union representative. So the choice still lies with the employer, and as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out, the employer is most unlikely to choose the representative of a small group which might be formed in the circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord and which represented some extremist view. But I must repeat that that danger would have applied also to the original trade union representation because, unfortunately, we know only too well that there are some trade union leaders who are Communists and whose declared aims are to destroy the structure of what they call the capitalist system that is to say, private industry. So one could as probably get a representative of a very small minority whose interests were not the same as the interests of the company within the trade union system as outside it.
I recognise that the noble Lord has pointed out that this could mean that a trade unionist who was not employed by the company would not be included, but we do not believe that for the purposes of this Bill that matters. He is involved in other things—collective bargaining, and so on. This formula gives a much wider representation and it enables other employees who are not members of a union also to have representation in the very different circumstances which one finds in different companies throughout the country. I hope the Government will accept this, even though I recognise that it does not fit in with the general proposals which they put before us at the beginning.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so, I was appalled at the noble Lord's
1056
attitude in certain parts of his speech. When he said that this is not a matter for negotiating pay and conditions, and therefore it does not concern the trade unionists, that showed an attitude of mind—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that it did not concern the trade unionists, but that the information here was of concern within the company. The Bill that I was speaking about on Monday—I do not know whether the noble Lord was here then when I spoke at some length on the Employment Protection Bill—is to deal with information for collective bargaining. The wider representation of the unions, not necessarily restricted to an individual manufacturing company, would be relevant where it would not be relevant here.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads the Report of what he has said, I think he will find that I did not misrepresent him. He said that this is not concerned with collective bargaining, and therefore we need not bring the full-time professional union official into it. That is the case that he has been making: because this has nothing to do with pay and conditions of service. But this is contrary—and here I am ranging widely—to the whole of the thinking over recent years. Surely noble Lords opposite want to get trade union officials thinking of something broader than simply pay and conditions of service. What a state of affairs we should be in at the present time if Mr. Jack Jones had concerned himself only with pay and conditions of service. Think of the contribution now being made in various bodies by trade union officials, because they are looking rather more widely than hitherto, rather more widely than pay and conditions of service.
I read—and I ask noble Lords to look at it—the document which the Transport and General Workers' Union circulated about a month ago, when they said that it is no longer enough to think about pay and conditions of service, and that they have to think about a fair society. They are trying to educate their people to consider social and national considerations as a whole. Noble Lords should welcome this, instead of saying that because it does not affect negotiating matters, they need

1057
not be brought in. Let us look at what the Bill says. It says:
"… which is needed to form or to further national economic policies, or needed for consultations between Government, employers or workers on the outlook for a particular sector of manufacturing industry, …".
These are broad considerations. These are matters on which the trade union officials should be consulted. I think that the noble Lord is going backwards if he is trying to exclude them from matters of this sort.
He mentioned—and allowed himself to expose fears which he really ought to keep hidden a little more—that some of the trade union officials may be Communists. Of course they may; but I
know of far more cases where the trade union official is not a Communist, and where there have been groups of Communists in the company concerned which the trade union official has done his utmost to try to restrain. Let us not think that because a trade unionist is an official and full-time member, he is not a responsible person. In my experience, they are among some of the most responsible people in the community. I think it would be wrong to legislate for their exclusion. I hope that the House will reject this Amendment.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 46) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 84; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alport, L.

Falkland, V.

Pike, B.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amulree, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rhyl, L.

Armstrong, L.

Goschen, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Halisham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Salisbury, M.

Caccia, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Halsbury, E.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Harvington, L.

Seear, B.

Cathcart, E.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Somers, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Kimberley, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sudeley, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Long, V.

Terrington, L.

Craigton, L.

Loudoun, C.

Trefgarne, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Mansfield, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Digby, L.

Meston, L.

Wigoder, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Elles, B.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

Newall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

McLeavy, L.

Aylestone, L.

Feversham, L.

Mais, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hall, V.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Chorley, L.

Hough ton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Colison, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Willis, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.52 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 22, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) A Minister shall not serve such a preliminary notice unless it appears to him that the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information to him and to employee representatives.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment because we expected the Government to have given further thought to this point and to have put down an Amendment or Amendments themselves to simplify the procedure in this part of the Bill on the disclosure of information by compulsion. If one looks at Part IV of the Bill, a company could be excused if they were to consider that it was unduly complicated. They could well conclude, as we do, that there are more stages, and more action required at the various stages, than are really necessary. I have raised this matter on the Committee and Report stages and have been in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I accept his reply that the Government have looked at this again and indicated that they do not want to make changes or try to shorten or streamline the procedure. I must make it clear we still think it is more complicated than necessary and that more action is necessitated than is required. More hoops than are needed have to be jumped through at various stages.
Surely the procedure should not be started unless it is clear that a company are not prepared to produce the information voluntarily. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said at an earlier stage that it was the Government's intention not to engage this machinery in the Bill unless the Minister had already satisfied himself that a company were not prepared to provide the information voluntarily. We cannot understand why this should not be in the Bill at this point. It is provided in the Bill at the next stage. If your Lordships turn to page 23 of the Bill, you will see the same wording as in my Amendment. That is at the stage
1060
where a Minister is going to make an order. It says:
"A Minister shall not make such an order unless it appears to him that the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information …".
At the earlier stage of serving a preliminary notice, the names of the companies are to be submitted to Parliament. It is not as if it is some early private note to a company. This is engaging the machinery and providing the names of companies to Parliament. It could well be that the appearance of a company's name on a list before this House and in another place could give an impression that the company was laggard or backsliding in the provision of information, or indeed they could be regarded as transgressors—as having failed to provide the information—unless it is clearly written into the Bill that the Minister is of the opinion that they are not willing to provide it voluntarily.
As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indicated this was the way the Government intended to operate. I should like to have his assurance on that and, if so, we cannot think why this should not be written into the Bill so that it is perfectly clear. When a company's name is submitted to Parliament, everybody will know, including those outside Parliament who are following these things, that the Minister has already asked the company to provide the information and, at the first reaction, the company are not prepared to give it. I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
5.56 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I was asked whether I would confirm that it is the intention that this information disclosure should be a voluntary arrangement. As I have said previously, and I say again, we believe there should, and will in the overwhelming majority of cases, be a voluntary arrangement. Undoubtedly that is the best way of getting the necessary confidence and cooperation in any company. The noble Lord asked why we did not therefore put it in the Bill again in the form of words he has selected. The assurance I have repeated—which has been given in

1061
the other House as well—is incorporated in the Bill. May I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph (b) of the definition of a preliminary notice on page 22 of the Bill. This establishes that an order will be made only,
"if the Minister is not satisfied that information … will be given voluntarily both to him and to employee representatives".
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (6) of Clause 28, which firmly and explicitly states that no order may he made unless it appears to the Minister that,
"the company or companies concerned will not voluntarily furnish the information to him and to employee representatives".
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: Would the noble Lord give way? That was the part I quoted. It is because it is written in the Bill at that stage that I cannot understand why it is not also included in the earlier stage, when the preliminary notice is to be given and the names of the companies submitted to Parliament.
Lord BESWICK: That is because I am suggesting it is not necessary. It is a voluntary arrangement and these powers are not invoked unless it is seen that the voluntary arrangements are inadequate.
The question raised by the Amendment is therefore not whether the power to require information by order will be used when voluntary arrangements are adequate: the Bill already rules this out. It is rather the narrower question—and this is what the noble Lord is getting at—of whether a further provision is necessary, to prevent a preliminary notice being issued if voluntary arrangements would be adequate. But why would a Minister make a preliminary notice in circumstances where there could be no question of an order being made? It would be an absurd and pointless exercise, leading to and achieving nothing. I therefore believe that this Amendment is simply unnecessary, since the real point—that the power to require information by orders should not extend to occasions when voluntary arrangements are acceptable—has already been fully and explicitly met in the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has not fully understood the point of my Amendment. This Bill has been spread over weeks, indeed months, and I do not know whether he remembers that at an
1062
earlier stage he stated categorically that the preliminary notice would not be served until a Minister had satisfied himself that a company was not prepared to disclose the information voluntarily. The part which he and I have quoted from the Bill is from a later stage, where the Minister does not make an order unless he has so satisfied himself. What I am saying is that the Minister also gave the same undertaking—it is recorded in Hansard—concerning the preliminary notice. Having been given that undertaking, I was suggesting that this ought to have been in the Bill so that it is clear to everybody that what applies at the top of page 23 in subsection (6) also applies, as the noble Lord the Minister has said it would, to the preliminary notice which is served earlier.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt; and I do so only in order to ask a question. Why should a preliminary notice be given at all if it is quite obvious that the voluntary arrangements are working?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, because we think the Government should have put to a company a request for certain information. I must remind him again—I do not want to go over ground that we covered during the last debate and resume the small controversy we had on that occasion—that it is the Government in the first place who are asking for information, for economic reasons and not for the purposes of collective bargaining. It is the Government who ask the company for information in the first place, and then, later, the question of the disclosure of that information to the unions is considered. In the meantime, it is possible that the company is carrying out very satisfactorily the ordinary communication of information to its employees, but because one of the purposes of this Bill is to obtain information for certain national economic reasons, the Government will ask a company to provide a certain item of information. We hope that in most circumstances the company would say "Yes", because it would be the kind of information which the Government would expect to receive and which the company ought to give; but the company, knowing that that information may also become public later if passed to union representatives or

1063
employee representatives, might disagree. At that stage the Government serve a preliminary notice.
On a previous occasion—which I fear the noble Lord may have forgotten, quite understandably, because there have been so many Bills before this House spread over so many weeks—the noble Lord stated that the preliminary notice would not be served unless the Minister had asked for the information and the company had made it clear they were not prepared to supply it. We accepted that if in fact the company did not refuse but just took a long time to supply the information, that would be a reasonable case for a preliminary notice; but we also thought that the wording—and it was not wording which I thought up: it was wording from the Bill at a later stage—should be put in here because it simply carries out the undertaking and the explanation of the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, gave at an earlier stage.
I realise that at this stage of the Bill, by leave of the House, I can speak twice, but no more, so that I am quite ready to give way to the noble Lord the Minister if there is anything more that he wishes to add on this. But it will be important for it to be understood, when this Bill comes into operation, that the preliminary notice, according to what the Minister said at an earlier stage, is served only when the Minister has satisfied himself that he has asked for certain information, which at that stage is not going to the trade unions but meanwhile the supply of information within the company to employees is being carried out under other arrangements. either voluntary ones or in connection with requirements which are already enacted or which will be required under the Employment Protection Bill, which covers the question of information needed for collective bargaining purposes. So we could have the situation where a company has a very satisfactory system of supplying information to its employees, yet when the Government ask for some major piece of information connected with economic planning the company fails to respond favourably. Only then is the preliminary notice to be served and the name of the company submitted to Parliament.
1064
That is what the Minister said on an earlier occasion, and this Amendment would have the effect of carrying it out. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say anything more?—I am sorry, but it appears that he is not going to say anything more at this stage. I certainly do not intend to press this Amendment, but I would tell him that it is exceedingly important that companies should know that the Minister has said at an earlier stage that a preliminary notice would not be served until the Minister was satisfied that the company was not going to supply the information voluntarily. Under this Bill, that has nothing to do with the system of supplying information within the company, which operation may be going on quite satisfactorily on other subjects.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I certainly confirm that undertaking, but there is really nothing more I can add to it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in that case I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Duty to give information to Minister]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
Page 24, line 5, leave out ("or")
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("under paragraph (c) above is to be construed") and insert ("which is made, wholly or partly, in relation to a future specified date or a future specified period, is to be construed, to the extent that it relates to that date or that period,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I take both Amendments together. The purpose of these Amendments is quite straightforward. We wish to make it clear that we may require information under one, or two, or all three of the descriptions given in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection 29(3). As it was drafted, the word "or" might have been read as suggesting these were alternatives, and that would clearly be wrong. We wish to be able to ask for information about both the present and the future, not just the present or the future.
We therefore propose two Amendments: the first is simply to delete "or",

1065
and thus remove the suggestion that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are alternatives. The second Amendment, although more complex in its drafting, is designed to remove the suggestion that a requirement for information would necessarily fall under one, and only one, head. The phrases, "wholly or partly", and, "to the extent that it relates" are intended to make it quite clear that information may be required about the future only, or that information about the future may be only a part of the information required. I beg to move.
Clause 30 [Information for trade unions]:
6.8 p.m.
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 24, line 27, leave out from ("companies") to second ("the") in line 29.
Page 24, line 32, at end insert ("and any notice served under this subsection shall specify a reasonable period, which shall not be less than 28 days, as the period within which references may be required under section 31(1) below.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 hang together, and it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to then) together. The Amendments are designed to clarify a confusion about timetables which exists in Clauses 30 and 31. As the Bill reads at present, there is some confusion between the time limit provisionally set for the provision of information by Clause 30(1)(a), the time within which a reference can be required to the independent committee under 31(1), and the time limit definitively set for the provision of information. That is the kind of thing that could arise as the Bill is at present drafted.
The notice under Clause 30(1)(a) would set a time limit within which information was provisionally required, and Clause 31(1) would make it clear that at any time up to the end of that period a reference may be required to the independent committee. Clause 31(10) and (11) envisage that once the time for requiring reference to the committee is past, a new time limit will be established within which the information must be furnished. The Amendments remove this
1066
confusion and set up a clear timetable. The notice under Clause 30(1)(a) will inform the company that they arc provisionally required to provide the information to employee representatives and will tell the company how long they have to exercise their right to require a reference to the committee under Clause 31(1). If this time expires without a reference being required, under Clause 31(10) and (11) the Minister will tell them that the provisional requirement has become final, and will set the date by which it has to be carried out.
I said that I would clarify the confusion. I am not absolutely sure that I have succeeded immediately, but I think that if noble Lords read my words they will see that what I have said does set things right.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, having been able to look beforehand at the changes the noble Lord is proposing I would say that this is a clarification which is helpful. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, we were hoping that there would be even more clarification and simplification, but this certainly is helpful. May I at this point indicate something which we were not able to do by Amendment but which requires a change before the Bill is reprinted to go to another place. The marginal rubric does of course need to be changed in view of both Clause 30, which we are considering now, and the following clause: it is no longer "trade unions" but "employee representatives". I hope that will be noted so that that change, which cannot be dealt with by Amendment, is carried out as a further clarification before the Bill leaves us.
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 52 to 55:
Page 29, line 29, after ("means") insert ("subject to subsection (1A) below,")
Page 29, line 30, leave out ("March") and insert ("December")
Page 29, line 32, leave out ("March") and insert ("December").
Page 30, line 16, at end insert—
"(1A) The Secretary of State may direct that any accounting year of the Board shall end on a date before or after that on which it would otherwise end."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 52, 53, 54 and 55 might with convenience be taken together. I would be quite ready to accept criticism from noble Lords opposite if they say that we have taken a long time to come to these Amendments, but it is a fact that there are sound arguments which have become apparent for making the change I am suggesting. Under Section 153 of the Companies Act, the directors of a holding company must ensure that, except where in their opinion there are good reasons against it, the financial year of its subsidiaries coincides with the company's own financial year. Since the NEB will be required to adopt the best commercial standards in accounting matters, it follows that the NEB and their subsidiaries should have the same financial year.
In the early years the NEB's principal financial subsidiaries will be the Rolls-Royce Company and British Leyland. The Rolls-Royce financial year already ends on 31st December and British Leyland's at present ends on 30th September and arrangements are being made to change it to 31st December so that they will all coincide. I am sure one would agree that it is advantageous and in accordance with the best practices, and I beg to move.
Clause 38 [Citation etc.]:
6.13 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 31, line 11, after ("Act") insert (", not being enactments to which section 22 applies,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 67 at the same time as to No. 56. Both Amendments are in effect consequential on Amendment No. 44. Clause 38, to which this Amendment relates, gives effect to minor amendments to the 1972 Act consequential upon the enactment of this Bill. It is proper therefore that all such Amendments that fall within that part of the 1972 Act to which the Schedule incorporated in the Bill by Amendment No. 63 applies should appear in that Schedule. The parts of the Act affected by the Schedule and recapitulated therein are Sections 7, 8 and 9. This Amendment
1068
is therefore a signpost to Amendment No. 67 in which consequential Amendments to those sections of the 1972 Act are removed from Schedule 6 and placed in the new Schedule after Schedule 3, thus enabling all alterations to the 1972 Act to be seen at a glance in one place. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this Amendment is consequential on No. 44, as indeed would be Nos. 63 and 67, and they all effect improvements which we are glad to accept.
Schedule 1 [The National Enterprise Board]:
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. The present wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 implies that the Board can have only one deputy chairman, whereas subsection (4) of the first clause of the Bill states specifically that the Secretary of State may appoint one or more of the Board's members to be deputy chairman or deputy chairmen. This very small Amendment remedies the anomaly and brings paragraph 4 into line with paragraphs 3 and 5. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 24, at end insert ("a").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 2 [Financial and administrative provisions relating to the Board]:
Lord BESWICK Lord BESWICK moved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 36, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) References to borrowing in this paragraph do not include borrowing under section 3 above.")
Page 36, line 18, after ("borrow") insert ("from him under paragraph 1 above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 are intended to correct a somewhat obscure technical deficiency in the Bill which has come to light. Clause 3 of the Bill enables the Board to exercise under the direction of the Secretary of State's powers to give selective financial assistance under the Industry Act 1972. The Secretary of State must however reimburse the Board

1069
with the cost for providing such assistance. Thus under subsection (11) if the Board makes a loan to a company the Secretary of State must make a loan of the same amount to the Board. The difficulty arises because, as the Bill stands at present, loans by the Secretary of State to the Board come from the National Loans Fund under the provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. Selective financial assistance loans are normally at concessionary rates of interest, but loans from the National Loans Fund are not allowed to be at concessionary rates: interest must cover the cost of Treasury borrowing. Obviously, we want the NEB to be able to give concessionary loans against reimbursement when acting on behalf of the Secretary of State in the same way as the Secretary of State is able to give concessionary loans when acting directly. I am sure this is the right provision to make and I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS Lord LOVELL-DAVIS moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 39, line 14, after ("Board") insert ("(other than interim statements under subparagraph (4) below)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government accepted a Liberal proposal in another place that, in addition to producing annual accounts and statements of accounts, the Board should also produce an interim statement after the first six months of each accounting year. There is provision in the Bill for the annual accounts to be audited, but it was never the intention that the interim accounts should be audited. This is not entirely clear in the Bill as presently drafted and this Amendment is intended to make the provision quite unambiguous. The Government envisage that the NEB's half-yearly interim financial statements will be similar to those which companies quoted on the Stock Exchange are required to produce under the Rules of Admission of Securities. It is not the normal practice for these brief interim statements of financial results to be audited. The Bill provides however for the NEB's interim statements to be laid before Parliament. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, this minor technical Amendment puts right an anomaly in Schedule 2. Throughout Schedule 2, with one exception, the term "accounting year" is used and it is defined in Clause 36. The term "financial year" has, however, crept into paragraph 7(3). This is not defined although it was intended to mean the same as "accounting year". It is clearly desirable that the same term should be used throughout the Bill and this Amendment seeks to remedy this anomaly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 30, leave out ("financial") and insert ("accounting").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
Schedule 3 [Arbitration]:
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, we discussed this Amendment with Amendment No. 41. I beg to move Amendment No. 62.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 22, at end insert (", at a time when no proceedings relating to it have been commenced in any court,").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we discussed Amendment No. 63 with Amendments Nos. 44 and 56, and therefore my longest Amendment will have my shortest introduction. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 3, insert the following new Schedule:—

SCHEDULE
  AMENDMENTS TO PART II OF INDUSTRY ACT 1972

    PART I
    Amendments extending powers to give selective financial assistance under Industry Act 1972
    1. The following provisions of section 7 (selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas) of the Industry Act 1972 are repealed, namely—

    (a) the words in subsection (4) from the beginning to "and"(which restrict the power to give assistance by means of investment by acquisition of loan or share capital to cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that financial assistance cannot, or cannot appropriately, be given in any other way); and

    (b) subsection (5) (which requires the Secretary of State to dispose of shares or stock as soon as, in his opinion, it is reasonably practicable to do so).

    2. The following provisions of section 8 of that Act (general powers of selective financial assistance) are repealed, namely—

    (a) subsection (1)(c) (which prevents the exercise of the powers conferred by the section unless financial assistance cannot, or cannot appropriately, be provided otherwise than by the Secretary of State);

    (b) in subsection (3)—

    (i) the words from the beginning to "and" in the first place where it occurs, (which correspond to the words in section 7(4) repealed by paragraph (1)(a) above); and

    (ii) paragraph (b) (which prevents the Secretary of State, in exercise of his powers under the section, acquiring more than half, by nominal value, of the equity share capital of any company);

    (c) subsection (4) (which corresponds to section 7(5)); and

    (d) subsection (5) (which limits the duration of the Secretary of State's powers under making of a payment in pursuance of an undertaking previously given, to the period ending 31st December 1977).

    Minor and consequential amendments to Part II of Industry Act 1972
    3. In section 7(4) of that Act (selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas), for the words "so described" there shall be substituted the words "described in subsection (3)(a) above".
    4. In section 8(3) of that Act (selective financial assistance: general powers), for the words "so described" there shall be substituted the words "described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section".
    5. The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 9 of that Act (Industrial Development Advisory Board):—
    "(5) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State's functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act includes a reference to his functions under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975."

    PART II OF INDUSTRY ACT 1972 AS AMENDED BY THIS ACT
    PART II

      FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRY
      Selective financial assistance for industry in assisted areas
      7.—(1) For the purposes set out in the following provisions of this section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assisitance where, in his opinion—

      (a) the financial assistance is likely to provide, maintain or safeguard employment in any part of the assisted areas, and

      (b) the undertakings for which the assistance is provided are or will be wholly or mainly in the assisted areas.

      (2) The purposes mentioned in subsection (1) of this section are—

      (a) to promote the development or modernisation of an industry,

      (b) to promote the efficiency of an industry,

      (c) to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in an industry, or in undertakings in an industry,

      (d) to promote the reconstruction, reorganisation or conversion of an industry or of undertakings in an industry,

      (e) to encourage the growth of or the proper distribution of undertakings in, an industry,

      (f) to encourage arrangements for ensuring that any contraction of an industry proceeds in an orderly way.

      (3) Subject to the following provisions of this section, financial assistance under this section may be given on any terms or conditions, and by any description of investment or lending or guarantee, or by making grants, and may, in particular, be—

      (a) investment by acquisition of loan or share capital in any company, including an acquisition effected by the Secretary of State through another company, being a company formed for the purpose of giving financial assistance under this Part of this Act,

      (b) investment by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets,

      (c) a loan, whether secured or unsecured and whether or not carrying interest, or interest at a commercial rate,

      (d) any form of insurance or guarantee to meet any contingency, and in particular to meet default on payment of a loan, or of interest on a loan, or non-fulfilment of a contract.

      (4)… The Secretary of State, in giving financial assistance in the way described in subsection (3)(a) above shall not acquire any shares or stock in a company without the consent of that company.
      (5) …
      (6) In this section "industry", unless the context otherwise requires, includes any description of commercial activity, and references to an industry include references to any section of an industry.
      (7) In this section "the assisted areas" means the development areas, the intermediate areas and Northern Ireland.
      Selective financial assistance: general powers.
      8.—(1) For the purposes set out in subsection (2) of the last preceding section the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, provide financial assistance where, in his opinion—

      (a) the financial assistance is likely to benefit the economy of the United Kingdom, or of any part or area of the United Kingdom, and

      (b) it is in the national interest that the financial assistance should be provided on

      1073
      the scale, and in the form and manner, proposed.

      (c)…

      (2) Financial assistance under this section may, subject to the following provisions of this section, be given in any of the ways set out in subsection (3) of the last preceding section.
      (3) … The Secretary of State, in giving financial assistance in the way described in subsection (3)(a) of the last preceding section—

      (a) shall not acquire any shares or stock in a company without the consent of that company,

      (b) …

      (4) …
      (5) …
      (6) The aggregate of—

      (a) the sums paid by the Secretary of State under this section, plus

      (b) the liabilities of the Secretary of State under any guarantees given by him under this section (exclusive of any liability in respect of interest on a principal sum so guaranteed).

      less any sum received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans under this section, or repayment of principal sums paid to meet a guarantee under this section, shall not at any time exceed the limit specified in subsection (7) below.
      (7) The said limit shall be £150 million, but the Secretary of State may, on not more than four occasions, by order made with the consent of the Treasury increase or further increase that limit by a sum specified in the order, being a sum not exceeding £100 million.
      An order under this subsection shall be contained in a statutory instrument, and such an order shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament.
      (8) The sums which the Secretary of State pays or undertakes to pay by way of financial assistance under this section in respect of any one project shall not exceed £5 million, except so far as any excess over the said sum of £5 million has been authorised by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament:
      Provided that this subsection shall not apply where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the payment or undertaking is urgently needed at a time when it is impracticable to obtain the approval of the Commons House of Parliament; and in that case the Secretary of State shall lay a statement concerning the financial assistance before each House of Parliament.
      Industrial Development Advisory Board
      9.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a board, which shall be called the Industrial Development Advisory Board, to advise him with respect to the exercise of his functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act.
      (2) The Board shall consist of a chairman and not less than six nor more than twelve other members.
      (3) The members of the Board shall include persons who appear to the Secretary of State to have wide experience of, and to have shown capacity in, industry, banking, accounting and finance.
      (4) If the Board make a recommendation with respect to any matter at the request of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State exercises his functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act contrary to their recommendation, he shall, if the Board so request, lay a statement as to the matter before Parliament.
      (5) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State's functions under sections 7 and 8 of this Act includes a reference to his functions under section 3 of the Industry Act 1975.")—(Lord Elton.)
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, when I turn over the pages of the Amendment I cannot forbear from saying that never was so much done by so few.
      Schedule 5 [Appeal Committees]:
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66 can be taken together. They are all minor Amendments which have been requested by the Council on Tribunals to make it clear that the Secretary of State's power to make regulations by Statutory Instrument applies to the procedure for or in connection with a reference to the advisory committee and not to the consideration of a case. I beg to move.
      Amendments moved—
      Page 46, line 37, leave out ("by statutory instrument").
      Page 46, line 38, leave out ("consideration of references by") and insert ("procedure for or in connection with references to").
      Page 46, line 43, at end insert—
      ("(2A) Regulations under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument.")—(Lord Beswick.)
      Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments of Industry Act 1972]:
      Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 47, line 9, leave out paragraphs 2 to 4.—(Lord Aberdare.)
      Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
      Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, Amendment No. 68 is a drafting Amendment which is designed to clarify the

      1075
      reference to repeals to the Industry Act 1972 and to bring this reference into line with others in the Schedule. It is intended to show that the repeal will affect the words in subsection (4) of Section 7 of the 1972 Act from the start of that subsection to the word "and", and will also affect the whole of subsection (5). I beg to move.
      Amendment moved—
      Page 47, line 32, after ("7") insert (", in subsection").—(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
      In the Title:
      Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Amendment No. 69 is a consequential Amendment made necessary as a result of Amendments which the House has made. I beg to move.
      Amendment moved—
      Line 13, leave out ("trade unions") and insert ("employee representatives").—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
      6.24 p.m.
      Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. When we started dealing with this Bill in our House, I said that not since the 1945–50 Parliament had one Bill been so clouded with unnecessary controversy, and I hoped that in this House we could lift that cloud somewhat and show more clearly that the Bill was not designed to hit or hurt anybody, but to provide an effective instrument to regenerate British industry. I am not absolutely sure to what extent our 40 hours of discussion have helped to lift that cloud. However, may I pay tribute to the courteous and constructive way in which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and his team on the Opposition Benches have made the discussions possible. They have had a very considerable burden to carry.
      To the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, who, perched on his top Bench, has very often carried on a one-man fight, we are particularly indebted for the way in which he has endeavoured to show us how the Bill could be improved. May I also say how grateful I am to my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I could not have had better support than I have had
      1076
      from them, and I am sure that the whole House is grateful to them for the helpful part which they have played. So we have tried.
      Any change—indeed, any progress—arouses criticism, but what is interesting in this case is that criticism has come from both the Right and the Left. To some this Bill has seemed the arrival of a Socialist State. To others it has appeared to be a retreat from progress towards the promised Socialist land. I hope that we have done something to show that much of the criticism from the two extreme wings has been under-informed.
      May I particularly thank your Lordships for the help which has been given in improving Part II of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has played a prominent part. This is a Part of considerable technical difficulty. The questions put to me and to my colleagues and fielded back, I may say, to our advisers have required us to consider the details of this Part with especial care and have brought to light a number of shortcomings. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who made the point during the course of discussing one Amendment, that I regret that on Third Reading it has been necessary to move a number of Amendments to this Part of the Bill, but it goes some way to show the value of this House as a Revising Chamber.
      I will not say much about the basic policy underlying the Bill. In the current economic climate, against a background of low investment in manufacturing industry and high unemployment, the need for the Bill has become more and more evident as the months have passed. I believe it is increasingly recognised that Britain must undergo a second industrial revolution, not one overriden by human conflict, but a revolution of re-equipment and an industrial understanding between workers of all grades which can lead to the fullest use of that equipment.
      I have said already that we have spent over 40 hours discussing this Bill. During Committee and Report stages, some 180 Amendments were made, of which 51 were tabled by noble Lords from the Benches opposite. A number of the Amendments were on identical points. Indeed, there were 19 consequential Amendments to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I should like to make the point that of those 180

      1077
      Amendments up to Report stage only 51 were tabled by noble Lords opposite. If there are criticisms—as I believe there have been from some of my friends in another place—about the way this Bill has been savaged by noble Lords, and I shall say a little about that, the fact is that the majority of the Amendments have arisen because the Bill was inadequate when it reached us. It shows credit to noble Lords on all sides that they have contrived to put right so many of the shortcomings that arose, I believe, because the Bill was not properly considered in another place.
      However, noble Lords opposite found it necessary to divide the House on 11 occasions on matters which the Government regard as central provisions of the legislation. If I was given to such language, I suppose I should call some of them wrecking Amendments. At Committee stage, the power of the National Enterprise Board to establish industrial undertakings was removed, together with the function of extending public ownership into profitable areas of manufacturing industry. Moreover, the possibility of paying compensation by the normal process of paying in Government stock was cut out. At Report stage, the powers proposed for the National Enterprise Board were further curtailed. The National Enterprise Board's function of promoting industrial democracy in undertakings it controls was watered down. All this was contrary to an explicit commitment given in the Government's White Paper.
      With regard to planning agreements, the provision permitting the Government to give increased certainty about financial assistance for any project identified in the agreement was amended to make it mandatory on the Government to give such increased certainty. Then we had the legions opposite mobilised by the noble Lord the Chief Whip opposite, to whom I would pay a tribute, if he were here, for the very skilful way in which he appears to have been able to mobilise voting power when it was needed, and they have changed the provisions relating to the disclosure of information.
      There is no greater advocate of this Revising Chamber than myself, and I pay tribute to the work which it has done on Parts of the Bill. However, the
      1078
      changes made to this legislation as a consequence of these Divisions have not resulted, to put it mildly, in an improved Bill. It certainly has not brought it more into line with our Election pledges; nor equally, if not more important, has it improved the efficiency of the instrument which impartial observers believe to be necessary. No doubt the other place will have the opportunity to reflect on the changes made when the Bill eventually finds itself on the Statute Book. I am sure that it will be improved again to bring it nearer to that which we first brought to the House, and I hope and believe that it will play its part in the regeneration of British industry. I beg to move.
      Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to respond to what the noble Lord has said. He certainly started his speech with words of sweet reasonableness, although towards the end he began to get more Party political. But may I first thank him and the noble Lords, Lord Lovell-Davis and Lord Melchett, for their patience in the course of over 40 hours of discussions that we have had. I believe the fact that so many Government Amendments have appeared at Third Reading justifies the amount of time we have taken over this Bill. It would have been a great mistake to rush it through, rather than wait to take the Third Reading now.
      The fact of the matter is that we disliked this Bill intensely when it arrived in this House, and we have done our best to try to amend it in a way which we believe to be right. We have removed from it a number of features that we thought were objectionable although, as the noble Lord has foreshadowed all along, the Government will undoubtedly do their utmost to reverse these in another place. But I rather regret the fact that the noble Lord and others, in the course of discussions on this Bill, have accused us of being dogmatic, of degutting the Bill or of savaging it. This is not at all what we have been trying to do. We have indeed been reflecting the views of a great many experienced people who are at present running the private sector of British industry, and we have been trying to help the Government to see a way in which they can restore the confidence of the private sector of British industry in their plans

      1079
      for a National Enterprise Board and for the disclosure of information. If the Government are serious in their wish to encourage the private sector of industry, it is absolutely essential that they should regain the confidence of that sector.
      I hope the Government will not take our Amendments as merely being factious or dogmatic and that they will consider carefully their scope. I hope that some, at least, will be acceptable, which could go a long way towards restoring that essential confidence which any Government needs from industry. With regard to the noble Lord's comments on the numbers who took part in the Divisions and carried some of the Amendments against the Government's advice, I would merely point out to the noble Lord that they represented the strength of conviction on the part of noble Lords who voted. In one instance, certainly, that comes to mind, we did not win a Division because the noble Lord opposite had the better of the argument, and I hope that this position will continue to obtain in this House; that when noble Lords opposite have good arguments they can win Divisions. Finally, I, too, should like to thank my noble friends who have been such a tower of strength in putting the Opposition's case—my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Elton, and also, particularly, my noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balfour, who have played such a prominent part in these proceedings.
      The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I should just like to record for once in your Lordships' House my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his letters and communications, and for the very kind remarks he has made. I should also like to thank my own Front Bench. I am sure it would be the wish of all your Lordships, and I know it would certainly be the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to record our thanks to the staff of your Lordships' House, who are always so helpful in any approach that is ever made by any of us. It was not my intention to be destructive in regard to this Bill, but it was my intention to try to find as many as possible of the faults which could be questioned when the Bill becomes an Act. That was the entire object of my exercise in your Lordships'
      1080
      House and I thank all noble Lords for their tremendous help.
      On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

    COMMUNITY LAND BILL
    6.35 p.m.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As I understand it, the function of a Second Reading is to debate the principles and fundamental policies and philosophy of the piece of legislation under debate. Points are raised which then surface in more concrete form in Committee. Since there has been no change whatsoever in the principle, policy or philosophy inherent in this Bill, I find it quite extraordinary that noble Lords should want a repeat performance of what has already been so thoroughly thrashed out. This does not mean that I do not appreciate the right of noble Lords to take this all over again, but in exercising my freedom of speech I am not going to take up the time of the House by repeating what I said last time round, and I cannot see any way in which I could alter it, or indeed improve on it.
    We discussed the principal objectives and some considerable detail of this Bill when we debated its twin sister, the No. 2 Bill, on 4th August. On that occasion I described—and made available—the Amendments which the Government then had in mind. Having re-read the Report of the debate, I am satisfied that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I explained it fully. During that debate, 22 noble Lords participated and all put their own points of view and even then, if I may say so, there was a considerable amount of repetition. Since then there have been no fundamental changes to the Bill; indeed, all the changes—those that I discussed then and those in the Bill before us today; and, incidentally, this Bill is identical to Monday's White Paper—were put in to meet points put to us both by the Opposition in the other place and by outside bodies; a very large exercise, I should say, in consultation and Parliamentary democracy. Therefore, what I intend to do tonight is to explain the changes which have taken place since our previous debate.
    I referred in my speech on 4th August to the Statement that my right honourable

    1081
    friend the Minister had made on 15th July about the treatment of land owned by the Churches and other charities. There were four points in the Minister's Statement, but one of these related to development land tax which is not in this Bill. Of the other three, two were dealt with by Amendments made at Report stage in another place. First, Churches and other charities will be able to carry out development on land which they owned on 12th September 1974—the date of the Land White Paper—without the land having to come into the ownership of an authority. This is provided for in Clause 4(4)(a). Secondly, where land held by Churches or other charities on White Paper day is acquired when it is no longer needed for the purposes of the charity and can be made available for some other development, the charity will be entitled to receive compensation on a market value basis for a period of at least 10 years from White Paper day.
    The third issue is the basis of compensation for charity land after the second appointed day, or the 10-year period if that is longer. The intention here is that charities should receive a value based on the prevailing use of surrounding land. The provisions needed have raised a number of complex issues requiring discussion with interested bodies, and my right honourable friend the Minister is having a further meeting with the Churches Main Committee tomorrow. Thereafter I hope we shall be able to table Amendments to complete the promised package.
    I turn now to excepted development. It was, of course, never intended that the provisions in the Bill should apply to all development. The White Paper promised permanent exemptions from acquisition under the scheme, and also transitional exemptions designed to avoid disruption of essential development programmes in the early years. We published a Consultative Document on this in May. There have been wide-ranging and useful consultations. As a result, we now propose a different way of defining the scope of the scheme.
    The key to this is a redefinition of the term "relevant development"; and linked with this a new definition of "development land". The effect of the Bill as it now stands is broadly as follows.
    The community land scheme will relate to "development land". Development
    1082
    land is now defined as land needed for relevant development within 10 years; and relevant development excludes not only the minor development in Schedule 1, but also a wide range of other development which is to be included in regulations. All the special procedures in the Bill apply only where development land is at issue. First, the duties conferred on authorities relate as to development land. Secondly, only planning applications for relevant development will be subject to the special procedures in the Bill. Thirdly, the proposed changes in compulsory purchase procedure will apply only where an authority are buying development land.
    My right honourable friend the Minister has made available a statement about the content of the proposed regulations, and copies of this are available in the Printed Paper Office. I am sure that this will be helpful when we are looking at the detailed provisions in Committee. We do not think it would be appropriate to define excepted development in the Bill. To get the definitions right, we need to sit down with those concerned with development and look at the detailed drafting of what is proposed. This is something that can be far better achieved where one is using regulations. The position of Parliament will, of course, be fully safeguarded by the fact that the regulations will be subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
    One of the criticisms constantly hurled at the Bill is that there has not been enough time to discuss it, yet 156 hours were spent in unguillotined Committee. Mr. Raison, the Shadow Spokesman, said on Report stage in another place,
    "I do not believe that any Bill can ever have been subject to such a detailed appraisal …".—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/75; Cols. 1268–9.]
    I sense, as do many others, a chemical change of mood which expressed itself both in the Commons and in the Press, which has mellowed from a posture of aggressive antagonism to one of suggesting reasoned and constructive criticism. Even the Daily Telegraph, hardly a warm friend of the Bill, recently had an article advocating this approach. What we cannot afford is delay.
    When I made my statement on Monday, I was urged to withdraw the Bill and bring it back next Session. There

    1083
    are many signs that even those who have reservations about this Bill would not now welcome that course. I know very well that there are many in the property world who, while they may prefer not to have the Bill at all, accept that it provides a base for a workable partnership between developers and local authorities, and the longer it stays in limbo the more everything will run down and people will not know where they are. This is a realistic attitude. Noble Lords opposite who detest the social philosophy of positive planning and of returning profit to the community, would do well to consider this in a less blinkered fashion.
    My Lords, I believe that what people want now is certainty, not further delay. So, for goodness' sake, let us get on with it, let us discuss it and get this measure through! Therefore, I commend this Bill, like its predecessor, to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
    Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
    6.44 p.m.
    Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to start with some compliments, although I am afraid there will not be many, to the noble Baroness in response to her speech. The Parliamentary procedure we are now subjected to is almost as monstrous as the legislation itself, although she is not personally responsible for that. Indeed, she and her Department have done their best to mitigate the problems which this appalling procedure has caused us. I think I ought to offer the noble Baroness our condolences, in that the enthusiastic support which she might expect if the Bill were all that its authors claim for it seems to have melted away, and there is not a single member of her Party opposite prepared to speak in its favour.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will allow me to explain. The reason, as I understand it from those I have spoken to—although I have not gone round trying to stop people speaking, or trying to make them speak—is that they consider we have had a Second Reading. This is why of their own momentum nobody has come forward.
    Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, we will see when we come to Committee! I should like to start by affirming that I do not own any freehold land, and as to my own home, I am a tenant of the Westminster City Council. But even if I did, my attack on this Bill, and the attack on this Bill from this side of the House is not at all in defence of a limited class of large landowners but a defence of the freedoms and rights of millions of citizens, home owners; the defence of the authority of local government, and the defence of the sovereignty of Parliament. It is an attempt to curb and contain the over-weaning and ever-increasing tyranny of the State from everything and everybody, and land in particular.
    My Lords, after that, it will probably surprise your Lordships to hear me say that, in some respects, we can welcome the Bill now before us. It is, indeed, a very different Bill from the one we had before us only two months ago. I welcome it for these reasons. There is now some recognition that some regard has to be had for planning. There is now some recognition that the community, after whom the Bill is named, have some right to participate in the exercise of its functions. There is some recognition that Parliament has a right to know firmly and in advance what kinds of development are to be within and what kinds of development are to be without the scope of the Bill. There is some recognition—very slight at present—that local councillors are not elected merely to act as pawns to the Secretary of State.
    My Lords, there are some claims at last about the frightful cost of the whole thing; the cost of setting up the Welsh Land Authority has been recalculated and changed from £750,000 to £100,000; this shows the meticulous and precise care with which they look after our money! In Schedule 4, the home owner's normal right to a public local inquiry has been partially reinstated, and orders under that Schedule made subject to Affirmative Resolution. The land acquisition amendment schemes are to be published. The Government have made some efforts to recognise the special position of Churches and charities although, as we shall hear later, they have so far failed to satisfy either.
    May I say in passing how much I welcome the presence of my old friend

    1085
    the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford in this debate, making his maiden speech. All this has happened since our debate last August, to say nothing of the shower of notes on topics that were not in the White Paper. The White Paper on the Development Land Tax has at last emerged, and this is why we have needed another Second Reading debate. We have another Bill, and another White Paper, and also all these notes. However, Her Majesty's Government seem to have satisfied the Sand and Gravel Association, and they seem to have satisfied the parish councils. We congratulate them on that. If anyone else is satisfied, we have yet to learn about it.
    My Lords, of course, we regret that the conventions bar us from helping to complete full repentance by the Minister, as a vote here tonight certainly would. Our role, alas!, is now to accept the aims of this monstrous legislation, but by our amendment of it, get the other place to consider the many ways in which it may still be made less offensive to the Constitution, less injurious to good local government, and less of an affront to the rights of private citizens everywhere. Meanwhile, we on this side can console ourselves that no single piece of legislation that the Party opposite has introduced this Session will lose them more friends and make them more enemies than this one.
    The enormity of what is being enacted here may only slowly dawn on the electorate. I shall be surprised if we do not begin to see its effect in the May local elections. We shall certainly do our best to see to that. We deeply regret the cost, the injury, the burdens, the affronts that this legislation will lay upon our people, but we console ourselves that its very passage and implementation will surely speed on the day when we have a mandate to repeal this Bill, as we must surely do.
    The next criticism which I must levy on this Bill is the degree to which it is unprepared. One would have thought that the Party opposite, if they believed that the nationalisation or municipalisation of the land was an important and widely popular plank in their platform, would have got their plans ready for it. But not a bit. Here we are, 18 months on
    1086
    Since they took Office, and crucial features of the whole crazy enterprise have yet to see the light of day. The Government's ideas on development land tax were not published at all until after the Committee stage in another place. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the whole financial basis of the Authority's land acquisitions rests on getting their land net of development land tax. No one knows yet how the Government propose that this transaction shall be handled or the tax assessed, and the operation of the Central Land Board in the 'forties foundered on this very point, and if this scheme founders, too, so much the better.
    When it comes to the disposal of land for development to builders, the Government seem equally at a loss to know what to do. They do not want the local authorities to convey the land to builders; they want them to convey it to the eventual owner and to bring the builder in by way of building agreements. They say this as though everyone knows just what a building agreement is and would agree at once that it was apt for the purpose and obviously acceptable all round. But, in fact, no such thing exists. Are they thinking of the Section 52 agreements, and if so, why do they think the builders will be willing to enter into them under these conditions. No one yet knows what the Government are thinking of when they talk about building agreements. Whether a workable or acceptable agreement can be devised is, to say the least, extremely doubtful. What is certain is that at present another vital link in the whole system is missing.
    My Lords, let us turn to judge this Bill on its own objectives and to be as fair as we possibly can. The first is to enable the community to control the development of land in accordance with its priorities and its needs. But is not that exactly what our planning staffs of local planning authorities have been attempting to do for their electors for the last two generations? The Silkins can take credit for important innovations in the 'forties. The Labour Party can take credit again for valuable improvements in town and country planning in the 1968 Act. The community were indeed given more say in shaping the quality of their environment in those enactments. The

    1087
    Party opposite were enthusiastic, perhaps overly enthusiastic, in espousing public participation in those days, and at many levels: in structure planning, at local inquiries, even in community forums.
    In the course of enacting the Local Government Act, my own Party conferred more planning powers at the more local level of the districts, they gave more say to parishes, they fostered the growth of civic societies. Does this Bill continue that process of giving more people in the community more say?—not a bit of it; the very reverse. At every turn, in every clause, subsection and Schedule, and no doubt in every regulation still to come and every bit of guidance still to be drafted, it is not the local community or the private individual, in any guise, shape or form, which is to have more say, more individual rights or more local responsibility; it is the Secretary of State and his civil servants in Whitehall.
    Let me take the first, but by no means the worst, example from Clause 2. If two local authorities need to work together, it is not left for them to apply the standard co-operative arrangements available to them under the law. No, my Lords, the Secretary of State has powers under Clause 2 to decide whether they need to work together and, if so, how it is to be arranged. Under Clause 50, a much worse example, if the Secretary of State considers it expedient he can take away the powers Parliament has given to one authority and give them to another or give them to himself, and in this way he can completely disenfranchise the whole local electorate of any democratic say in how these powers are exercised by the people whom they themselves elected. Mr. Silkin has already threatened to do this in the course of the Third Reading and Report stages in another place (col. 1092 of Hansard).
    Whereas up to this time local authorities have been able to dispose of land at their own discretion, henceforward under Clause 43 they can neither acquire nor dispose of land without the Minister's permission. Yet, at the same time, Clause 39 empowers the Secretary of State to dispose of public service land without consulting any local authority in the area concerned or any previous owner,
    "… to dispose of it to such person in such manner subject to such conditions as may
    1088
    appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient".
    Are we now to forget all those issues under the Crichel Down case and so on? This bit of the "Brave New World" comes into force a mere month after the Royal Assent, long before the Bill begins to operate.
    Then, my Lords, take Clause 20. This is the one under which the Secretary of State imposes by order on local authorities the duty to take over private land for development. There is no obligation whatever upon the Secretary of State to consult them as representatives of their communities about what particular powers they need over what particular forms of development, nor over their readiness to discharge the responsibilities that he wants to lay upon them. Nor is there any scope whatever for any local public participation over how and when each Clause 20 order should be applied in each area. One would think that the community, in some local shape or form, would be involved as they now are, as a matter of regular practice, in establishing and implementing planning policies in their area.
    When it comes to deciding the scale and pace of public acquisition of land in their area, the community is not involved, and it is not mentioned in Clauses 17, 18, 19 or 20, or in Schedules 3 or 4. There is no glimmer of a suggestion of any such thing as a community forum, of public participation, consultation or advisory committees by which the local community can express any view about the operations of the Community Land Bill, which is supposed to be for their benefit and is issued in their name. They are left to trust in the tyranny of the Secretary of State and assign their own elected councillors to act as his agents. Such rights and such say as is left by this Bill for Parliament, county councils, district councils, parish and local councils, and private individuals and bodies like Churches and charities, have had to be wrung from the Minister in Committee and Report stages in another place, and we intend to wring some more. But to pretend that after the passage of this Bill more people in each community up and down the land will have more say about the development and quality of their own environment is humbug, and we shall see before long how many local electors have been deceived by it.

    1089
    My Lords, the Bill has another objective, which is to restore to the community the increase in the value of land arising from its efforts. The impression that this phrase is designed to put about is that up to now this has not happened at all, that all the gains have been ill-gotten, that all the gains have gone to people who did nothing to earn them, and that every community has made prodigious efforts and has had no reward. But, in fact, all these gains have been taxed for the last 10 years, first by capital gains tax, then as development gains tax and now, as Her Majesty's Government propose, by development land tax.
    Certainly I would acknowledge—and my noble friends behind me would, too,—that some years ago we could have done with swingeing higher taxation in some notorious cases But now, in this general recession, and in the building industry recession in particular, I should have thought that it was absolutely clear that as soon as progress in fighting inflation permits it there must be not an increase but a reduction in the rate of taxation on development to bring land forward fast enough to get houses built, to keep the housebuilders from going bankrupt and their staffs from yet further unemployment. The White Paper speaks of the aim of restoring the increase in value to the community. The Secretary of State has many ways of doing that at present, starting with the rate support grant, the great armament of regional grants, block grants, specific grants, housing grants and urban programmes of varying kinds, all already in operation, all to hand, all with professional trained staffs operating them.
    Now let us consider what the Bill adds to that. Nothing at all to start with. In fact, a huge new department in central and local government has first to be created and established everywhere. Although many weeks ago Mr. Crosland himself was telling local authorities, rather crossly, that the party was over, he and they are now between them sending out 14,150 more invitations to start another party to celebrate the passage of this Bill. This new outfit will cost around £62 million a year just to run; over £1 million a week It begins by borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds more so that they can start buying land, which they are to
    1090
    do net of development land tax. Although, as I have said, how that is to be assessed and worked out no one yet knows. Eventually they start selling land at market value, and then the profits—and they cannot fail to make a profit on the deal however inexpertly and slowly it is done—go to paying their own salaries and paying interest on the money first borrowed. Meanwhile, and for some months if not years, I presume the community of taxpayers (that is you and I) has to foot the bill.
    Eventually there may be a surplus. Again that can hardly be avoided. It might be thought that the local community will then begin to benefit. But no; they can only keep whatever proportion of that surplus the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks is good for them. They must hand over—and let us get the exact wording from Clause 45—"such proportion of any surplus (notice how cagey that is) there might be in their account—
    "as the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury directs shall be paid by the authority to the Secretary of State."
    How is that for tyranny? And in subsection (5), just to show how benevolent the Secretary of State might be, we have the phrase:
    "The Secretary of State may, out of sums received by him under subsection (2) above, with the approval of the Treasury and after consulting such associations of authorities as appear to him to be concerned"—
    that is nice of him—
    "pay such amounts to such authorities as he considers expedient."
    How is that for benevolence?
    In what conceivable sense can that arbitrary piece of bureaucracy be a better, simpler, fairer, cheaper system than the development gains tax, the tax which we first devised and which Her Majesty's Government have now been glad to adopt. Why on earth cannot they use what they have on hand? If they want less land and more unemployment in the building industry and fewer houses built, they can increase it. Incidentally anyone can see at once that the exceptions for small builders on small sites which have been wrung from the Government in another place will be of no avail at all in getting more houses built at prices which people can pay unless it is matched and

    1091
    paralleled by exemptions from development land tax, about which we have heard nothing.
    I conclude by saying that the system now proposed involves two Acts of Parliament (one which we are dealing with, and another still to come), is as cumbersome to operate as it is costly to administer, bids fair to bring the housing programme to a full stop, and gives the community not more but less say in shaping the quality of where they live, and worst of all extends prodigiously the tyranny of the State and the erosion of our freedom.
    7.6 p.m.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness has read us a severe lecture for wanting to debate this a second time. I think that she believes we ought to excuse ourselves. Were it not for the charm with which she lectured us, I should say that she has offered a gross affront to your Lordships. Unless she should think that my noble friend Lord Foot, whose name was on the list, has run away in the face of her strictures, let me say that he has not. He has another engagement. Let me go on to what my noble friend Lord Foot said in the Second Reading debate on the No. 2 Bill. He started by reviewing the sad, sorry history of what has gone before, the problems, the anomalies, indeed the scandals, about which we are all aware, and which all of us somehow or other want to stop, and which we have been trying to stop in one way or another for nearly sixty years.
    Having said that, my noble friend then wished the Bill well. He wished it well, I thought in more than generous terms; he regarded it as a genuine and honest attempt to have another attack at this difficult problem. He then went on to make various criticisms. The principal criticisms that he made—and they have been made by others from both sides of the House—were that local authorities were the wrong instruments; that the expense of a great new bureaucratic structure was unfortunate at a time like this, and that the problem of betterment could be better dealt with by other means. He concluded that the Bill was dangerously threatened with unworkability, and in that view he was supported from the other side of the House by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who I thought made an extremely effective speech. My
    1092
    noble friend Lord Foot ended by expressing the fear—and this was a genuine fear on his part because, as I say, he wished the Bill well—that the Government had missed an opportunity to produce an Act which really was unrepealable. I think that we on the Liberal Benches agree with everything that he said.
    He has told me since that the more he looks at the Bill the more he thinks it is totally unworkable. This appears to be the view of nearly all professional people who are involved in questions of the land, of pensions, charities, and also of professional men in general. I believe that the Church feels the same, and I shall listen with great interest to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, to hear what he has to say about how far the Church is satisfied with the Amendments which the Government have brought forward.
    I also on that Second Reading debate made further and rather different criticisms from those of my noble friend. The chief of my criticisms were first the possibly unwitting damage to our planning system. I would say that our planning system is quite good, in spite of the letter in The Times from Mr. Maurice Ash of the Town and Country Planning Association, suggesting that it was not the best in the world. What the Government are proposing to do here may well damage it.
    My second criticism, and the one I feel most strongly about, is this question of the conflict engendered in local authorities being both planner and developer. The Government have introduced various Amendments, two of which touch on the criticisms I have made, and I am grateful for that. The compulsory purchase procedure as to inquiries has been improved; I know there are certain exceptions which want close examination, and I am referring to Schedule 4. The second Amendment for which I am grateful to the Government deals with the elimination of local authorities, in exercising their planning functions taking account of matters other than planning; that is, Clause 17. But the Government Amendments do not deal with the general criticisms that my noble friend Lord Foot and I made and they leave the main strategy of the Bill quite untouched.

    1093
    I want to protest—and this is partly why I think we needed a second Second Reading—about the difficulties in trying to follow the day-to-day working of this Bill. It has been hard enough for individual Members of your Lordships' House who have been here every day to be able to get the papers dealing with the Bill as it moved from day to day both here and in the Commons. For people outside, however, it has been almost impossible; they have not been able to get the papers from the Department of the Environment or from the various organisations which supplied those papers. I am not exaggerating when I say that many people have been put to great difficulty in trying to follow those workings. I must also comment on the unintelligibility of the Bill. I know it is a highly technical subject and, with such a subject, one expects to have a highly technical and indeed difficult Bill, with all the phraseology that an Act of Parliament must have. Nevertheless, people with long experience of these matters tell me that it is still quite unintelligible to them, that the definitions are difficult to find, that there is no interpretation clause and that it is full of mumbo-jumbo of the highest order.
    We have always got the land question wrong and here we are galloping ahead, or so it seems to me, with ideas put forward and accepted at the Labour Party Conference without them having been properly thought over; one may say that they have been thought over for 60 years and it is time we came to a conclusion, and on that I heartily agree. But the Bill shows signs of unusual haste and it may, because of this unworkability, fall into the same difficulty that the great 1947 Act fell into; that is, that part of it that dealt with restoring to the community the increase in the value of land arising from it's efforts. That part of the 1947 Act failed, the Land Commission failed and the Liberals many years ago suggested another version—site value rating it was called—which was never tried. I have never been greatly enamoured of it but I am inclined to think that it would have made a better go of it than the Bill which is before us today and that if, in fact, it had come about in 1909 we could well not have the unfortunate state of affairs reviewed by my noble friend.
    1094
    As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned, we have another Bill to come, the Development Land Tax Bill, which goes, or should go, hand in hand with the Bill that is before us. The fact that it does not go hand in hand with it and that we have to consider it separately in another Session is a great disadvantage. I do not want to repeat all the criticisms that I have made of this Bill or that have been made by others more effectively, but I feel that this present shot is too wild to hit anyone. I wonder whether, despite the difficulties of leaving it over until the next Session of Parliament, despite the danger of freezing everything up, this might be better than the calamity of a Bill which once again proves quite unworkable, so that even what is good in it falls down for that very reason.
    7.15 p.m.
    The Bishop of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I apologise if I am repetitious because I was not here for the earlier debate. I shall concern myself solely with the position of Churches and charities, and perhaps I may say that I speak on behalf of all the Churches represented on the Churches' Main Committee, and they in turn are supported in this matter by the National Council of Social Service. When the Bill first appeared last year it had a very depressing effect on many of us and it seemed that inevitably the work of the Church would be seriously cut back in its efforts to provide places of worship and in those many other services it gives to the community in terms of schools, youth work, centres for old people, the disabled and so on. I am staggered as I go round Essex and East London to see the depth and scope of this work.
    I do not have to argue this point because the Minister in another place admitted that we do much which would otherwise have to be provided by central or local government—and often, may I add, at much greater expense. Furthermore, a great deal of Church land, especially latterly, as it is released, is used by housing associations, such as the one we have, for housing schemes and especially for amenity housing and other social purposes. We were therefore very grateful indeed when, in July, the Minister opened a door which had seemed firmly barred and bolted, and made concessions which

    1095
    go some way to meet the short-term needs of the Churches and charities as set out.
    The former Dean of St. Paul's once said that gratitude was the expression of a lively anticipation of favours to come; so our gratitude forces us to say that this is not enough, and the reason for this is in the long-term. It does not seem that we will benefit very greatly at all, mostly because the concessions are confined, on the whole, to land held on White Paper day and because the concessions last for only 10 years. Those 10 years, the Minister tells us, will enable us to arrange our affairs in respect of the land we now own. This is a consideration, but we believe that 10 years is far too short a period for this purpose, especially in present circumstances when the land market is depressed and programmes of building and development are subject to heavy delays; and in any case we have lost a year already.
    There is in the centre of Chelmsford a piece of land which we have been trying to develop for 20 years, and only now does it appear that we may succeed, if the Department of the Environment provides the necessary funds. This position is certainly not likely to get any better, I would have thought. It is also too short a period for loans to be raised on the security of land held on White Paper day, and such loans are often a very important element in financing large undertakings to which many Churches and charities are already committed, for example things like the building of a comprehensive school or community projects of one sort or another. But, to my mind, the main problem is that the world is changing so rapidly that we just cannot keep pace with it. If this happens it seems that we shall be limited in our efforts, and our assets will, in a kind of way, be frozen so that we are unable to realise the opportunities that change will offer. In the past, as the inner cities have emptied and properties have become redundant, it has been possible to realise them and to finance work in new towns and housing areas. It has been possible to build new churches and community buildings, and also to pay clergy a bit more, which they sorely need. Now this process cannot stop. It is not that we can put our house in order and say that this shall be the pattern of our resources in building and
    1096
    otherwise at the end of 10 years or even more than that. The world will go on changing. We are told that it will do so at an ever-increasing pace. More buildings will become redundant and more new towns will be built. We need the flexibility which this Bill will seem to deny us if we are to meet the changing needs of those times.
    So the Churches, as represented by me this evening, feel bound to press for the abolition of the rigid distinction between pre- and post-White Paper day land. Otherwise, the Churches and charities will inevitably be reluctant to give up pre-White Paper land if what they get in return is subject to restrictions attaching to post-White Paper land. To take a simple example, in the past, voluntary exchanges of land have often taken place between the Church or charities and local authorities when, for instance, a school needed a playground and for similar purposes. I believe that Churches and charities will be much more reluctant to enter into that sort of arrangement in future if it appears that they will be penalised by doing so.
    So we press for freedom to develop our own land for our own use, irrespective of when the land was acquired and bearing in mind the admission of the Minister that the work we do is community work. In this connection, we do not see why, as the Government's proposals stand at present, in the case of land acquired after the White Paper day, we are to be treated far worse than the statutory undertakings and, indeed, some commercial undertakings. As I am instructed, it seems that the latter will sometimes be entitled, subject to planning permission, to develop land for their own purposes without the intervention of the local authority, irrespective of when the land was acquired. On the contrary, a charity wishing, for instance, to carry out a housing scheme for old people on a piece of land acquired since the White Paper, but acquired for that purpose, may run the risk of having to sell it to the local authority at current use value and lease it back at full development value, so losing on the way much of the value on which it was relying to finance the scheme. It is not just a question of the land or the building on that land, but of maintaining the property and the work afterwards.

    1097
    The Minister conceded that the Churches and charities should be able to develop land held on White Paper day for their own use without intervention. We would ask that the phrase "for their own use" should be more clearly defined and should be written into the Bill. For instance, we wonder whether so-called "mixed development" is included. I remember a development where there was an old people's home, a school, a centre, a church, a small street of shops and an office development. The shops were part of the amenity for the old people and the children, and the office development was to provide income for the support of the whole scheme. We should wish to know whether this would be considered to come into the category of "for their own use". We feel that it is not good enough that we should have to rely for guidance in this matter upon future documents sent out from the Department. Could this not be written into the Bill?
    I shall not delay the House longer. The noble Baroness has told us that the Minister is meeting the Churches Main Committee tomorrow and it may well be that, as a result of that meeting, everything I have been saying will be wind upon the air. I pray that it may be so. We are grateful for the mercies we have been given, but, in conclusion and in connection with this aspect of the Bill and with its treatment of the Churches and charities, I commend to the Minister the words of Sir Francis Drake:
    "There must be a beginning of any great matter, but the continuing until the end until it be thoroughly finished yields the true glory."
    7.25 p.m.
    Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships would like me to say how much we appreciated the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. He has spoken eloquently and with authority. We have enjoyed his speech and we hope there will be many occasions when we shall hear him in the future. We all have a warm affection for the Bishops in our House.
    Before I cover in my speech the points I wish to raise, I should like to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that I did not speak on the Second Reading of the Bill when it was debated in August. Therefore, in what I wish to say on this subject tonight I shall cover the Bill as I
    1098
    see it in its form today, with the Government's Amendments. I should also like to make it clear to the noble Baroness that I am connected with the building industry and that I know that at present there is a great fear of this measure. From my experience, I shall hope to elaborate and to place before the Government some of the fears which now exist.
    When I retired from a career overseas about 15 years ago, I became an estate agent for about five years and I was involved in the sale of houses and building land. Later, I became a non-executive director of Lawdon Limited, which is a development company whose shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange. Over the years, one became accustomed to the charge in political terms and in letters and publications in the Press that in certain quarters developers were an obscene race apart from other normal individuals and that they were profiteering out of the sale of land and houses. This may have been justified in a few cases but it certainly did not apply as a general principle. I should like to disclose that, as a non-executive director, I was first paid £500 a year, out of which one-third went in tax. Later, that was raised to £750, with one-third going in tax, leaving me with a £500 return in director's fees. I say that so that the point can be recorded and perhaps it may correct some of the impressions which I believe have motivated the spirit of the present Bill.
    I am profoundly distressed by the Bill. I believe that it will do nothing but harm to the industry and that it will certainly not succeed in the construction of one single extra house or will help developers at a time of deep depression. To explain why I believe this, I came to know from my experience as an estate agent and latterly when I have been concerned with a development company, that the sale of land and properties is a highly specialised business. It takes years of experience in the building industry to know what land to purchase and what property will sell. Under this Bill, it is the local authority which will have the power to acquire all land needed for development. Can anyone in their right senses really believe that the local authority has the experience and will take into its possession land suitable to a particular developer? That developer will be risking his capital. He must be sure of a reasonable return. He will want to be sure that the houses he constructs

    1099
    can be sold at the right price; that they are the right type to suit would-be purchasers; that the density per acre (which is an important consideration) is right, that the speed at which the houses are sold (which is another very important criterion) will be satisfactory, and that the Houses will be of the right type for the particular area in which the demand is to be created.
    The other important aspect is that services are readily available on the site. I should like to suggest that these are important considerations upon which a developer must make an economic judgment. If he is wrong he can lose all his capital. He can exercise that judgment only from a lifelong experience in the industry. Local authorities do not have this experience. If a local authority acquires land which it will not sell and which is not suitable for development under the criteria which I have expressed to your Lordships, it will not be the local authority which will lose financially; it will be the British taxpayer.
    At present this Bill is causing uncertainty to developers in regard to the criteria on which they are to judge their future plans. The development land tax at 80 per cent., later to rise to 100 per cent., does not encourage land sales. This tax causes fear in the minds of the holders of land. As regards this situation, following negotiations far advanced by our company we were about to sign a conditional contract for the purchase of land in a part of the South-East of this country, but I heard this morning that this is not now likely to materialise. As I have said, this proposed tax causes fear and uncertainty on the part of the vendors of land. If the transaction to which I have referred does not go through—andthere is every indication that it will not—there will be lost the provision of 200 houses for families in a scheme which included homes for old people.
    If the Bill reaches the Statute Book unamended, a local authority will later have the power to acquire land from the vendors at agricultural value. I believe that vendors of land and others in a similar position will fight this position tooth and nail. It is totally impossible to agree that local authorities will have
    1100
    the staff, the ability, and the time to deal in a sensible and attractive way with the many pieces of land which will come due for development. Bearing in mind the delays now being experienced—and I speak from experience of this—in planning matters, which have become quite unbelievable in some cases, this extra work must mean an inevitable slowing down of house building.
    As house builder developers we are proud of our workmanship, and if we are to become mere contractors for the local authority most of the imaginative building will disappear from this country, and no houses will be built. Other noble Lords who are to speak after me in the debate will no doubt cover other aspects of the Bill. I have concentrated solely on what I know. I must say plainly to noble Lords on the Government Benches, for whom I have a certain amount of affection—I see that at the moment most of the Benches opposite are virtually empty—that though at the Committee stage we will do our best with Amendments to improve it, this Bill, as conceived, will go far towards smashing the building industry. It will certainly not provide one single extra house!
    7.34 p.m.
    The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. He made a notable contribution to our debate this evening in which he clearly put forward problems which will face the Church in this field. Before going to Chelmsford he played a notable part in his previous appointment and he is still remembered there with affection. I feel sure that if he is able to give us his time in this House he will establish just such a reputation here.
    Before saying anything further I should declare an interest in what the Bill deals with. On first seeing the Bill I asked myself why this Bill is necessary at all. Is it to deal with the profits emanating from the development of land? If so, as has already been pointed out, that matter can perfectly adequately, and much more simply, be dealt with by the normal methods of taxation. Is it to give control to the planning authority and to ease the availability of land? So far as

    1101
    I know, under existing planning arrangements, this can be perfectly satisfactorily carried out now.
    The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that the Bill would make a contribution towards positive planning. I am not very clear what that term means. But so far as I am aware, all local authorities have to look forward and have to plan, and they can still acquire land which they need to fulfil their plans without all this cumbersome business which we are asked to accept under the Bill. Therefore I asked myself: "Is there an ulterior motive in this Bill?", because the ostensible objectives did not seem altogether to justify the many pages which we are to be asked to deal with. It seemed to me that it was quite probable that this was to form the basis of a more comprehensive scheme of land nationalisation in the future. The basis is here; the mechanics are provided. That would also explain the unseemly haste with which this Bill is being pushed through, so as to give time for further steps to be taken, based on the preparations that we are now considering.
    The Bill has not been well thought out, no doubt because of the hurry. Even in the past few days, innumerable Government Amendments have been tabled in another place, and your Lordships have not yet had time to digest these. Surely this is not a very sound basis on which to treat Parliament. Parliament is asked to give its most thorough consideration to these highly technical clauses, but unless there is time to work them out and read them through properly, it will surely be difficult for us to arrive at a proper conclusion. This seems to me to be an authoritarian attitude towards Parliament which, coupled with some of the proposals in the Bill itself, indicates, to me at least, that the present Government are heading towards a more authoritarian form of government.
    First, we have the way the Bill has been handled; and there are a great many of the provisions, as yet unspecified, which are to be settled by regulation. I was very glad to hear the noble Baroness say that these will be subject to Resolution in Parliament. But clearly we shall have to see just what the Bill says before we accept this position. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is left with immense
    1102
    powers. There are no provisions for guidelines as set out in the Bill. There are no limitations upon his powers or upon his sphere of activity. In effect, in the sphere of development land he is a veritable dictator. This is another aspect of the authoritarian or totalitarian theme which runs through the Bill.
    It is true that a number of additions have been put into the Bill making safeguards to protect the individual; but they were not in the original Bill. Surely the original Bill indicated what were the thoughts of the Government in this respect. The Bill is also totalitarian because it assumes that the interests of the community as a whole are not only paramount but extinguish certain individual rights without compensation or right of appeal or hearing.
    Implicit in the Bill is the suggestion that all supposed requirements or benefits of the community as a whole override individual rights. It ignores the fact that individuals are units within the community. Individual rights, my Lords, as we all know, have grown up and been developed through the centuries from a series of Charters and Acts which are now enshrined in the law of the country, and there has developed a balance between the rights of individuals and the requirements of the community. Much of this is now to be eroded by the authoritarian powers which are to be assumed by the Secretary of State.
    As I understand it, the assumption on which the Bill is based is that the requirements of the community create demand for land development, and therefore it is right that the community should have the benefits arising out of this development. This is not necessarily true. There are several towns which were created entirely as a result of private enterprise: such towns as Barrow, White haven and Eastbourne, and no doubt your Lordships can think of many others. There are areas where a factory or a port has been built and the houses have come to fulfil the need to service those enterprises—all the efforts of private enterprise, and nothing whatever to do with the community as a whole. Again, under this Bill no regard is paid to the normal requirements of supply and demand. The normal economic processes will be negatived under these arrangements and we

    1103
    shall have to see what will take their place.
    Furthermore, in these proposals to nationalise some of the land of this country it is surely wrong to treat land in isolation, as a special case, for land is the basis of so many other enterprises that it must affect almost everything that goes on in this country. It is true that we have had previous nationalisation, but it seems to me that once you start embarking on any form of land nationalisation you are getting very near to the end of the road, which is a Communist State. It may be that this is what the Government want. They may find it convenient to mask their objective by such terms as "the needs of the community". However, I doubt, if this is the thought of the Government, whether it is what the majority of the people of this country want. The Bill is a landmark in this progression, and I can see why Her Majesty's Government attach so much importance to it; for, as I have said before, land is the basis from which so much else springs.
    Perhaps I may now say a word about the powers of the Secretary of State. Some of this has already been mentioned before and I will not weary your Lordships by repeating it, but, as I understand it, under the old Clause 12 legislation can be amended by the simple process of the Secretary of State setting up a joint board of two authorities, and after this he is empowered to nullify anything that is written in the Bill at all affecting that area. The Secretary of State need not give a reason for taking over land; he does not have to establish requirements. He can confirm a compulsory purchase order on part of an area of land that it is proposed to acquire and defer a decision on the remainder. Think of the chaos that will ensue if that kind of situation arises! How is the remaining land to be managed with a sword hanging over its head? So by a stroke of the pen it is possible for an individual to be stripped of his property, and there is no redress. Nor, so far as I can see, is there intended to be, for the Bill expressly gives the Secretary of State power to deny the right of an inquiry. It specifically, as is quite normal, excepts matters of compensation; but it also says that an objection on the grounds that an acquisition is unnecessary or inexpedient will not be accepted. It is very hard to see what other
    1104
    grounds there are left to ask for an inquiry.
    What about compensation? The individual fares very badly here and his position is somewhat uncertain, but it would appear that the only compensation he may be entitled to is on the grounds of hardship. In this case he has no guarantee that he will get any compensation, either, because there may not be a tribunal for him to appeal to: it is at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Bill says that the Secretary of State "may" appoint a tribunal. The terms of reference of the tribunal have not been settled in any form. Nothing has been laid down in the Bill, and surely on so important a matter Parliament should be given some guidance as to what it is being asked to approve. What about the limit? It is true that it has been increased to £50,000; but if there is a case of hardship why is there a ceiling in cash terms to the compensation payable? Surely it ought to be paid in full.
    May I now say a word about the way in which it is intended to operate this Bill? The first point to note is that where it is proposed to acquire land the local authority will operate, as it were, as the prosecution counsel and the judge, and the defence will not be represented. The second point to note is that whereas under present legislation local authorities receive sums of money from the developer to help with the infrastructure—such things as road and sewers; a process which I should have thought could be extended even further—now it is uncertain whether they will get anything. It is at the discretion of the Secretary of State; and, even so, he has to obtain the approval of the Treasury. We all know how difficult it is to get any money out of the Treasury funds. So we start on a somewhat uncertain wicket. It has already been said that local authorities lack skill in this matter, and I will not pursue that one, but in my experience bureaucratic arrangements in connection with the development of land are not only slow and cumbersome but are extremely expensive, and there is no benefit to be derived from them either for the community or for the local authority concerned.
    Something has been said about the need for finance for development, and I think this is an important issue which the Bill has not completely investigated

    1105
    —or it has not set it out, at any rate. Normally, of course, a builder, as he develops, is building up an asset, and he borrows money from a lender—a bank or an insurance company—and has as security the land and the increasing security of the building which goes up on it. But it seems quite possible, in the case of some of the proposed developments under this Bill, that there will be very little security for the lender. What happens then? Is the local authority to raise the money through the rates, making them even higher than they are, or is the Treasury to be asked to "fork out"? This is a point which could seriously affect both the rate of development and its cost. May I finish by saying that this scheme is not merely the sacrificial slaughter of development and landowning interests, it is an attack on real property in the widest sense, the future ramifications of which may injure the vast majority of the community which it ostensibly aims to benefit.
    7.50 p.m.
    The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow my noble friend and distant cousin Lord Salisbury. He spoke from experience and brought out many important points about this Bill. I should also like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for his excellent maiden speech, very charmingly delivered, and to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lady Young and the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for allowing us to have yet another Second Reading speech; because I must admit that had this opportunity not been forthcoming I think that perhaps I might have missed making to-day what I consider to be one of the most important speeches I have ever made in your Lordships' House.
    My Lords, I intend to speak to only two parts of the Bill: first, Clause 2 and then, Part II. In Clause 2 of the Bill, your Lordships will see that it is possible for the Secretary of State to set up joint boards. The Parliamentary draftsmen have on the whole made a genuine and gallant attempt to take advantage of the best of legislation and bring it into line throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, Clause 2 as it stands is making the situation in respect of the Community Land Bill, and to
    1106
    some extent planning functions, completely different for England, Scotland and Wales. I shall proceed to illustrate why.
    Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (referred to in this Bill as "the Act of 1971") two or more authorities in England could set up a joint board for any planning functions. They could also do it for any functions within this Bill. The same applies to Wales in that two or more authorities may set up a joint board for any of the functions that they intend to carry out in respect of anything to do with planning or any other matters in that connection. But your Lordships will note that under Clause 2(6) the Secretary of State has excluded himself from being able to set up a joint board in Wales and is leaving everything for Wales in the hands of this dreadful Land Authority.
    In Scotland, Part I and Schedules 1 and 2 of the Scottish Act of 1972—that is, the Town and Country Planning Act—were repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and there is no equivalent to Section 241 of the Local Government Act 1972 to which reference is made under subsection (4) of Clause 2 of this Bill; so that here it would be possible for the Secretary of State to set up a joint board. But under Scottish legislation the local authorities no longer have any power to do that themselves.
    My Lords, I shall now go on to Part II of the Bill. When I came to study this Bill intensively during the months of July, August and September one thing that considerably concerned me was the proposed setting up of this Land Authority for Wales, because I think that the greatest disaster that will be achieved by this Land Authority is the separation, so far as Wales is concerned, of the acquisition powers under this Bill and efficient planning. I will quote briefly from a speech made during the Community Land Bill proceedings on June 26th in Standing Committee "G" of the other place. The right honourable Mr. Oakes said—and I am sure that he was speaking for the Government—
    "We are concerned … with enabling a community—via its democratically elected councils in that area—to plan its environment for the future positively, and not piecemeal negatively as it has had to do at the present time. That is the strength behind this Bill."

    1107
    My Lords, I do not pretend for one moment to like this Bill, but I have never taken a destructive attitude in this House. But here we have a third authority appearing. We have the Land Authority to acquire the land; we have the county planning authority in Wales for the major planning functions and then a district planning function for the secondary arrangements. I feel certain that this is a case where things will go seriously wrong; but I am glad to have had at least an opportunity to investigate as to why this has been done.
    My Lords, only two answers really came up. One was that the Land Authority for Wales was a forerunner to the devolution of central Government and the setting up at some time of a Welsh Assembly. I sincerely hope, if ever there is a Welsh or Scottish Assembly, that one of their first functions will not be to proceed to carry out a nationalisation process. This would be both expensive and disastrous. I think that perhaps the other reason was because parts of Wales, the counties of—and your Lordships will perhaps be indulgent over my pronunciation—Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd, and Powys are relatively sparsely populated. Perhaps it was felt that a district authority within those counties did not have the financial backing in rates or was not wealthy enough in its administrative staff to carry out the functions in that respect.
    What I should like to recommend as a cure for this problem is to introduce, so far as Wales is concerned, the planning arrangements that exist in Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. This set up a county, if I may use an English phrase—we have regions in Scotland—and a district planning authority for the more populated parts of Scotland; that is, the Lowlands and up to the coast a little North of Aberdeen. But in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland, we decided that the planning functions should be carried out by regional or county authorities. This has worked very well. In Scotland, there are nine regions. In Wales there are eight counties out of which I suggest that Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys should be general planning authorities run by the county, but that the rest of Wales, which consists of South, West and Mid-Glamorgan and the County of Gwent, should be in exactly
    1108
    the same position as England with county and district planning authorities as would exist anywhere else.
    The planning arrangements in Scotland have been highly successful, and I feel very strongly that the old county boroughs of Cardiff and Swansea, within South and West Glamorgan respectively, should have just as much right to take advantage of the provisions of this Bill as the cities of Edinburgh or Dundee could in Scotland or, for that matter, a city just across the Border in the County of Avon. If there is a housing development planned by the city and capital of Wales, Cardiff, the application has to go through the county authority to the Land Authority for Wales, when, just across the Border, the old county borough of Bristol, being now a district on its own, can acquire its own land under the provisions of this Bill and organise its own planning arrangements, as could a district authority anywhere else in the whole of England.
    It has been stressed, even in your Lordships' House, that one of the purposes of this Bill is to provide a benefit to the local authorities. I can see no benefit being achieved in Wales by this Land Authority. I have drafted an alteration to the major part of Part IX to fit into this Bill, and I sincerely hope that those of your Lordships—and this is not political—who believe that the Government are wrong and that I am right will support me, because I ask the Government to give it a second thought.
    Let us look at what is happening under the Bill regarding the Land Authority in Wales. I am pleased to see that in new Clause 9 the Government have at long last realised that economies must be made, and in subsection (3) your Lordships will note that the amount of the initial debt has been reduced from £750,000 down to £100,000. That is the first sign of an economy. Then, in Clause 12 you will see that the Land Authority has to prepare a statement of account regarding land acquisitions, et cetera.
    Imagine, my Lords, that there is a development in Newport. The district of Newport, a developer in Newport and an industrialist close to it all want the same piece of land, and all three go cap in hand to the Land Authority to get it. Whichever one can talk the best gets that piece of land. But just across the border

    1109
    the City of Bath or the City of Bristol would be doing it on their own, and would not have to go through the Land Authority. The Land Authority have to keep an account, so it is more likely that the land will go to whoever offers more money for it. Here we are completely and utterly dividing planning from land acquisition within the provisions of this Bill.
    Clause 16 says that there shall be a land acquisition and management scheme organised by each county authority for the whole of the United Kingdom. But in the last subsection it says that this shall not apply to Wales. All the way through this Bill your Lordships will see, time and time again, that a part or section does not apply to Wales. To divide planning from land acquisition within the provisions of this Bill is criminal and it will not work. Let the local authorities carry out the function which they were set up to carry out. Let them get on with it. Even on disposal notification areas, Clause 23 says that before the Land Authority for Wales passes a resolution it shall consult all the local authorities. But that is all; they do not need to pay any attention to it.
    Even the supplemental provisions in Clause 47 cheerfully say:
    "The Secretary of State may act under this section in a case where it appears to him expedient that an authority should cease to be responsible for exercising… any functions under this Act."
    If your Lordships turn over the page again you will see that this section shall not apply in Wales. So once that Land Authority is set up, you can never do away with it. Schedule 3 to the Bill, regarding the Land Authority for Wales, says:
    "The Land Authority for Wales shall consist of such number of members, not less than six and not exceeding nine …"
    Will your Lordships' House accept that from six to nine people should manage the land acquisition for the whole of Wales, when a hundred councillors should be doing the same job? If ever I heard of a case of sending a boy to do a man's job—and he will do it badly—this is the best example I have ever known. Leave it to the local authorities, let them get on with their own job. After all, they are elected. This Authority is bringing bureaucracy into existence to an extent
    1110
    which I believe is almost impossible to understand.
    I have spoken, and I have spoken with all the strength I have. I ask the Government to think again, and to adopt the same principles as we have in Scotland, which might work for Wales. I am sorry that I have spoken for a long time, but I say honestly to your Lordships that I have never felt more certain that this is wrong. Scrap Part II of this Bill and put in Part IX of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, and you may find the right answer.
    8.10 p.m.
    Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not think I need to declare an interest, as others of your Lordships have done, because I speak as a tenant farmer on this Second Reading of a Bill which I consider useless and probably unworkable—though I am encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who has said that it is definitely unworkable—and certainly unproductive and unnecessary. From a farmer's viewpoint, this Bill is just another unnecessary piece of legislation—if one can give it that misnomer—in common with CTT, wealth tax, tied cottage abolition and a multitude of other things—you name it, and we have got it! Or perhaps I should say we have had it, because that is how it appears to the farmer. I am sorry to have to drive the nail in even further, but for the first time in my farming life I have watched farming stop going forward and then go full astern. The reason for this is the mass of legislation which is directed against the individual, and particularly the small businessman and farmer. This is the cause of the farmer's misery rather than the present temporary—as I hope it is—uneconomic price for agricultural produce. If it really is State control of everything that the Government want, why do they not say so?—and then I can prepare to farm as they do in Russia, and watch you all go hungry!
    Having tried to explain that I do not like this Bill very much, I must nevertheless thank the Government for having come forward since the Second Reading in August with some substantial Amendments. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not think I am looking a gift horse in the mouth if I ask what unknown god interceded to get these concessions. If the noble Baroness will tell me, I shall

    1111
    be only too happy to make obeisance to this unknown god, because I fear that I may need him again in the future. At this stage, if I may, I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. He seems to have been very successful in dealing with this unknown god, and perhaps if the noble Baroness cannot tell me where to find him I could get help from the right reverend Prelate.
    If, as I suspect, there is no known emetic by means of which we could get rid of this Bill at this late hour—even if we did revive the medical profession—I should like to raise two matters. First, I should like to ask for clarification regarding exempt buildings in agriculture; and, secondly, I should like to make yet one more plea—following that made by the noble Marquess—for realistic compensation to be paid, particularly to the farmer whose land has been taken for development. Your Lordships will know that farmers, and in particular the National Farmers' Union, have never been happy about compensation for farmers who have been dispossessed. This Bill once more highlights the problem. As I understand it, when land is taken under the Bill the farmer is compensated, to start with, at market value and, after the second appointed day, at its existing use value. If the Government argue that they object to farmers or landowners making huge chance profits because of their land having been designated for building—and I must say I am inclined to agree with them on that—surely it is not right for farmers, when their land is taken away from them, to be worse off. That is certainly going to be the case if they are to be compensated only at existing use price. I need hardly remind your Lordships that it is the last few acres that give the profit and that the majority of the acres merely pay off the farmer's overheads. Surely your Lordships will agree that the only fair and easy method is equivalent reinstatement. The Government have accepted equivalent reinstatement for the Churches. Why not for the individual farmer or the businessman? This is another attack on the individual, and I seem to remember that somebody once said something about the sanctity of the individual—but perhaps that is "old hat" now.
    1112
    I should like to ask the Government for clarification at some stage or other regarding Schedule 1 as it concerns farmers, and in particular horticulturalists and those who go in for intensive farming, running piggeries, chicken-houses and so on. Am I correct in saying that these two categories could be classified as excepted development, as opposed to exempt development, which would allow a local authority power to acquire the land and develop it themselves in what I believe are called "exceptional circumstances"? There is particular confusion here, since I understand that during the Report stage in another place the Government accepted that agriculture included—and I quote—
    "horticulture and the use of land for market gardens and nursery grounds"
    whereas Schedule 1, lines 12 and 13, specifically excludes market gardens and nursery grounds.
    I cannot believe that the Government really mean what is said in Schedule 1. This could, ridiculously, lead to local authorities becoming market gardeners. I am sure that all they would grow would he rotten tomatoes. Of course, they might be useful for demonstrating against future legislation, but they are hardly what is intended by the Bill. Perhaps the Government would be prepared to avoid this messy business by making sure that all agricultural development—and I emphasise agricultural development as opposed to dwelling houses—is "exempt" rather than "excepted".
    I am sorry if I appear to be petty and suspicious over this difference between "exempt" and "excepted". It is perhaps unfortunate that the two words are placed so close together, because it makes for confusion. But it is a fact that farmers have become increasingly suspicious of Government and, as a result, now need an increasing amount of reassurance that they are not being taken for a ride. We consider the Government to be far more unpredictable and unreliable than the weather. Make no mistake, my Lords, this Bill is yet another attack against the individual and, as such, should be resisted. For unless we do so, what will be taken over next?—the Press, our minds, and perhaps our thoughts and beliefs?
    8.18 p.m.
    Lord DIGBY: My Lords, we have here another Bill to complicate our way of life; another Bill based on seeing the mote in our existing law without really considering the beam that we are putting in its place. This has been our besetting political error since the War. We see the anomalies that exist, but ignore the ones produced by new legislation. This Bill is based on two quite separate premises: first, that profit from development land should accrue to the community and, secondly, that local authority planners know best and will produce a better Britain by both initiating and controlling development. In my opinion, the first is already catered for by taxation, and the second is false, or at the very least unproven.
    With regard to the financial aspect, during the transitional period between the first and second appointed days, the basis of compensation will be net of development land tax, so that by definition there can be no gain to the community above the amount that would have been received in taxation; the community will, in fact, be worse-off because of the loan charges on the capital required to buy the land, the legal charges involved in conveying it and the staff required to operate the Act. Even after the second appointed day no one with experience of administrative costs will believe that the extra 20 per cent., accruing by purchase at existing use value, will do more than cover the administrative, legal and financial costs involved in planning, negotiating, surveying, purchasing, leasing and finally selling the developed property. There can be no overall financial grounds, although at a very parochial level it could be argued that at least local authorities get some of the surplus, if any, whereas under the taxation system it all goes to the Treasury. But I notice that even here such surplus money as the Secretary of State allows a local authority to retain can be expended only with the consent of the Secretary of State—another case of central Government professing to support independence of local government but retaining the financial reins firmly in their own hands.
    Again, the amount left to the local authority is decided by the Secretary of State. We have heard it is likely to be
    1114
    40 per cent. to the Treasury, 30 per cent. to the local authority concerned and 30 per cent. to other local authorities. It is this last 30 per cent. that concerns me as I am interested in an agricultural region, the South-West. It would appear that the first authorities to move into surplus are likely to be rural where green field sites of agricultural value are developed for residential or commercial purposes, with large profits; whereas in the older towns there may never be a surplus as valuable commercial property may be developed into housing at a loss. If 30 per cent. of these rural surpluses are diverted to the towns it will be a real loss. It may be argued that previously these surpluses were in the hands of individuals, which is true. But, on the whole, they were invested locally, due to such provisions as roll-over and the tendency to invest heavily in agriculture. If that investment is removed rural areas will suffer.
    At this stage I should like to digress a little on to the subject of agricultural investment which is more relevant to this Bill than your Lordships might suppose. I have looked at agriculture in most corners of the world and am always amazed at the size of agricultural investment in Britain compared with almost any other country. As we are one of the most densely populated countries, this is a very vital factor in our economy. Why this high investment in Britain? First, a Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, laid a basis in the 1947 Act that assured farmers of a fair return on invested capital. Secondly, there are the British love of the land and a tradition of agricultural improvement. Thirdly, the development of agricultural land for industry and housing, although a loss to food production in itself, provided the capital for increased efficiency and thus finally a net increase in food supplies. Confidence in British agriculture is now at a low ebb. Tradition is no longer admired, and if the profits of green field development are syphoned off to the towns this Labour Government will nullify all the great and valuable achievement of their predecessor in 1947. So I believe that the financial argument in the Bill is at best unnecessary and at worst wasteful of resources and positively harmful to our economy.
    So I should like to turn to the second premise, that the planners know best.

    1115
    With many years' experience in local government I much appreciate the value of our planning system. It is easy to complain about planning failures, but one has only to go abroad to countries where planning is less strict, or corruption is prevalent, to realise the overall success of our planners. However, one must accept the fact that they are planners and not entrepreneurs, not developers, and not skilled in the economic side of development. The Government in their exposition of the financial effects say that administrative costs together with any expenditure on capital improvement will be recouped on disposal. That is Civil Service thinking with no thought as to whether the market will stand it. We hear, "will". We hear of property developers in Rolls-Royce, but we forget the ones who have gone bankrupt. Development is not easy. It has risks. I doubt whether the public service will make a success of it. People brought up in the property boom, that is now dead, will be very surprised how long it will take the community land accounts to achieve a surplus. At present we have landowners, house owners, builders, developers, surveyors, all looking for development opportunities, a multitude of ideas from many sources. Do the Government think that this could really be replaced by the local authorities? I cannot see it.
    The basis of this Bill is that the planners know best, but it is noticeable that in almost every clause the Secretary of State retains the final power. If he has such confidence in local authorities he should show it by leaving them to take the decisions. This Bill is not only mis-placed but mistimed. Local government is already fully stretched and in the face of pressures to reduce staff and cut costs this Bill will merely add new burdens. What is really needed is to get some confidence back into the building industry and money to finance it. Builders and developers rely on land as their main asset to get bank advances to finance their building. Can local authorities provide this finance? If not, the small builder may well be driven out of business for lack of capital with no collateral in the land to finance his workaday expenditure. But if local authorities do provide the finance they will have to take the risks
    1116
    of failure; and I suspect will tend to favour the large, well-established firms, again at the expense of the small builder who is such a vital cog in our construction industry. My Lords, I believe in the cobbler sticking to his last. Perhaps local authorities' great expertise in control and planning can be extended to development; but I doubt it.
    8.27 p.m.
    Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech and say how much we enjoyed it and how much I, for one, admired the dexterity with which he entered a debate on a highly controversial Bill but acceded to the Rules of Procedure and was in no way controversial. May I also pay my compliments to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and sympathise with her in what is an enormous task. Whatever she may feel about the contents of the Bill, my guess is that she probably hates it already. So there is a modicum of common ground, at least, between us. I had much sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, when he made a mild but rapier-like rebuke to the noble Baroness for the way in which she introduced this Bill. We did not, or at least I did not, complain of the length of her speech, but the inference was that this was an awful bore, we had been through it all once before, and why had we to go through it all again. My first reaction, apart from the fact that I did not take part in the first Second Reading, is that Parliament has been put under appalling pressure with this Bill. We are always told we must get through things quickly. It happened with the Referendum Bill and now we have this Bill.
    The first thing the Government did was to introduce a No. 2 Bill so that it could run concurrently with the original Bill, and thus when it came to the Second Reading here we could dispose of it. I believe that to be a thoroughly objectionable practice, although one appreciates the reason why it was done. Then the Government produced the White Paper. I accept that this was supposed to be helpful, but it must he almost unprecedented for the Government to introduce a White Paper which contained the Bill as it went to the Report stage in another place, and included in it all the Government's Amendments but none of those of the Opposition, despite the fact that there

    1117
    were 275 Amendments yet to be considered. Although this may have been intended to be helpful, it shows a quite appalling disregard for the purpose of Parliament. When people become cynical about Parliament and bureaucracy, this kind of action gives ample justification for it.
    The proper Bill which we are now discussing appeared in the Printed Paper Office at only three o'clock this afternoon. As everybody knows, it is a complicated Bill. It is complicated for those who are professionals and it is devastating and desperate for the layman. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley—and what a pity it is that he has left the Chamber, because I am sure he would like to know that I agree with him—that it is not fair to your Lordships. Nor is it fair to advisers, whether in the Government or outside. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I was just saying how much I agreed with the noble Lord, but he has missed that gem. As I said, it is not fair to advisers, whether they are Government advisers or people outside. It is not fair to those people who will be affected by what has been described by the Minister as the most Socialist piece of legislation that this Government are likely to produce.
    It is not possible to deal with this Bill in the constructive and proper way in which it should be dealt with. It has now come to your Lordships' House, which is to go through the Bill like a dose of salts. There were 275 Amendments in another place and I understand that 300 Amendments have been put down here. Parliament is being asked to deal with approximately 600 Amendments in the course of two weeks, in the full knowledge that a mass of "unknown" is still left behind which civil servants are working on now—the regulations, the advisory notes, the circulars to local authorities, all of which this Bill invites and prescribes but about which nothing is as yet known. One just has to think of the unwritten and unscrutinised paper work which this involves. I, for one, regard it as an intolerable way to deal with any legislation, let alone major legislation, in Parliament. How can we make sure, if it is to work, that it works as well as possible? My sympathies go as much to the advisers of Her Majesty's Government as they do to anybody else.
    1118
    What is the root cause of all this? There is one reason—the meteoric rise in property values four years ago, a rise from which some people and institutions benefited. Because they have benefited, they have been classed almost as "spivs", or Rachmanites or almost as enemies of society. My noble friend Lord Sandford said that they were referred to almost as ill-gotten gains. But who are these people? They are not just a few already wealthy people; they are hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who happened to own any property, even the smallest house. And what was their crime? They were affected by the market. Some of them took advantage of the market which happened to go up but which can, and has, gone down. Some who had to sell their property had the advantage of the market situation thrust upon them. That is the cause of this Bill.
    If it was wrong that there should have been that advantage, the fair and simple way to deal with it was by taxation. Having made people feel that in some ways they are anti-social the Government say, "Now we must get in on the act so that the community, not the individual, will benefit". They make the mistake of inferring that the local authority is synonymous with the community, and of inferring that the large profits of the past will be available in the future, that they will accrue to the benefit of the local authority and, so the inference goes, the rates or the taxes will thereby be lower. But will there be these profits?
    The Government have said that 14,000 people will be required to administer this Bill. Even on the Government's own admission, this is a staggering number of people, and I want to know where these 14,000 people will come from. Many of them are professional people. I have given notice to the noble Baroness that I shall ask this question, so I hope that she will be able to answer it. Are these people hanging about waiting to be employed, or will they be drawn from those who are already in private practice? I should like to know how many of these 14.000 will be land agents, surveyors, planners, lawyers, valuers, and how many will come under the aura of administrative staff.
    There are to be hardship tribunals. Again, where will these people be drawn

    1119
    from? Who will run them? How many will be required? Will they be run by inspectors or by QCs? How many people will constitute a tribunal and how many tribunals are likely to be set up? Once a person is a member of a tribunal, is that, rather like a profession, his job for the rest of his life? You join a tribunal and there you are. That may seem an absurd question to us, except that Clause 27 refers to the Secretary of State having the ability to give pensions to the members of tribunals. My belief is that the people are just not there. If they are not there, the Act will not work, and if they are the functions of the existing private sector will be grossly impeded.
    What will happen then? In order to avoid such disruption, inflation will be given a severe twist as increased salaries will be flung around on a competitive basis to try to retain people in their existing jobs. Under the old system, if there were profits they were put back into circulation—possibly by charities selling off part of their land and doing up their property; sometimes by individuals doing up their houses and thus giving work to the builders; possibly by a person buying a motor car and giving work to the motor car manufacturers; possibly even by buying stocks and shares and so putting money into industry. What they did not do, and what would have been wrong, was to put their money under the bed, because then their money went out of circulation.
    I do not believe that there will be these profits, nor do I believe that there will be anything to put back into circulation. Nobody will benefit, not even the community. Instead there will be an outrageous intrusion into the lives and property of individuals. There will be a massive demand for scarce professional resources. A huge bureaucratic labyrinth will be set up which nobody wants, which nobody understands, not even those who are obliged to make it work, and which will be insensitive to the individual and to common sense alike.
    At a time of major financial crisis when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is having to borrow money from abroad, it seems crazy to undertake a system which will require a capital cost of £1 million every single day to buy land and £1 million every single week to administer it. That is the Government's own estimate
    1120
    and one knows how often Government estimates are grossly undervalued. As my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley said, many aspects of the Bill will have an insidious effect on agriculture and will run counter to the expansion of the food industry, as has been demanded by the Government in their White Paper, Food From Our Own Resources. Many people engaged in agriculture right across the board, whether they are owners, owner-occupiers, tenants or work people, view with despondency the vice-like grip on the raw material of their industry which the Bill gives to the urban-orientated planners. All this, I suggest, is unnecessary. Taxation could have achieved what is required more fairly, simply and cheaply.
    My Lords, it was the Secretary of State who said that it would be tragic to embark on a social revolution only to end with a bureaucratic fiasco. I agree with him, and I think that is what he is likely to get.
    8.40 p.m.
    Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, first, it is my pleasure to add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate. I was interested to hear his problems and worries about the Church, and I hope that should these arise in the future we of your Lordships' House will be able either to dispose of them or at least diminish them.
    My contribution is to nut forward some views of one category of person whose work is likely to be somewhat considerably influenced by this Bill, namely the local government officer. It is understood, if not actually feared, in some quarters, that this Bill will give wide powers to the Secretary of State and the local authorities. On a first consideration of the main points of the Bill, whatever power may be granted to any local authority the additional work involved will be very heavy. New departments or groups and sections inside existing Departments will have to be set up and staffed. I understand that in various local authorities there has been talk, and there have been fears and worries, about possible redundancies. Now it seems that the new schemes resulting from this Bill will need either new staff to be recruited or the present staff redeployed, having more work to do, to say nothing of possible overtime.

    1121
    Let us consider a few of the teams of men and women who will be required to deal with any plot of land, big or small, that comes within the scope of the Bill. I have noted six categories. First, we need an intelligence service for data on land ownership, acquisition and disposal. Secondly, we need accountancy for recording and considering all financial implications. Thirdly, we need the vital valuation for assessing the market, and current use and other land values that may be considered according to what use the land has been put to and what it will be required for. Then, fourthly, comes the legal part: all stages in obtaining, disposing of, or the development of, every plot of land will create many problems for the lawyers of many local authorities. Fifthly, there is the matter of acquisition and disposal. Finally, we come to the management of the land owned before disposal and land under leasehold, and the work involved in preparing land acquisition and management schemes. All these and other teams will involve much expense to organise and get into working order. There are some local authorities, particularly at county level, whose existing administrative staff may be able to deal with the situation at a comparatively quick rate but the cost to them all, at the very least, will be extremely heavy.
    Thinking back to the comments expressed in your Lordships' House on Monday, 13th October, when the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made a Statement about this Bill, I think the protests about it being hurried through will now be shared by many local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, prophesied that we should make a hash of this Bill by rushing it through. Let us hope that any hash we make will not be so bad as he fears. But even if it is passed in this unwelcome hurry, those to whom powers are authorised will make an even worse hash if there is a rush to implement them. But I do not think this will happen. Putting this Bill into practice must be a slow process. We should remember that the local government officer need not be regarded as a tiresome, exacting official. He has a duty to find ways to help people when he has to wield his authority. He has to help them to try to meet their problems as well as telling them what has to be done.
    1122
    The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, feared that the authorities might be judge and prosecuting counsel and that there would be little opportunity for defence. I am speaking from experience, because I have been to many people in connection with building regulations and explained to them what must be done, I have had to listen to their stories of their difficulties in meeting the regulations, and then trying to find out the best way to sort out the problem. As they cannot work very fast, the one thing that is certain is that when this Bill is passed and becomes law you are not likely to find a local government officer knocking on your front door the next day. However, he will work as fast as he can, although not rushing headlong into the activities that this Bill requires.
    I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether she can give any encouragement about the building industry. My noble friend Lord Gridley has expressed fears and prophesies about the worsening state of the trade. My work is in County Hall in the Architect's Department and my main concern is with what happens on building sites. I receive reports from clerks of works on the sites, with long lists of how many men are working there and what they are doing. Constantly I have to work out how many man-hours are spent, normal man-hours and overtime, and I also have to calculate how long it is likely that it will take to complete the building.
    It is very nice indeed when reports come in that more dwellings have been completed and handed over, but unfortunately, although we do not seem to have any lack of contractors coming forward to give their estimates, and smaller builders coming in as sub-contractors, it is very difficult to find a sufficient number of men to do all the work in the time required, and although the buildings are going up they are frequently well behind schedule. If the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, can give any encouragement to the building industry then, despite all the things I do not like about this Bill, at least there will be one good thing coming out of it.
    "More haste, less speed" is an obvious remark now with the implementation of this Bill, and I recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, a

    1123
    former Chairman of the Greater London Council, on 4th August. He said:
    "My Lords, given a reasonable chance to bring the full scheme into operation in the gradual way—and that is the important point—which is proposed by the Government, local authorities are ready to accept the undoubted challenge offered them with every hope of success."—[Official Report; 4/8/75, col. 1391.]
    The surer way to get this Bill into progress is to make it work slowly, because the slower it is implemented the greater will be the efficiency.
    8.50 p.m.
    Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and to say how much we all enjoyed his speech. We shall look forward to hearing from him on many occasions in the future. We have listened to an important Second Reading debate, and I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for making the time available for the debate, and for sending me the innumerable Government memoranda that have come out since 4th August. The noble Baroness criticised us for asking for a Second Reading debate on the grounds that it is totally unnecessary; she maintains we have already discussed the principles of the Bill. She said that the two principles behind it are, first, positive planning and, secondly, returning development value to the community. As I think has been well pointed out by almost everyone who has spoken in the debate, if these are the two principles behind the Bill—and I believe that to be true—it is, of course, totally unnecessary to have the Bill at all, because both things are capable of being carried out at present under existing law.
    Therefore, one might just as well argue that the whole Bill is unnecessary, as to argue that this Second Reading is unnecessary. Indeed, one might just as well argue that the Second Reading on 4th August was unnecessary on a Bill that was the most extraordinary hybrid, unheard of in this House before, and that the correct time to have had it was today when at least, even at three o'clock, we had the Bill which has been completed in the House of Commons. So I make no apology for having the debate today, because although I am making a debating point about the principles of
    1124
    the Bill, I take it far more seriously than that.
    I agree with the right honourable gentleman Mr. Crosland. I believe that this is the most important Bill, and the greatest measure of Socialism that this Government have yet produced, and because of that, it deserves to be taken very seriously indeed. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, nodding his head in agreement with me. Perhaps it is worth having a Second Reading debate to discuss the principles once again because they are well worth discussing more than once. Indeed, they will be discussed on many other occasions in the future, because being big and important principles—dare I say it even to your Lordships' House this evening?—we are unlikely to reach the final conclusions today, or in a Committee stage, or even in the course of the passage of the Bill at all.
    The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised extremely important points about Churches and charities. We have now had an opportunity to look for the first time at the Government's Amendments on these points. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will take to heart the points made by the right reverend Prelate. I had the very great pleasure of speaking in a very important debate in this House in June on voluntary organisations. One of the very pleasing matters which came out of that debate was the tremendous area of agreement between both the Government and the Opposition on the need to strengthen the voluntary organisations in this country. This is necessary for a whole variety of reasons, not least the fact that in these very serious economic times, when, inevitably, there will be a fall in education services and statutory social services, we should look to voluntary organisations to fill the gaps left.
    There is no doubt at all from the memoranda I have received, not only from the Churches but also from the National Council of Social Service, that charities are very worried indeed about these proposals. As has already been pointed out by the right reverend Prelate, the limit of 10 years has already been reduced by one year, and is now only nine years, because it starts on 10th September 1974 which, of course, is White Paper day. By the time the Bill becomes law, which will not, in any event, be until the

    1125
    middle of November, and by the time it comes into effect, which might be 1st January, the limit will be reduced to eight and three-quarter years. Time is moving on very rapidly for the Churches and charities.
    I ask the Government to consider very seriously the claims that they make, because I believe that not only will the Bill seriously damage existing institutions, but it will also damage new charities which spring up quite frequently to meet some totally unexpected need that we cannot foresee now, and which will be damaged because they will not own any pre-White Paper day land at all. They can only have land or buildings that they can acquire currently. This is a Part of the Bill which needs close examination. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will take to heart what has been said, and will consider carefully the cost to the Churches and charities. On this side of the House, we will do all we can to support any representations that they may make, because we believe that their needs in every sense fulfil the needs of the community, often in ways that statutory organisations cannot do.
    The other matters in the Bill which I think deserve the closest attention on Committee stage have again been referred to this evening, and are matters which concern the rights of the individual. I accept that the Government have made Amendments on compulsory purchase orders and procedures at public inquiries. But the fact remains that a fundamental right that individuals have now to object at an inquiry on a compulsory purchase order is taken away from them in many instances. I accept that there are many cases in which a compulsory purchase order is right and necessary. I have often been on local government committees which have decided to acquire something compulsorily for a very good purpose. But, at the same time, there is an equal right of the individuals who are affected to object to a compulsory purchase. I should have thought that this fundamental right was something of which all of us in this country were proud, because it meant efficiency in Government and gave a democratic right to the individual—it balanced the two.
    Even after the Amendments of the Government, there will be no right of individuals to object where there is either
    1126
    an approved structure or a development plan. In this way, not only is a right taken away, but there are certain aspects in regard to which the legislation becomes retrospective, because most people have no idea whether there is a development plan in existence in the area in which they live, and if they move to a new area they will have no rights at all, because they will not even have had the right to object in the first place. The right honourable gentleman Mr. Silkin said in another place that to have two inquiries would be bureaucratic nonsense, but I think he has misunderstood the point. He is taking away the fundamental right which we must do our best to reconsider, because the position as it stands today is the right one and it ought not to be altered.
    We are again taking away the rights of individuals in the new type of local authority ventures called disposal notification areas. Here, we do not know what the local authority are necessarily going to do. We do not know that their rolling programmes will be published. We do not know whether individuals will wake up one morning and find themselves in a disposal notification area, where they cannot sell their house without telling the local authority that they are going to do so. It is easy to see what will happen to the value of their house. It is easy to see that something which people may have expected to have is being taken away from them.
    The Bill not only affects Churches and charities, but fundamentally affects pension funds. I should declare an interest now, because I have just been made a director of an insurance company. But there is no doubt that there are over 12 million people now covered by occupational pension schemes of one sort and another. The group of people growing most rapidly in these schemes are trade unionists, where large numbers have suddenly been brought into occupational pension schemes. This is something which I, at any rate, welcome very much. Pension funds depend very much on their investments, frequently in property, to keep up the value of the ultimate pension that someone will receive. There is no doubt that they are very concerned at the effect that this Bill will have on future pensions. Therefore, I think that the Bill fundamentally attacks the rights of individuals on their retirement.

    1127
    My Lords, perhaps there is one other aspect which both the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and I may suffer from. I suspect that, like myself, she is not very knowledgeable about agriculture. I may be mistaken in this. She may find it a subject as difficult to master as I do, but I think she cannot have failed to be impressed by the arguments that have been put forward this evening by my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Digby and Lord Stanley of Alderley, all of whom are very knowledgeable on this matter. One thing I think we all share in common in this country today is the knowledge of the fact that we need to import half the food we eat, and that one of the ways we can help ourselves, our standard of living, our cost of living, our balance of payments, is to produce more food in this country. When the major criticism of so much of industry is that there is a shortage of investment, it seems an absolute tragedy that this Bill should attack the basis of farming, of what is without doubt one of the most efficient farming industries in the world, and one of the most efficient industries in this country; there is no doubt at all that the farming community are deeply disturbed.
    So, too, of course, are local authorities. One might expect them to be satisfied with the Bill, but the number of memoranda I have had from them over the summer indicates that what might have been a Bill which they would have liked and in many ways would give them increased powers is threatened by the extensive reserve powers of the Secretary of State. This is a very serious matter and I endorse the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Sandford. It has denied to so many local authorities, and to the communities in them, the power to participate in the decisions which are being taken, and has threatened them, if they fail to carry out the provisions of the Bill, with a total takeover by the Secretary of State.
    I am very concerned, too, about the position of amenity societies. Under the Bill wide discretionary powers are given to local authorities to acquire land, and although subsequent amendments have been made saying that local authorities must have regard to the development plan, this is so vague a term as to be
    1128
    virtually meaningless. At a great many public inquiries—and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who is such an authority on the world of amenity societies, will know this—many plans have been altered by amenity societies speaking on matters to do with the improvement of the environment. The fact that they will be denied this opportunity in many cases and that their views will be virtually ignored can in no way be conducive to better planning.
    My Lords, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that we on this side of the House take this Bill very seriously indeed. It is a fundamental Bill. It is a Bill that strikes at the fundamental rights of individuals in this country. We shall move a series of Amendments designed to maintain the rights that individuals now have, and where possible to extend them. I shall be moving Amendments to ask for legal aid for those who appear at public inquiries, because the legislation is now so complicated that it is asking too much of an individual to understand it without the advice of a solicitor. It is, after all, difficult enough for us, who at least have some experience in reading legislation and in trying to follow subjects, without asking the millions of owner-occupiers in this country to do the same in very complicated situations. We shall, therefore, be moving Amendments on the public inquiry procedure, and on many other aspects that have been debated this evening. I hope that the Government will listen to them and will appreciate that what we are trying to do is to defend rights which at present exist and which are being taken away.
    My Lords, I should like to hope that the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—that the Bill is unworkable—is true. I should also like to hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said in August, that it will only gradually be implemented. But if organisations and individuals are still worried this is not really surprising. The fact is that we have seen a Bill full of dictatorial powers altered in a lot of detail, but I do not believe that the spirit that activates it has altered at all.
    I was astonished to read in the report of the debate in another place of Tuesday 14th October, these words coming

    1129
    from the right honourable Minister, Mr. Silkin. He was replying to an Amendment that would have extended the time in which local authorities are required to prepare plans for land acquisition and management. It now appears that these plans must be ready by the 31st December, and it is easy to see that, as we have only just started this Bill in this place, they will have at the most six weeks, out of which will have to be taken the Christmas holiday. My honourable friend Mr. Raison was moving an Amendment to extend this period, and Mr. Silkin said this:
    "If they …"
    —that is the local authorities—
    "… are not prepared to do this by 31st December, my right honourable friend …"
    —that is Mr. Crosland—
    "… is prepared to do it for them. My right honourable friend has quite a lot of power in this matter. Not only can he step in, he can create organisations that can step in, and he can even find other local authorities who would be prepared to step in on this issue. I am sorry that it is early in the morning because I would like every local authority that is deliberately dragging its heels to listen to what I have to say. They know perfectly well, and have known for the past eight months or so, that this is exactly what the situation would be."
    My Lords, those are the words of the Minister before the Bill becomes law. What will they be like when it is law?
    9.7 p.m.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in view of the tenor of the debate, I think perhaps I should start with something on which we are all entirely agreed and add my congratulations and gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for his very interesting maiden speech. I listened very carefully to what he said, took it to heart and soul. In view of the fact that the Minister is meeting the Committee from the Churches tomorrow, I think it would be far better if I did not attempt to pre-empt or guess at what will take place there, but I hope that a great many of these matters will be resolved to the right reverend Prelate's satisfaction.
    The most extraordinary thing about this debate—and I take the point made with some charm by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—is that in fact nothing new has arisen. We have been over exactly the same ground as we went over on 4th August. I must say I appreciate that we
    1130
    have given the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, a chance to speak, and the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as he put it, the chance to make the most important speech of his life. The only trouble with that line of thought is that if we were to continue to do that we should have innumerable Second Readings on every piece of legislation until everybody had had a chance to have their way, and we could not operate in that way. What struck me forcefully was the rather macabre, almost panic way we were told we were having reds behind every blade of grass on the one hand, while we were also told by the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the Bill was so authoritarian. If that were the position we should not need to have all this discussion.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, it was not me who said that.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me. He was going very much at the beginning on hearsay evidence. He was reporting what his noble friend Lord Foot was supposed to have said, which was entirely different from what I understood the noble Lord to have said to me earlier this afternoon.
    Lord HENLEY: My Lords, if the noble Baroness cares to go through my noble friend's speech on 4th August she will see that I have reported him not by hearsay but exactly.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was referring to what he said to me this afternoon. As it was in the Prince's Chamber perhaps I ought to consider it privileged and not refer to it any more.
    Lord HENLEY: The Prince's Bar?
    Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords, the Prince's Chamber; so I shall not say anything more about that. If this measure were as authoritarian as noble Lords have suggested, then, as has been pointed out by some noble Lords, we should not need as complicated a measure as we have, with such enormous trouble taken and with such a vast amount of consultation. On the other hand, noble Lords who grumble that it is so complicated would be the first to jump into resentment if they felt that everything was not spelt out. What they have been asking for all the way through is in fact being

    1131
    spelt out in the Bill. This is what in fact the Amendments consist of, which I was explaining when I opened this debate this evening. This has lengthened the Bill, but it has been in response to what the Government have been asked to do.
    The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, referred to the unknown god who had conceived this amended Bill, who had produced it, and he would like to know who it was. May I say that it is a combination of the reasoning, listening power, and consultations of a Labour Government. So that is the answer to that mystery. I felt at one point that I had the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, a little on our side. I listened with great interest, and he was kind enough to give me notice in advance of his feeling about Wales. I explained then and—I shall not go into it at great length now because no doubt it will appear again at some point before us—that Wales, we consider, is a small unit, and much more self-contained than the other countries. I got the feeling from him that, unlike the rest of the speakers on his side, so far as giving power to the local authorities was concerned he was very happy about it. All he was unhappy about was that Wales did not conic into this scheme.
    Probably the saddest part from my point of view about this debate is that while I am sure noble Lords have taken the trouble to read the Bill, and they talk about its objectives, they deliberately do not want to understand what it is about. I really must return to the objectives. They are positive planning plus community ownership. I shall not go into detail about this because I went into it in considerable and, I thought, extremely clear detail on the Second Reading on the 4th August. To say that this operation can be achieved by tax is certainly not enough, because we take the view that the important thing is the ownership of the land and the opportunity to plan positively. There is a tremendous difference between that and the present situation, when local authorities have the opportunity of negative planning, of stopping things, but do not have, to the extent that they should, the opportunity to plan their areas for the future, and this is really what we are talking about.
    Frankly, whichever way one looks at it, those who say that the Bill is not
    1132
    workable really do not want it to be workable, and if it were workable and could be made workable then they do not like the principle, and over and above everything noble Lords opposite are determined to ensure that it is made unworkable by saying, even before there is a chance for it to come into being, that they will repeal it. If we really want to do something about land in this country, by talking like that and not even giving it a chance to get off the ground, noble Lords opposite are killing it before it has a possible opportunity.
    On Second Reading on 4th August I went into considerable detail on the question of phasing, yet it would appear from what we have heard from noble Lords opposite that that debate did not take place, even though it was a debate in which 22 noble Lords took part including a number from this side of the House, and at the end of it my noble friend replied in a most expert and comprehensive way. Despite that, we are treated to these diatribes which conclude that whether it be manpower, finance or anything else, it will all happen straight away. The second appointed day, when the whole phasing period has been gone through, may be anything up to 10 years hence, yet noble Lords opposite are still talking as though it is all going to happen immediately, on the first appointed day. Incidentally, the first appointed day will not be in January, but probably some time in the spring.
    The public acquisition of land is hardly abnormal, but what is abnormal is the way in which noble Lords opposite are blaming everything—not only what is happening to builders, and I will come to that subject shortly—on a Bill that has not yet been enacted. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, went through almost every ill that has attacked society in the last few decades, if not centuries, and appeared to be blaming them not only on the legislation which has already been passed by the present Government but by every former Government, including Tory Governments. They are blaming the Bill for the present situation in all manner of things, including agriculture, industry and building. You name it, noble Lords opposite blame it on a measure that is not yet on the Statute Book. This really is absolute nonsense, if noble Lords will forgive my saying so.
    Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness may think it nonsense, but that is not how we think. At the end of the day we will produce the food and if we do not like it, we will stop producing the food. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but it happens to be true.
    Baroness BIRK: I was speaking about another part of the noble Lord's speech. I agree completely here with the noble Baroness, Lady Young; I, too, am not an expert in agricultural matters, but as I understand the issue on which the noble Lord just intervened, the point he is making probably depends on the size of piggery and not on the size of the pig, and if I may I will write to him on that specific point because I do not want to get it wrong. The noble Lord did me a great service because I had forgotten to mention agriculture, for this is another area where noble Lords opposite have blamed this Bill, which is not yet on the Statute Book, for the state of British agriculture at the moment. This is plain nonsense !
    I was fascinated when the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, let the Amendment cat out of the Committee bag when he said that we are to be faced with over 300 Amendments from the Opposition, so it is clear that there will be plenty of opportunity to take up all the points that have been made, including, I imagine—if this extraordinary debate tonight is followed—Amendments which will attempt to deal with pieces of legislation and structures in our society entirely outside the Community Land Bill. So far as agriculture is concerned, I stress—as this has been mentioned by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Digby, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that the Bill will not affect the rate at which agricultural land comes into development. In exercising their functions, authorities must have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry and I am sure that noble Lords are aware that at a much earlier stage in the passage of this Bill there were consultations, concessions were made and agreement was reached on some agricultural matters. We intend to amend the General Development Order to provide for consultation with the Minister of Agriculture for acquisitions of over 10 acres of agricultural land. I welcome the
    1134
    concern for agriculture shown by noble Lords opposite, but I cannot resist pointing out that it was they who, when in Government in 1973, removed the provision for consultation with the Minister of Agriculture under Article 11(2) of the General Development Order, and that it was they who ordered the presumption on white land to come into one in favour of housing development, in the White Paper, Widening the Choice: the Next Steps in Housing. Whatever the merits of that—and I shall not discuss that point because I can see the arguments in favour of housing but they were nevertheless hardly calculated to help agriculture—I believe that this is something they should be concerned about when they are talking about agriculture now and in the future.
    I also found most extraordinary the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, and others on the question of building and the property market. The noble Lord quite rightly referred to the difficult state of that market and to the bankruptcy of developers and builders, but all this has not happened as the result of a Bill which is still not yet on the Statute Book. It happened during the period we are in now with the operation of a free market. It seems to me that developers and property people can hardly have found the operations of the crazy boom and collapse syndrone in land a gilt-edged testimonial to the advantages of the free market. When noble Lords talk as they have done about housing, this is really extremely irresponsible, because the problem with housing has been because of building and the fact, as Maurice Ash pointed out in his letter in The Times, that it is building margins and the costing of housing which have been the problem. All that can result from the Bill when it becomes law will be a far better attempt at planning and at allocating land so that there will be more chance of building.
    I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned the support of the Bill from the Sand and Gravel Association and the parish councils, but he forgot to mention a few other important bodies, though I am sure that this was a pure slip of the memory. For instance, the Bill now commands broad support from the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Institute,

    1135
    from the Sports Council and—and this is extremely important—the Central Council for Physical Recreation, which now supports it in the light of what has been said about amenity. I recognise the anxiety that many people felt about the effect of the Bill on recreational land. Even though I would not claim the wholehearted support of the Confederation of British Industry—that would be going a bit too far—or of the Housebuilders' Association, their attitude towards the Bill has nevertheless changed substantially since the Government's proposals for exempt and excepted development. I am sure that the same will be true of many other bodies when they have fully considered our proposals.
    I do not intend to make a long speech now, as I made a short speech at the beginning and I feel that we have had a fairly full, if not very satisfactory, debate. Probably we shall have days more discussion in Committee also. All I would say is that in the recent and not so recent past, this House has shown a very remarkable and inspiring lead in social reform in many measures. In some ways it has had the edge on the other place. It would be a great pity if, in this area of social justice in which the future of our country, the shape of our communities, and the distribution of land (which is a very scarce commodity) are at stake, your Lordships' House should return to the antediluvian impression that a great many people had of it; and indeed still have, sometimes quite wrongly. But if the attitude to the Bill and its treatment is such as has been suggested from what has been said tonight, I am afraid that this will not only do great harm to the Bill, and will make the passing of it even more difficult—although it will go through—but will also do great harm to this House—
    Earl FERRERS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she be kind enough to give the answer to the question of which I gave her private notice beforehand?
    Baroness BIRK: I beg the noble Earl's pardon; I got rather carried away on the wider issues. I think the noble Earl is referring to the hardship tribunals—
    Earl FERRERS: I have in mind the 14,000 people employed—
    Baroness BIRK: I am sorry. I did deal with that, although I did so rather quickly. I included this when referring to one of the matters which I said noble Lords were taking for granted would happen immediately; and it was all part of the phasing. The matter which the noble Earl has in mind comes into what I have already said regarding phasing, but I shall repeat it. The figure of 14,000 is a projected figure, after the second appointed day when we have reached the state of current use value. We do not start off with employing 14,000 people. It has been made quite clear in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister that, to start with, local authorities must see how they can best deploy the work forces they have. In many cases they will be sharing expert help, and the staff will gradually build up according to the amount of work. I do not propose to give way again on this point, because it will come out in Committee, but that is the answer—
    Earl FERRERS: I am sorry, my Lords; I did not mean to interrupt the noble Baroness. But I did ask her—and I gave previous notice of this—whether she could give the break-down of how this figure of 14,000 is split up as between land agents, valuers, surveyors and others. That is what people want to know.
    Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is quite impossible at this stage to give that information. If I gave some arbitrary figures, noble Lords would be quite right in asking how I was able at this stage to say that there would be so many lawyers needed and so many land agents needed. That would be the most extravagant and wrong way to go about it.
    We have to take some figure in staff numbers, but I cannot at this stage say how the break-down works out. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right; it is still a notional figure. This may not be the figure. At present it is a general outside figure. But it is thought that about one-third of that number will have to be highly skilled workers, while the others will tend to be in clerical and other grades.
    I turn to the other point of which the noble Earl gave me notice, regarding the hardship tribunals. This is another matter which will not come into being until we reach the second appointed day, and so

    1137
    it is very far ahead. But here again, supposing we did not make provision for that, I am quite certain that the noble Earl—we may not agree politically, but he has a sympathetic manner, and so I expect he has a sympathetic disposition as well—would be one of the first to ask what provision we would make in cases of hardship that would possibly, and could probably, arise in any scheme, no matter how careful we were.
    Therefore we have inserted the provisions dealing with this matter, but it would be wrong for me to start thinking up—and it is not there, so I would have to be thinking it up—the detail of how this is composed. This makes me feel that I was entirely right in what I explained when I opened the debate. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young said: that we have been over this course before. We went over it on 4th August. We have not got any further forward with it; the same arguments have been deployed, and we are getting bogged down on the sort of detail which should, and no doubt will, arise during the Committee stage.
    On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  STONEHOUSE NEW TOWN
  STONEHOUSE NEW TOWN