Sitting of 28 July 1976

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

    Uganda
    Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Great Britain's relations with Uganda, particularly on the position of British subjects there.
    Mr. Brittanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with Uganda.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will pay an official visit to Kampala.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to suspend diplomatic relations with Uganda.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Crosland): I have now considered the future of our relations with Uganda. These relations have a long and troubled history. The events of recent weeks have again demonstrated that it is not possible for our High Commission effectively to discharge its normal duties. Two members of the High Commission have been expelled for no good or adequate reason.
    I have therefore decided that we should break diplomatic relations with Uganda. The Ugandan authorities are being so informed this afternoon in London and in Kampala.
    We have for the past two weeks been advising the British community in
    622
    Uganda that they should seriously consider leaving. My best estimate is that all but some 200-plus have now left. Those who remain are mostly residents of long standing who well understand the risks which they run in staying in Uganda.
    I have asked the French Government to look after our affairs, and they have generously agreed to do so. I propose to leave a British interests section in the French Embassy to assist them in carrying out this task.
    The Government have done their utmost to help and advise our people in Uganda. Bearing in mind the interests of those who remain, I hope that the House will accept the need for some restraint in language.
    I have taken this decision with deep regret. This is the first time that we have severed relations with a Commonwealth country. We have no quarrel with the people of Uganda, and we look forward to the time when it may be possible to renew our traditionally close relationship.
    Mr. Lamont: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. I consider that this is the right and sensible thing to do in the circumstances. Is there anything further that the right hon. Gentleman can say about Mrs. Dora Bloch? I wish to observe his request that we should exercise moderation in our remarks. Nevertheless, does he agree that the movement of Ugandan troops to the Kenyan border is extremely alarming? Has any request been received from the Kenyan Government for assistance, and in view of our great interest in this area what information has he given to the Kenyan Government?
    Mr. Crosland: Sadly, I have nothing to add to the statement made 16 days ago by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the fate of Mrs. Bloch. In the meantime the High Commission has pursued further inquiries, but it is obvious that they will get nowhere without the co-operation of the Uganda Government and there is no sign that this has been, is or will be forthcoming. We have had no statement of the precise situation on the Kenyan border. Kenya has traditionally bought most of its arms supplies from this country. We have a defence

    623
    agreement with the Kenyan Government and we propose to continue it.
    Mr. Janner: There would appear to be no alternative to taking the step which the Foreign Secretary has announced today. While it is regrettable that relations with a Commonwealth country should be broken off, no one could have given greater provocation to us than President Amin. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the diplomats in the British High Commission in Kampala who have done so much to help the family of Mrs. Bloch, British residents still in Uganda, and those who have taken the High Commission's advice to get out?
    Mr. Crosland: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's opening remarks. I think it is true, as I understand it from a large number of hon. Members, that the family of Mrs. Bloch accept that everything possible was done by the Government. I would like to pay tribute to successive British members of the High Commission in Kampala who have carried out their duties, and will do so to the last moment, in circumstances of grave and serious danger.
    Mr. Maudling: On this side of the House we entirely support the action of the Foreign Secretary, and we wish to associate ourselves with the tributes to the British High Commission staff in Kampala.
    Mr. Hamilton: While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him whether other Commonwealth Governments were consulted before the decision was taken? What will happen to the aid which is now given by the Government to Uganda? Also, can my right hon. Friend tell us where General Amin is at the moment?
    Mr. Crosland: I have nothing further to tell the House on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I did not have widespread multilateral consultations on this issue, because I do not think that that is the right way to approach it. It is a bilateral issue between the United Kingdom and Uganda, and it should be dealt with in that manner.
    No aid has gone to Uganda since 1972, when the Ugandan Asians were expelled.
    624
    We have precisely 11 supplemented teachers in Uganda at the moment on contract to the Uganda Government. We supplement their salaries, and we pay the supplements direct to the teachers. We have given them the same advice as we gave other British citizens in Uganda and I think they will accept it. Otherwise, and I would stress this, no aid has gone to Uganda since 1972.
    Mr. Gorst: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement on behalf of the relatives of Mrs. Bloch who live in my constituency. I understand that there is an imbalance of trade between this country and Uganda which between January and June this year was running at the rate of about £14½5 million. Will this imbalance continue in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and is it in this country's interests that it should do so?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Member is quite right about his facts. Last year we exported about £7 million worth to and imported about £23 million worth from Uganda. There is thus an imbalance in Uganda's favour. As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, I examined this position very carefully. Nothing would be gained by our trying to reduce the minuscule £7 million of exports. There is a complicating factor in the question of imports, should we wish to take action in that direction. It is that virtually all these imports, most of which are of coffee, are governed by the Lomé Convention. It would be difficult to do anything without being in breach of that convention. Apart from that, Uganda could achieve the same net result by re-exports going through another country, so that although the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman they do not open up any opportunity for effective action.
    Mr. David Steel: We accept the inevitability of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and hope for a return of better days to that unhappy country. Will the Secretary of State pay a tribute to the missionaries and those who have given long service to Uganda and who intend to remain to serve the Ugandan people? Now that we have broken off diplomatic relations, will he arrange for stricter checks to be made on the sort of equipment we are supplying to the Uganda Government?
    Mr. Crosland: I have not had the privilege, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, of meeting these missionaries who are so determined to stay in Uganda in spite of the risks and provocations. I strongly echo that tribute. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I think I know what he has in mind, and since hearing from him on the subject I am looking very carefully at the case again.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Is it not a curious reflection on the illogicality of our citizenship law that General Amin is a British subject? More seriously, will my right hon. Friend say whether the British interests section attached to the French Embassy will have full diplomatic immunity, and will that section be composed of United Kingdom-based staff?
    Mr. Crosland: On the first point, I am not expert enough either to assent to or dissent from the remarks my hon. Friend has made and which sounded extremely plausible to me. On the second point, the British interests section will have diplomatic immunity.

    Mauritius
    Mr. Robin F. Cookasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to Mauritius.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Edward Rowlands): My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.
    Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very grave concern that several years after the evacuation of Diego Garcia not a penny of the money paid to the Mauritius Government has been handed over to the islanders? What was in the report submitted to my right hon. Friend by Mr. Prosser on this matter? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stand by the assurance given to me last February in a letter that the facilities at Diego Garcia will not permit the operation of B52 bombers?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have felt concern on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and that is why we support Mr. Prosser's mission and report. The report, however, is to the Mauritius Government, not to us. Therefore, it is first and foremost for the Mauritius Government to respond and to publish it if they
    626
    wish. I can confirm that B52 bombers will not be used in Diego Garcia.
    Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Lomé Convention Mauritius sends this country about one-third of our sugar cane requirements, and that under the existing terms of the convention the Government have to face difficult choices if there is a shortfall in the crop? Will he bear this in mind at the renegotiation of the convention in 1982, and will he consult the Mauritius Government on the matter?
    Mr. Rowlands: We will consult and consider all the issues arising from the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.
    Mr. Marten: May we have a clear statement that the plight of the Diego Garcians in Mauritius is no fault of the British Government and that it is much more a Mauritian responsibility than ours?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have not been responsible for the welfare of the Diego Garcians since they went to Mauritius. The amount of money paid was a full and final settlement.

    Communications Monitoring Agreement
    Mr. Litterickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to review the operation of the 1947 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on communications monitoring.
    The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): It is the long-established practice of this House that the Government do not comment on matters of this kind.
    Mr. Litterick: I do not think I can honestly say that I am grateful for that answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the American National Security Agency has been using its four communications facilities in this country —at Edzell in Scotland, at Chicksands, at Cheltenham and in Hampshire—to monitor the communications of British commercial organisations, in violation of the secret 1947 agreement, and to relay them to their American competitors? Will he assure the House that as a matter of urgency he will undertake discussions

    627
    with the Secretary of State concerning this fact, which has been revealed by a former employee of the agency, with a view to ending this covert subversion of British economic interests?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have nothing to add to my original reply, which should in no way be taken as endorsing any of the facts that my hon. Friend purports to give to the House.

    USSR (Exit Visas)
    Mrs. Haymanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the USSR the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.
    Mr. Ronald Brownasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas and the reuniting of families, with particular reference to Ida Nudel, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.
    Mr Moonmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families, such as the case of Ida Nudel, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.
    Mrs. Bainasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.
    Miss Boothroydasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement, he will request the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to grant exit visas to those people wishing to be reunited with their families in other parts of the world.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State saw the Soviet Chargé d'Affaires on 26th July and exchanged views with him on the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act. The reunification of families was
    628
    one of the points discussed. It would not, I suggest, be in the interest of those most directly concerned for me to enter into detail concerning individual cases. But the Soviet authorities can be in no doubt of the strength of feeling which rightly exists in this country about cases such as that of Ida Nudel.
    Mrs. Hayman: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that it is most important that we and the Government, even if they have to do it in private, should make perfectly clear to the Soviet authorities our concern about cases like that of Mrs. Nudel, who wishes to join her husband and her family in Israel? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Soviet authorities' implementation of the Helsinki Agreement when they continue to harass citizens whose only desire is to join their families outside the USSR?
    Mr. Tomlinson: There can be no doubt that we shall not be satisfied until all the provisions of the Final Act have been put into effect by all the signatory States. Any proper assessment must await the 1977 review conference. It would not be helpful to enter into detailed discussion of individual cases. We believe that progress is more likely to come from private representations than from public complaints. The Soviet Government can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling which Ida Nudel's case has rightly aroused in this country.
    Mrs. Bain: Does not the Minister recognise that both the House and the Government have a moral obligation to make clear to the USSR the strength of feeling of individual Members about the failure of the Soviet Union to implement the Helsinki Agreement? Is he aware that letters sent by Members of this House to prisoners of conscience in the USSR, even when written in Russian, are sent back directly to the Member with no reason given by the Soviet Embassy?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We shall not be satisfied until all the signatory States have observed all the requirements of the Final Act. The Soviet authorities fully understand the strength of feeling of hon. Members, a feeling which goes further than this House. That feeling has been

    629
    made abundantly clear to the Soviet authorities, and it will continue to be made clear to them as long as we think that there are cases in which that is necessary.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ida Nudel has applied for an exit visa every year since 1971, each application having been refused, and that she has recently been told not to apply again until 1980 although she wants to rejoin her family? Does this not make a mockery of the Soviet signature on the Helsinki Agreement?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am fully aware of that, and there has been detailed discussion of the Ida Nudel case. Our strength of feeling has been made clear to the Soviet authorities and we shall continue to press the case. There can be no doubt that the strength of feeling has been underlined on each and every occasion. It has been made clear that we shall not be satisfied until all the requirements have been observed.
    Sir John Hall: To what extent have the Soviet Government implemented the letter or spirit of any part of the Helsinki Agreement?
    Mr. Tomlinson: The Soviet Government have begun to apply the Final Act's provisions in a number of respects. A note detailing the action they have taken appeared in Hansard of 10th March. The main subsequent development has been the Soviet notification of a second military manoeuvre which took place from 14th to 18th June in the Leningrad military district.
    Miss Boothroyd: What test does my hon. Friend's Department apply before making known to a signatory to the agreement that it is in breach of its provisions? Instead of waiting for another 12 months, will he on this first anniversary of the Helsinki Agreement refer to the United Nations any such breach in the provisions and ask them to monitor the agreement to ensure that it becomes a living reality for all people and not only for this one particular family?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I share the strength of feeling that leads my hon. Friend to make that suggestion. As regards breaches of the Helsinki Agreement, at
    630
    present we should be concentrating on how we propose to deal with the review conference in Belgrade next year. As that conference is about a year away, it would be premature for us now to be determining our negotiating position, but I fully note the strength of feeling and concern that leads my hon. Friend to make the suggestion that she has put forward.
    Mr. Goodhew: Does not Basket III of the Helsinki Agreement include the free movement of people across the Iron Curtain? How can credence be given to the good will of the Russian Government as long as the Berlin Wall and the death strip between East and West Germany remain?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure that that kind of approach will give comfort to certain people, and presumably to the Leader of the Opposition in the speech that we all read she is about to make. I do not think that that kind of approach is particularly helpful. What we are seeking to do through the process of detente is to get to a situation where we can make sure that all the signatory nations observe all the requirements of the Final Act, but to start challenging each other in that contentious language is not particularly helpful.
    Mr. Whitehead: Without wishing to indulge in too much sabre rattling, may I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the Soviet authorities our deep distaste of the treatment of many of their own citizens contrary to the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement, especially Mr. Moroz and Mr. Bukovsky, who have been incarcerated in mental hospitals and who may be dead before the review of the Helsinki Agreement takes place in Belgrade in 1977?
    Mr. Tomlinson: We do not need pushing to make representations about those particular cases. The representations have already been made. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Government will continue to take every opportunity of pressing those cases whenever opportunities arise.
    Mr. Maudling: In view of the hon. Gentleman's strange indignation following the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans

    631
    (Mr. Goodhew), does he disagree with the substance of my hon. Friend's question about the Berlin Wall?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I suggest that at the moment it would be in the interests of all of us who wish to see the policy of detente working to use more temperate language when describing the problems that we seek to overcome.

    Iceland (Fisheries Negotiations)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland in relation to deep-sea fishing off the Icelandic coast.
    Mr. Crosland: As I told the House on 7th June, and as the agreement with Iceland makes plain, negotiations with Iceland on a long-term agreement will be undertaken by the EEC. We have urged the Commission to produce a draft negotiating mandate as soon as possible, and I expect this to be considered immediately after the holiday break.
    Mr. Farr: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer but I ask him not to rely too much on the EEC reaching an agreed negotiating position by 2nd December in view of the deep differences that at the moment exist between member nations. With that in mind, and with the possibility of there being a vacuum after 2nd December, will the Foreign Secretary be prepared to maintain British fishing rights in that area in whatever way is necessary?
    Mr. Crosland: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just come back from Reykjavik and is extremely well informed on these matters. As for the EEC negotiating position, I am optimistic that that can be reached in September. I saw the Commissioner responsible for these matters only the day before yesterday. I am relatively optimistic about that. Whether that will in turn lead to an agreement between the Community and Iceland is a much more uncertain matter. Obviously there must be reservations about how likely it is that we shall reach a satisfactory agreement. I should not like to speculate on the hypothetical situation that will arise if on 2nd Decem-
    632
    ber no agreement has been reached. It will be a very unpleasant situation.
    Mr. Powell: Does the accurate terminology of the right hon. Gentleman's reply confirm that membership of the Community deprived this country of the status of an independent nation and the right to negotiate as one nation with another? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish." Just listen to the answer.
    Mr. Crosland: I cannot accept the suggestion that accuracy of language necessarily leads to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to draw. The fact is that we all had our votes in the referendum one way or the other. That decision, rightly or wrongly, was taken. That limited a decision on the common fisheries policy. That policy is a fact. That means that this country now has to make the best that it possibly can of the task of revising the policy in our own national interests.
    Mr. Wall: In view of the threat from the Cuban fleet and other large fishing fleets, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British limits are extended to 200 miles before the conclusion of a final agreement with Iceland?
    Mr. Crosland: I believe that the Cuban story greatly reinforces the case for a 200-mile limit. Ideally we would do that at the same time as it is agreed at the Law of the Sea Conference. However, that looks increasingly unlikely. We had the declaration of intent made at the meeting of the Council of Ministers only yesterday morning. We hope that with the EEC we can all do it conjointly, but if there is any unnecessary delay as far as the Community is concerned we shall not have the slightest hesitation in taking action unilaterally. We are now preparing legislation to make that possible if it is necessary.
    Mr. Brotherton: Following the agreement with Iceland on fisheries, will the right hon. Gentleman have talks with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to prevent the landing of Icelandic fish at Grimsby?
    Mr. Crosland: I have always been fairly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude for my constituents. However, I think that they still prefer to look

    633
    to me rather than to him for their protection. I continually have meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the point that the hon. Gentleman has made is something about which we often exchange views.

    Southern Africa
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the situation in Southern Africa.
    Mr. Rowlands: We continue to be concerned about the problems of Southern Africa and will make every effort to promote solutions to them. As far as Rhodesia is concerned, there is a Question down for answer later this afternoon.
    Mr. Luce: As the Soviet Union and Cuba stand to gain most from the growing violence in Rhodesia, will the Minister and the British Government make it absolutely clear to the black and white Rhodesians over the coming weeks that, if they continue on this course of mutual destruction and fail to agree on a sensible transition to independence, they will prevent the West, led by Britain, from coming to their help and facilitating a sensible transitional period?
    Mr. Rowlands: We shall continue to make it clear that the best solution to the problem is a rapid move to majority rule in accordance with the wishes of the House and, I think, of the majority of people.
    Mr. Hooley: Given that the armed forces of Mozambique are in warfare with the rebel forces in Rhodesia, that the forces of South Africa are attacking Zambian territory and that there is guerrilla war in Namibia, will the Government please give up the absurd pretence in the Security Council that the situation in Southern Africa is not a threat to peace?
    Mr. Rowlands: We do not think that the Chapter 7 declaration which is implied in my hon. Friend's question is valid at the moment. We shall continue to uphold that position. I accept what my hon. Friend has said about the growing increase in violence. The only way to stop it is to go to the root cause—the obdurance of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Pardoe: What is the Government's attitude to the forthcoming independence of the Transkei? Will the Government be represented at the independence celebrations in October, and will their attitude depend in any way on the result of elections in September? Will the Government or the United Nations have representatives at the elections?
    Mr. Rowlands: The traditional criteria used in deciding whether to recognise an independent new Government or State will be applied to the Transkei, but, as my predecessor said, we do not think that on present evidence we should recognise Transkei.
    Mr. Groeott: Will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming and emphasise that the cynical attitude of the South African Government in establishing so-called independent States is seen as a cynical policy and that in no sense could these States be regarded as economically or politically independent? Would it not be a great service to the people struggling for majority rule in Africa if the Government made plain now that they will not recognise the Transkei under any circumstances?
    Mr. Rowlands: We shall judge this issue on the traditional criteria, but we feel that there is strong evidence to suggest that we should not recognise the Transkei.
    Mr. Amery: Can the Minister confirm or deny that Mozambique troops have taken the offensive by crossing into Rhodesia? If they are pursuing a policy of solution by violence rather than by imposing sanctions and economic pressure, will the Government reconsider their decision to give aid to Mozambique?
    Mr. Rowlands: I have seen reports but have not yet had confirmation in detail or any evidence to confirm that there is Frelimo activity in Rhodesia. However, we have repeatedly stated that we do not believe that external forces should be used to solve the problems of Rhodesia and Namibia and the other standing problems in Southern Africa. Aid to Mozambique is a separate question which we have repeatedly defended in the House and which has been supported by Commonwealth Governments, including New Zealand, Australia and others.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the Turkish Government are abiding by the 1975 Vienna Agreements on Cyprus.
    Mr. Hattersley: The Turkish Government were not a direct party to the understandings reached between the Cypriot communities at the intercommunal talks held in Vienna. We hope that those talks will soon he resumed and that both parties will make a constructive contribution.
    Mr. Hastings: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, which he has explained to me, but would he not agree that the policy of the Turks looks increasingly like annexation and that this would be against international law? Will he consider the possibility of a new initiative —for instance, a visit by a British or NATO mission into the Turkish area in northern Cyprus to investigate the position of the Greek Cypriots and British citizens there?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have told the House on many occasions and am glad to repeat it today that, if we believed that progress could be made either unilaterally through a British initiative or through an initiative that we could encourage in the Commonwealth, the EEC or any other body, we should be happy to promote it. It remains our view, however, that the best chance of progress is to reconstitute the intercommunal talks and for them to take place in a meaningful way with matters of substance on the agenda. That is also the view of Turkey and Greece, and we must work to that end.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that tension between Greece and Turkey is now more serious than at any time since the war? Is he aware that simply repeating the same answer Question Time after Question Time is not good enough in view of our particular responsibilities to Cyprus? Has he had any discussions with his EEC colleagues about methods of solving this problem?
    Mr. Hattersley: I repeat the answer week after week because it seems to be right. In reply to my hon. Friend's second question, this matter was raised yesterday afternoon during the political
    636
    co-operation discussions between the Community and the Greek Government. Discussion took place not only between EEC Foreign Ministers but also with a senior member of the Greek Cabinet, who shared my view rather than that of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Townsend: Why do not the Government take a far more robust attitude to the importing of Turkish peasants from the mainland into Northern Cyprus? Does not such action undermine the talks on the future of the island?
    Mr. Hattersley: We have expressed our strong disapproval of Turkish resettlement of the northern part of the island on several occasions, and I shall continue to express it as robustly as the hon. Member cares it to be expressed. But our main aim must be to press, in whatever way we can, for an overall solution, and we must use our best endeavours to make the intercommunal talks work.
    Mr. Corbett: Has my right hon. Friend had any recent conversations with Commonwealth countries with a view to getting an early resumption of the intercommunal talks?
    Mr. Hattersley: We have had conversations at various levels with all parties who seem likely to be able to promote that end. I believe that the talks will be resumed sooner or later and that the parties will begin to talk about material matters. I understand the House's regret and frustration that this tragic affair has gone on for so long, but it is our judgment that the only possible solution can come from those talks.
    Mr. Maudling: I recognise that any major new initiative will probably have to await the American presidential elections, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern that in the meantime the situation will get much worse with the expulsion of Greeks and the arrival of Turks? Is there no way, either through the EEC or the United Nations, to bring pressure on the Turks to ensure that this does not continue?
    Mr. Hattersley: There is not much pressure which can be brought on the

    637
    Turks which would provide a solution. One of my hon. Friends recommended some months ago that such pressure should be brought to bear, and the American Administration tried to bring it to bear. It did not work or help to make any progress in the talks about a solution. I do not believe that pressure or condemnation by this country will bring a solution.
    Mrs. Jeger: Has any progress been made with the Turkish Government on the claims for loss and damage submitted by United Kingdom citizens who have been waiting patiently for more than two years for recompense for the outrages they suffered as a result of the Turkish invasion?
    Mr. Hattersley: There has been a deplorable lack of progress in this area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made representations to the Turkish Government some weeks ago and will continue to press hard on this matter. I regret that I cannot tell the House and my hon. Friend that progress is being made at the speed which is essential.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: I do not wish to apportion blame to the Greek or the Turkish community in Cyprus, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that since 1960 it has been shown that it is impossible for those communities to live together other than within a federated Cypriot State? Will he press for that solution in the long term?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman asks me to interpret history and to endorse the decision that he believes history has brought about. I do not believe that this is the way to reach a solution. Our position is that we shall support whatever form of future constitution the people of Cyprus want and that we shall provide whatever support they need to bring about that constitution. Our attempts to get the talks going will not be facilitated if I express the Government's view on which solution is preferable.

    Taiwan
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Taiwan.
    Mr. Rowlands: No, Sir.
    Mr. Brotherton: Has the attention of the Foreign Secretary been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 513 about cheap suits from Taiwan? Is he aware that if he went to Taiwan he could buy a tail coat for £2·10 and then cease to insult the Heads of States of two continents?
    Mr. Rowlands: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has read the Early Day Motion avidly. The hon. Gentleman will know that action was taken in 1975 through the EEC, which unilaterally imposed restrictions on a wide range of textile products from Taiwan.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Since one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend will not be going to Taiwan is presumably better relations with China, may I ask whether those relations with the mainland are resulting in any agreement on opportunities for British Sinologists to spend long study periods in China?
    Mr. Rowlands: I cannot at this stage confirm the point, but if my hon. Friend wishes to table a specific Question about it I shall try to answer it.
    Sir Anthony Royle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome the statement that his right hon. Friend does not intend to visit Taiwan? However, would he care to make a statement regarding the activities of the Taiwanese Government within Hong Kong? Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the activities of KMT people within Hong Kong? Will he let the House know his views about this?
    Mr. Rowlands: I shall certainly take note of that point. I do not have any details about it.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the quota restrictions that the Government have imposed on textiles from Taiwan are inadequate? Does he further agree that it is the duty of the British Government to try to persuade the Taiwanese Government to stop the gross exploitation by capitalism in that country, so that working people in Taiwan have at least decent wage levels and the standards that working people enjoy in this country? The British textile industry does not mind competition, but it objects to gross exploitation and unfair competition.
    Mr. Rowlands: I doubt whether we have very much influence on the domestic economic policy of Taiwan. However, we are certainly keeping the situation regarding the importation of cheap tex tiles under review.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    European Commission
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he can announce the terms of reference for the review of the staffing, structure and political role of the EEC Commission.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out the terms of reference for the proposed review of the role of the EEC Commission to be carried out by the next President of that institution.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any proposals for restructuring the organisation of the Common Market.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the terms of reference for the proposed review of the role, staffing and structure of the EEC Commission.
    Mr. Crosland: At the European Council meeting on 12th and 13th July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that the new President of the Commission might be invited to undertake a review of the staffing, the structure and the organisation of the Commission. This suggestion, which arose out of the discussion, was welcomed and my right hon. Friend was asked to prepare terms of reference for consideration at the next meeting of the European Council.
    Mr. Arnold: How much independence should be allowed to EEC Commissioners in the conduct of their portfolios, given the collegiate role prescribed for the Commission in the Treaty of Rome? Does the setting up of the review imply that the Government's thinking is moving away from this vast concept?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. I do not think that the setting up of the review—which
    640
    must be some way away; we still do not have any terms of reference agreed—implies any altered view on the part of the Government. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman about the arguments between a collegiate system, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a series of independent Commissioners with independent portfolios could easily be covered by the terms of reference and could form the subject of an extremely interesting discussion.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us, including myself, think it somewhat obscene for members of the British Government to take jobs at an alleged £60,000 per year, tax-free, when they are alleged to be all in favour of a pay and prices policy—except when it affects them—and when we know that British taxpayers have to pay this, if only in part?
    Mr. Crosland: The trouble is that we all find different things obscene. My own view is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make an outstandingly able President of the Commission.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Yes, at £60,000 a year he ought to. I hope that he does better than he has done as Home Secretary.
    Mr. Crosland: I have no detailed knowledge of what financial arrangements he will make, but I am sure that they will be made within a proper framework of prudence and principle.
    Mr. Forman: May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's first reply to this group of Questions that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and himself still have not worked out exactly what the terms of reference might be for such a review? If that is so, will he at least give some indication of whether this is really no more than a cosmetic exercise or whether it really is the fundamental review that some of us thought might be the case from the original remarks of his right hon. Friend?
    Mr. Crosland: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has certainly not yet worked out the proposed terms of reference in detail. I think that he intends the review to be a major one—not so much of the political role of the Commission,

    641
    which is something that falls to be discussed under the aegis of the Tindemans discussions at this stage, but as to staffing, structure and organisation. The initiative taken by the Prime Minister does not betoken any lack of confidence in Signor Ortoli or any of the present members of the Commission, but I think that at any time it is proper to conduct a reorganisation of this kind and that it is a worthwhile thing to do.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 80,000 tons of home-produced food is now being withheld from the open market under EEC rules, including 30,000 tons of butter, that the British beef mountain reached 14,000 tons by the end of June, and that stored beef is accumulating faster than it is being sold? [An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am not reading. Stored beef is accumulating faster than it is being sold. For how long are we to participate in this mad charade?
    Mr. Crosland: I found that an extremely interesting question but not one strictly relevant to the Questions under discussion.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was relevant to Question No. 46.
    Mr. Marten: As the Dutch Foreign Minister, who is the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers, said in his speech to the European Assembly on 7th July that the Common Market is stagnating, declining, sterile, ineffective and disintegrating, and that the structure is in an advanced state of erosion—those were his views, and I think that I share them —is it not quite absurd that we should now be proceeding to direct elections to a Community in that state before the whole thing is restructured, if it ever can be? Will not the direct elections really be no more than—I borrow an expression from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)—merely another daub of cosmetic upon an already withering bureaucracy on the Continent?
    Mr. Crosland: The next Question but one is on the subject of direct elections.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Under the present structure, who is able to protest about the aid to be given by the EEC to Uganda? Will my right hon. Friend give details of this?
    Mr. Crosland: Aid to Uganda and relations between the EEC and Uganda consist of two aspects. One is the relations through the Lomé Convention, under which, as the House knows Uganda is only one of a large number of countries that benefit from the favourable trading arrangements. This is a multilateral and not a bilateral agreement with Uganda. The other aspect of the matter is that the European Development Council has recently sent a team to Uganda to consider the possibility in Uganda of development aid. This was an EEC initiative and not a British one. I have taken the view that at present I am not prepared to take the initiative in trying to call off this operation, although it is something that I shall certainly keep under review.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Reverting to the original terms of the Question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I agree with his answer about the need for reviews of this kind? Certainly there is evidence to suggest that overstaffing exists. However, if the right hon. Gentleman holds that opinion, does he not agree that as the Commission has a smaller staff than the Scottish Office, and smaller too, I believe, even than that of Harrods, this shows the necessity for a much greater review of staffing levels in the British Civil Service than in Europe?
    Mr. Crosland: I was briefed on the subject of the Scottish Office, but my brief included no reference to Harrods. However, if this suggests overstaffing on the part of the British Civil Service, it also suggests overstaffing on the part of British private enterprise concerns.

    Regional Development Commissioner
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC Commissioner with responsibility for regional development.
    Mr. Hattersley: My right hon. Friend has at present no firm plans for a meeting with Mr. George Thomson but he expects to meet him again soon in the course of Community business. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office held discussions with him on 16th July in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Crawford: After the establishment of the Scottish Assembly, will the Minister ensure that the regional funds allocated by the EEC for industrial projects in Scotland are paid directly to the Scottish Assembly without any intervention by Westminster whatsoever?
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put down Questions about the establishment of the Scottish Assembly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend recognise, and can he say to the House, that considerable aid is being given to Scotland through the regional fund as a direct result of the activities of Mr. George Thomson, who knows much more than any Member of the Scottish National Party about the problems of Scotland? Will my right hon. Friend therefore say what is the future of George Thomson, because it is important that we have a British Commissioner who is responsible for regional development since it is Britain which has the best regional aid policy in the whole of Europe?
    Mr. Hattersley: I certainly note and understand my hon. Friend's point about the necessity for Great Britain to keep a very close and intimate watch on the Community's regional policy. My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been substantial benefits for Scotland in all that Mr. George Thomson has done, and I am happy to join him in the tribute to George Thomson's work in the Community since he went there three years ago.
    Mr. Fairbairn: When he next meets the EEC Commissioner, will the Minister undertake to discuss with him the question of the law in regard to mercenary activity? If he has read, as I hope he has, the indictment, evidence and verdict of the Angolan so-called court, he will see that there are citizens of this country, and maybe of Europe, who are in prison for crimes which the civil code under which they were tried does not even recognise?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with this Question.
    Mr. Dalyell: Could not we just know what the Foreign Office thinks about the cost-effectiveness of the Scottish Office?
    Mr. Hattersley: It is about as cost-effective as Harrods.

    Direct Elections
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning to implement the decision reached by the Heads of Government summit on 12th July on direct elections to the European Parliament.
    Mr. Hattersley: The European Council took a decision on the question of the number and distribution of seats and asked Foreign Ministers to settle the outstanding issues. The Foreign Affairs Council has done a good deal of work on these issues at its meetings this month and will return to the question at its next meeting in September.
    Mr. Dykes: While appreciating that the Foreign Secretary has left the Chamber because this Question is too difficult for him to handle, may I ask the Minister of State to explain why he delayed the signing of the convention on direct elections at the Council of Ministers? Can he say when the convention will be signed?
    Mr. Hattersley: I only wish that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was true. As regards the serious part of it, the position is that the European Council took a decision which the British Government were prepared to endorse at the subsequent Foreign Affairs Council. Although that decision was apparently endorsed by all the Heads of Government and the President of France, it was not acceptable to all Foreign Ministers. A new instrument had to be prepared which it was hoped would be a compromise acceptable to all the Nine. The British Government are examining the new proposals, and until we have done so it is not possible to say whether it meets with our approval or the date when we will be ready to sign.
    Mr. Powell: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of the instrument which he has under consideration? Is it a draft convention or some other form of EEC instrument?
    Mr. Hattersley: It is some other form of EEC instrument, but on British suggestions it has been amended in a number of ways and the right hon. Gentleman

    645
    will find that it looks remarkably like a convention.
    Mr. Thorpe: Is it not somewhat pathetic that the Prime Minister had to announce that, alone of all the Nine, Britain and Denmark were incapable of doing anything so practical and democratic as moving to direct elections by 1978 and that we would still have to nominate? Is he aware that the reason that was given was lack of parliamentary time, and that that was on the day before we were asked to approve a guillotine on four Bills to be passed within a fortnight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Five Bills."] Five Bills and three guillotines. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for the delay is that, according to the Prime Minister, we are hell bent on using the most archaic system, under which it will take longer to draw up boundaries and to hear objections than under any other electoral system known to mankind?
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions the implication of which is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that what has held us up is the absence of parliamentary time; he said that it was the absence of parliamentary approval. I am sure the House will welcome the Prime Minister's explanation that he could not announce a parliamentary decision on the matter before Parliament had studied the proposal.
    The right hon. Gentleman is also quite wrong in suggesting that it was only the United Kingdom and Denmark who were in this position. The reason why a new instrument had to be invented rather suddenly 10 days ago—an instrument which the British Government are now considering—is that the other countries in the EEC decided that they must, like us, pay a proper respect to the realities of their parliamentary life. On the third point, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is interested in the reform of the electoral processes, and he made the point at some length in Committee upstairs.
    The right hon. Gentleman is giving, however, an example of the sort of delays we might face. Because of the proper prudence in the face of that sort of argument, we have told our partners that we will be ready on time, if we can, but there is a possibility that some people—
    646
    perhaps the right hon. Gentleman—will prevent that from happening.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us think that the Government are absolutely right not to rush into this decision on direct elections? In view of the fact that only this morning the National Executive of the Labour Party decided overwhelmingly, with only a few votes the other way, to oppose the concept of direct elections, will my right hon. Friend take that into consideration when considering the whole question?
    Mr. Hattersley: Yes, of course I will. The Government asked for and received evidence from all the political parties, including the party which my hon. Friend and I serve, and clearly the views of the parties in a matter of such constitutional importance have to be taken into account. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing the Government's view that we must not rush into this.
    Mr. Hurd: The Minister is, of course, right that the decision rests with Parliament and not the Government. Was not this point safeguarded in the statement made by the Prime Minister only yesterday? Does it not look as though, because of the three Divisions we have just heard about, he allowed himself to be out-manoeuvred inBrussels and it looks as if once again it has been Britain which has held things up?
    Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman may put that interpretation on it, but I do not think that anyone in Brussels did. I think that this morning the papers reported that some of the Commissioners felt that our decision was wholly natural and wholly reasonable. The hon. Gentleman may think that the defence of parliamentary rights in some way ought to be taken into account, and I had to make absolutely sure that the proper safeguards were included in the new instrument. I have no doubt that I was right to take that attitude.

    Wales (Parliamentary Representation)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representatives there are likely to be from Wales in the latest model of a directly-elected European Assembly; and in what way the Govern-

    647
    ment foresee co-ordination between Members of the European Assembly and the proposed Welsh National Assembly at Cardiff.
    Mr. Hattersley: The distribution of seats within the United Kingdom remains a matter for national decision. Her Majesty's Government will put forward proposals to the House in due course. In considering whether any machinery for co-ordination is necessary between the Members of the European Assembly and the proposed Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, the Government will wish to take into account the views of the Select Committee on Direct Elections, which has stated its intention to cover this question in a later report.
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that if Wales gets five out of the 81 seats, as has been widely reported in the Press, it will mean that we shall get one-third of the representation of Ireland with its 15 seats according to this model? It will also mean that Luxembourg, with a population the size of only Gwent, will have six seats, compared to Wales' five. Does that not therefore indicate that Wales should be singled out as part of the United Kingdom representation?
    Mr. Hattersley: Let us assume that the figure the hon. Gentleman offers is right. The answer to his hypothesis is that Wales will benefit in two ways: first, through the Members elected to the European Parliament directly from Wales, and, secondly, directly as a result of the Members elected on behalf of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the blinkered view of nationalism could cause this preoccupation with numbers and that, in view of the total absence of any constituency relationship as we have hitherto understood it of representatives to the European Assembly, the regional or national distribution of seats in this country is virtually irrelevant to the question of a directly-elected Assembly?
    Mr. Hattersley: I do not accept that an Assembly of the size that is now proposed, with Britain receiving the number of seats proposed, means that there can be no constituency relationship between Members and the people who elect them.
    648
    When the Select Committee, on which my hon. Friend and I both sit, considered the recommendation that it wanted to make on size and numbers—a recommendation which has been incorporated into the European decision—it took the decision it did because it wanted constituencies sufficiently small to enable a Member to have a proper relationship with his electorate, and I am sure that that will happen.
    Mr. Tim Renton: In their devolution model, do the Government envisage that it will be possible for an individual to sit as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, a Member of the House of Commons and a Member of the European Assembly? If so, will the pay policy apply to such individuals?
    Mr. Hattersley: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it will be legally or physically possible. I should think that it would be physically impossible, and the hon. Gentleman had better examine the legal possibility when he sees the Bill which sets up the Assemblies and the Bill which will give force to the decision on direct elections.
    Mr. Dalyell: I have in my hand a letter of October 1974 addressed to her colleagues by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) in which she refers to a Scottish Royal Air Force and says that there will doubtless be an English and Welsh Royal Air Force too. That letter was quoted at some length in the Adjournment debate at 10 o'clock this morning. Has my right hon. Friend any thoughts on the possibility of a Welsh Royal Air Force air attaché in Luxembourg?
    Mr. Hattersley: I have only two thoughts on the subject. The first is that hardly anything that the hon. Lady suggests could surprise me. My second thought is that if anything surprised me I am sure it would be reported by my hon. Friend.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales energetically supports in Brussels attempts to get regional aid for projects in Wales, particularly projects for which regional aid has been refused by the British Government, such as the entertainments centre in my constituency?
    Mr. Hattersley: I cannot comment on the individual case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is the British Government's belief that regional policies as well as regional aid should have a far more prominent position in the overall strategy of the Community, and we shall go on pressing for that.

SUB JUDICE RULES
Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you the general position of the House of Commons on the sub judice rules. I do not wish in any way to ask you to reverse your decision of yesterday, but I wish to raise further the general principle that cases such as that to which I referred yesterday are becoming more important and that the House should take these matters more seriously.
The rules on sub judice are to be found in "Erskine May" on page 427, and hon. Members can read what is stated there. Broadly, the new rules were introduced in 1972 as a result of the Industrial Relations Act, in the hope that not only in cases involving the Industrial Relations Act but in other civil cases the House would have far greater freedom than it had had before to discuss matters which had not been concluded before the courts.
The Resolution of 1972 asks you, Mr. Speaker, in making your decision, to exercise your discretion on two matters: first, is it a ministerial decision unchallengeable in court except on grounds of bad faith or misdirection? Secondly, is it an issue of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life?
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to rule on a matter which the former right hon. Member for Carshalton, Mr. Carr, when he was Leader of the House, failed to explain—what the House means by "the essentials of life" in this connection.
The Resolution also asks you to take account of various paragraphs of the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, in particular, of paragraph 25, part of which I shall read:
"In any case in which a Minister has made an application to a court or has initiated proceedings on a matter of national importance, Your Committee are of the opinion that certain considerations should influence Mr. Speaker in the exercise of his discretion as to
650
whether to restrict comment in the House. The first such consideration is the fundamental responsibility of Parliament to be the supreme inquest of the nation with the overall responsibility to discuss anything it likes. The second is whether a danger exists that the conduct of a case may be prejudiced by Parliamentary inquisition or debate on the arguments which the Minister is presenting to the court."
The Resolution fundamentally changed our sub judice rules from the previous position which had been set up in 1963. In my view, in cases being dealt with in the courts in which no jury but simply a judge is involved, on the issue of influencing the court the House should take a fairly relaxed view and put greater emphasis on the first of those principles in paragraph 25 about our responsibility to be the "supreme inquest of the nation"
There are occasions, Mr. Speaker—for example, yesterday—when it has not proved possible to give you notice. On those occasions Back Benchers should be allowed to deploy arguments in support of a proposition which may run contrary to a ruling which you have given. I should like your ruling on that general principle, which is an important principle for Back Benchers, as there is a suspicion—which I am sure is not justified—that Front Benchers can get away with murder but that Back Benchers are very much restricted in this respect.
There is one other matter to which I wish to refer. It concerns the relationship between the House of Commons and the courts, that goes back to the ancient relationship between the High Court of Parliament and the High Court of Justice. It is made clear on page 428 of "Erskine May" that we cannot criticise judges, but that should not restrict us from criticising judgments—the decisions which judges make. I am encouraged by what your predecessor said, Mr. Speaker, in his ruling prior to the Industrial Relations Act debate in 1973:
"It can be argued that a judge has made a mistake, that he was wrong, and the reasons for those contentions can be given within certain limits."—[Official Report, 4th December 1973; Vol. 865, c. 10921
The two epithets which I used yesterday were in no way directed at the judges. They were directed at the judgments, which I heard, having sat through both the divisional court and the Court of Appeal hearings.

651
When Lord Justice Scarman was ruling on Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Limited in 1973, he said:
"The courts, subject only to the legislative power of Parliament, determine what constitutes contempt of court and have a discretion as to remedy and punishment. Nevertheless, a serious and, perhaps, dangerous situation could arise if the practice of the courts differed substantially from that of Parliament."
In my view, that dangerous situation has arisen now. In the Thalidomide case The Sunday Times was gagged but Parliament was free. We have now come across a case where Parliament is gagged but the newspapers are free. We need to get this straight.
It was made straight by the present Lord Chancellor in a debate on procedure in Parliament when he said:
"The basic principle relating to proceedings in Parliament—and in that expression I include debate, Questions and answers, Motions and Reports—is still that which is contained in such splendid and clear clarion terms in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688,"
He quoted from the article which said:
"'That the freedom of speech and debate or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.'"
He went on:
"That should be emphasised, because it is at the heart of the issue of what Parliament can discuss and what it should discuss. Parliament's right to discuss matters of public importance and to say what it likes about them is paramount, irrespective of any prejudicial effect which may result outside Parliament. That right of Parliament must be jealously guarded by us, its trustees, its Members."— [Official Report, 28th June 1972; Vol. 839, c. 1599–1600.]
Mr. Peyton Mr. Peyton rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is on a point of order. I shall hear the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) immediately afterwards.
Mr. Price: I was concluding, but this is an important matter. It is absurd that in The Times today there can be an article in the middle page setting out, in moderate and general terms, the issues in a particular case, and, indeed, that every paper in the land can write about it, while we are alone in being restricted from even mentioning the subject.
Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the
652
House will have heard the point of order. Will he make arrangements to have a debate on this exceedingly extraordinary and important matter in Government time? Meanwhile, the House should not use up any further time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we are under the guillotine. The point that I am making is that we are subject to the guillotine under some protest and that we would take it amiss if hon. Members on the other side of the House were willing to impose further limitations upon the time available to the Bill.
Mr. John Mendelson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I submit with respect that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) is completely out of order in trying to tell hon. Members what they are to discuss and what they have no right to discuss. That is up to the Chair. The right hon. Member did not contribute to the debate on this point of order. The point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is of the greatest importance to both Back Benchers and Front Benchers. It is important that we should have an opportunity to return to the subject.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, an attempt was made in moderate terms yesterday to persuade you to hear out my hon. Friend when he tried to raise the point in the first place. It is not possible for Back Benchers on all occasions—although they try to do so, Mr. Speaker, as you know from experience—to give you notice of a point of order, particularly when other institutions of the State are involved. Sometimes a judgment may be reported only an hour or two before the House meets.
The House is the central, political and constitutional forum of the nation. Hon. Members and the Chair should agree that in future an hon. Member should be allowed to make his point of order in good faith and to be heard to the end even if he has not given you notice.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged for the way in which hon. Members have raised their points of order. I was given notice that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) would seek to raise the matter. I consider that hon. Members have raised very important matters for the House and for me. I am

653
anxious that there should be no dubiety on the question and I ask the House to allow me to rule on the matter tomorrow.
The right of hon. Members to be heard on a point of order—and I hope that they will bear this in mind—does not extended to criticism of the courts, or of their decisions, in a manner which impugns their motives or which is calculated to impair the administration of justice. Such criticism can be expressed only in a substantive motion. I shall give my ruling tomorrow.
I have an application under Standing Order No. 9 and a Ten-Minute Rule Bill before we come to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. A sense of fair play should prevail.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter which is not unrelated to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). 'Whilst I understand that you are in no way responsible for the content of ministerial answers, I am sure that you noticed that the Minister of State explicitly refused to answer my question about industrial espionage being conducted by the agency of a foreign Power. How are my rights as an hon. Member to represent the interests of my constituents to be protected from the self-assumed powers of the Executive to define, arbitrarily, what is sensitive and what is not sensitive, and therefore to define what we shall discuss and what we shall not discuss on behalf of our constituents? That seems to be a severe and unjustifiable constraint on our responsibilities to our constituents. The matter is one of central importance to my constituents and, I submit, to the whole of the British people and I would, therefore, appreciate your advice.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of State said that it was not the practice to answer or to go into any detail about the serious allegations which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) made which were to the effect that a foreign Power, through an agreement under our communications system, was spreading commercial information which
654
was secret and particular to this country. Although I was on my feet when the matter was raised you called only the hon. Member who put down the Question. I know that you are in no way influenced by the Minister, but will you make it clear that merely because a Minister says that it is not the practice to discuss a matter concerning a Government cover-up or Executive decision does not inhibit you from calling on whom you like to ask questions of the Executive when you choose because, surely, we must have open information and debate?
Mr. Speaker: I shall first reply to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), who said that he was dissatisfied with a reply to a Question. I shall look at his request to see whether there is any way in which I can help him. But I served under five Speakers in the House and none of them was able to find a way and I doubt whether I can. I shall have to see what I can do.
I turn now to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). Of course, when a Question is tabled my freedom to call hon. Members to ask supplementary questions is unfettered. I try to hold a balance but it is not easy. Hon. Members may become dissatisfied because they are not called. Turning to the Question to which the hon. Member referred, the House, with my permission, had spent a long time on two previous Questions and I moved on quickly because I thought that it was not of such wide interest as apparently it was. It is always a matter of delicate judgment, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that matter to my notice.
Mr. Jim Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary has left the Chamber, but I wish to draw your attention to the fact that in answering Question No. 1 the right hon. Gentleman made a major statement about breaking off diplomatic relations with Uganda. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and also the Leader of the House, to ensure that in future an important matter of that kind should he dealt with by means of a statement rather than in reply to a parliamentary Question?
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the House will have heard that comment.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to go a little further than you did in your reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)? When a Minister says that a matter is out of order or that it is not in the public interest for him to reply, or whatever it may be, my hon. Friend seeks an assurance that it is up to you to decide whether you will allow supplementary questions. Is it not the case that the fact that a matter is being dealt with by a Minister, whoever he may be, from the Prime Minister downwards, does not preclude you from allowing any Member to ask a supplementary question? Is it not for you to decide?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me good advice last week when he said that I should not rush to answer a question off the cuff. I would point out that so long as matters are in order, and if the question asked is a proper one, the discretion is with the Chair. I can say no more on that matter.

BRITISH RAIL SERVICES
Mr. Raphael Tuck: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the report today that British Rail has foreshadowed a reduction in railway passenger routes by 2,500 miles, a reduction of manpower
656
from 190,000 to 150,000, and a further doubling of commuter fares in London, with the possible loss of 60,000 commuters."
The matter is specific because it affects the lives of everybody. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that disquiet was recently expressed in the House about certain reports and that fears were set at rest because the Secretary of State for the Environment described those reports as "codswallop".
I believe that the matters should have urgent consideration because, if the arteries through which the lifeblood of a nation flows are closed, that nation will die.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely
"the report today that British Rail has foreshadowed a reduction in railway passenger routes by 2,500 miles, a reduction of manpower from 190,000 to 150,000, and a further doubling of commuter fares in London, with the possible loss of 60,000 commuters."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have given careful consideration to the representations made by the hon. Gentleman, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

RAIL TRANSPORT OF PIGEONS
3.57 p.m.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the British Railways Board to continue to accept unaccompanied racing pigeons for freight carriage.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Dr. Marshall: I am overwhelmed by the popularity of this subject. I suspect that hon. Members in all parts of the House have reecived representations on this important matter from pigeon fanciers in their constituencies.
This matter has arisen because of British Rail's proposal to end the freight carriage of pigeons as well as of most other livestock—a proposal that was due to come into force on 1st July 1976. As a result of pressure that was brought to bear on British Rail and on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment about this problem, British Rail agreed to defer the date when the proposed ban would come into force and to await further discussion of the subject by the Central Transport Consultative Committee. It so happens that that committee is meeting this very day to discuss the matter. Therefore, it is appropriate that the House should be considering the matter at the same time.
The facility to send unaccompanied racing pigeons by rail is indispensable for the activities of nearly all pigeon fanciers. Although most of the large clubs of fanciers have elaborate road transport arrangements for sending their birds to participate in the main races, there are other small clubs in remote areas that still find it more convenient and economical to send their few baskets of birds by rail. Similarly, there are mid-week racing clubs that do not have road transport facilities available away from weekends and therefore have to use rail freight. Individual pigeon fanciers who are not organised in clubs—and this includes many schoolboys—also rely on rail to send off their birds. Moreover, pigeon fanciers of all categories use the railways to dispatch their birds for short training flights and for exchange transactions with other pigeon fanciers in
658
response to advertisements in the specialist magazines.
Equally important, rail is the only means of sending home pigeons that go astray in flight, particularly many young birds sent off for the first time for their first long journey. People who find these lost birds are able to report them to the nearest pigeon racing club, which will be able to identify the owner of the bird and return it to him by using the railways. There is no alternative to rail transport for the return of these lost pigeons.
Furthermore, an essential feature of the sport of pigeon fancying is the series of large shows, usually held in the winter months, to which the individual exhibitor generally sends his bird or birds by rail and from which in many instances he personally collects them afterwards. These shows are held at major centres of population, including Doncaster, in my area. From the proceeds of these shows, donations are made to the funds of nationwide charities. In the last four years the Royal Pigeon Racing Association has donated a sum of £19,000 to the Association for Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus. Without rail transport of unaccompanied pigeons, these shows and similar charity auctions could not continue.
Why on earth has British Rail proposed its ban? At first we were told by senior officials of the Board that the ban was necessary in order to comply with the Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Tell us what is in the Bill.
Dr. Marshall: This is part of what is in the Bill. That Order places on the carriers of all livestock legal responsibilities which cannot be transferred to the owners. But upon investigation it turned out that the Order necessitates no ban on this traffic. In relation to pigeons, the operative Order is still the Transit of Poultry Order 1919.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), who called out "Tell us what is in the Bill", was quite in harmony, in so doing, with what I said yesterday to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Mr. Steen). The hon.

659
Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) must use his 10 minutes to tell us what he is proposing, or why the House should let him have the Bill.
Dr. Marshall: I accept what you say, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that the remarks I am making are part of the reason that a Bill of this nature is necessary. Perhaps you will rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I am wrong, bit I insist that all this background is necessary in showing why I wish to seek leave to bring in the Bill I shall try to use the remainder of my 10 minutes as expeditiously as I can.
It seems to me that the Order under which the freight transport of racing pigeons has been carried out for 57 years, namely the Transit of Poultry Order 1919, is therefore something with which British Railways are quite happy, and to which they cannot object at this time or which they cannot use as an excuse for the ban they are proposing.
It may be that British Rail is looking at this more in commercial terms, although it has emerged from the inquiries which have been made that the revenue arising to British Rail as a result of this traffic is annually £150,000. That is something on the positive side, and I cannot imagine what sudden savings would be made by British Rail if this traffic were no longer to be accepted.
660
All told, I am left with the impression that British Rail quite simply does not wish to be bothered with this traditional traffic any longer. Its attitude is part of the contraction syndrome which at present seems to dominate so much of its thinking. By contrast, I believe that many railway men up and down the country take great pleasure in handling the transit of pigeons.
On behalf of pigeon fanciers throughout the country, I seek this opportunity to place an obligation on British Rail to continue this traffic.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Edmund Marshall, Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Robin F. Cook, Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Stan Crowther, Mr. Bob Cryer, Mr. Bruce George, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar, Mr. Mike Noble Mr. George Park, and Mr. Neville Sandelson.

RAIL TRANSPORT OF PIGEONS
  RAIL TRANSIT OF PIGEONS
  Dr. Edmund Marshall accordingly presented a Bill to require the British Railways Board to continue to accept unaccompanied racing pigeons for freight carriage; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed.[Bill 218.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.
  4.3 p.m.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have the Government informed you whether there will be any chance of further time being allotted to debate the amendments about Harland and Wolff or whether they will honour their pledge to me last Friday and at least make a statement about the yard before the House goes into recess?
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kaufman.
  The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I had discussions last night with a number of hon. Members from Ulster, and I suggested ways in which the matter could be discussed before the Summer Recess. Those are being examined, and we shall certainly look at this sympathetically from the point of view of the proposal that I made.

  AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
    Clause 2

      GENERAL DUTIES OF THE CORPORATIONS
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I beg to move Amendment No. 225, in page 3, line 44, leave out 'repair and maintenance'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 258, in Schedule 2, page 75, leave out lines 19 to 26.
      No. 247, in page 75, leave out line 20.
      No. 259, in page 75, leave out lines 28 to 30.
      No. 249, in page 77, line 4, leave out '£3·4 million' and insert:
      '£2·5 million in any city or town.'.
      No. 219, in page 77, line 4, at end insert 'and
      (d) on 21st November 1975 the number of persons employed by that company in any city or town engaged exclusively in
      662
      the business of repairing, refitting, converting or maintaining ships exceeded 300, provided that the company is not a member of the same group of companies as a shipbuilding company falling within the description in paragraph 2 above'.
      No. 260, in page 77, line 4, at end insert 'and—
      (d) on 21st May 1976 the number of persons employed by that company totalled 341':
      Mr. Wigley: I am not a member of the Committee which dealt with the Bill, and therefore in giving some of the background to our reasoning, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will permit me a little latitude in explaining our feelings on the matter.
      The amendment is specifically geared to cut out the nationalisation of ship repairing by removing the words "repair and maintenance" from the Bill. I accept that this was discussed to some extent in Committee, although all the arguments relative to the case for such an amendment were not deployed, and certainly the answers were not forthcoming to the points raised in Committee.
      Our attitude towards nationalisation does not bear the characteristics of the attitude of Government Members, who may have a blinkered view of nationalisation, believing in nationalising everything. Our view is not, either, that of Conservative Members, who would not nationalise anything, whatever the circumstances might be.
      Our attitude is that it depends very much on the industry and the circumstances. In some industries, nationalisation may have worked out quite well. I have in mind the electricity industry, and also broadcasting, where I believe the nationalised corporations are effective. But in other industries the history has been less happy.
      In Wales, we have lost almost 150,000 jobs since the War in nationalised industries. Coal pits closed at a rate of knots, one every six weeks, between 1964 and 1970. The steel industry is in a state of chaos at the moment, because there have been no decisions about its future. That will have a serious effect on the employment prospects in the industry. The omnibus industry has had a disastrous record of remote control, leading to ineffective services and the closure of services. The railways have lost some 60 per cent. of the track mileage which was in

      663
      existence when they were taken into public ownership.
      State ownership and nationalisation, therefore, has not meant job security in these industries. It has not meant better planning and co-ordination—very often the argument put forward in its favour. It has not meant, in some of these industries, the level of higher investment that is necessary to ensure their successful future. Perhaps even more important, it has not led to these industries being run in a more democratic manner.
      We have seen the replacement of distant, faceless capitalists by distant, faceless bureaucrats. We have had a centralisation of control, and no real progress towards worker control in these industries.
      Our objective as a party is to see worker control, not by paying lip-service to industrial democracy but by moving to at least 51 per cent. worker control in the environment in which these industries exist.
      Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. He has referred to the basic industries, particularly in Wales—coal, steel and railways. He has referred to the number of redundancies. If these industries had not been taken into public ownership, where would they be today? Does the hon. Gentleman think that they would have any future at all under private enterprise, which had neglected them and put no investment into them? Will he agree that at least the workers now know where they stand?
      Mr. Wigley: The workers in Wales know particularly well where they stand, particularly in regard to the railway industry. According to a report in the Western Mail this morning, Richard Marsh said that if it were not for the nationalist pressure in Wales, the lines would have been closed entirely.
      The doubts we have about the Bill are the reasons I have outlined. The Bill is very much a parson's egg of a Bill. There are three different industries covered in one Bill, and the case is very different from industry to industry. I can recognise a certain logic in the need for long-term planning in the aircraft industry, for instance. It is possible that it is difficult to get that planning in the private sector. But that argument is not valid in the case
      664
      of the ship repairing, with which the amendment deals. There is no guarantee of jobs, and the Government accept that it is not possible to give such a guarantee.
      As to the ship repairing industry, there is no coherent justification for including this industry in the Bill. It is an industry that is service-based and needs quick response time and completion of orders in a highly competitive international market. Those are not the characteristics of the corporations that have been taken into public ownership since the war. The ship repairing industry needs a highly-tuned sales and marketing performance. That has not been a characteristic of nationalised industries. The ship repairing industry is not part of a fully-integrated shipbuilding industry. There is an overlap, but some parts are totally exclusive one from the other.
      Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am sure that for the best possible reasons the hon. Gentleman has a wrong impression of nationalisation of the ship repairing industry. It is not that the virtuous characteristics of flexibility and market orientation are absent from nationalisation. They were absent from those industries which were nationalised. As a taxpayer the hon. Gentleman should welcome the fact that where there is virility in some companies, that will be an enormous asset under nationalisation.
      Mr. Wigley: I take that point. It is a serious point. There is a possibility that the virility that exists in some companies now will be lost when they are taken into public ownership, as a result of the inevitable bureaucratic control that is a characteristic of the nationalised industries.
      I cite the example of the nationalised bus industry. The people in my area have seen what happened. No doubt the same process has occurred in England and Scotland.
      Mr. Michael Heseltine: The executives of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited made it clear that they would not work for the State bureaucracy.
      Mr. Wigley: I do not know what the members of that company said to the hon. Members. Even if they stay in their present jobs, they will be tied down by bureaucratic controls. That is the nature of the animal with which we are dealing.

      665
      It is inevitable. The Government have made no case for the nationalisation of this industry.
      I have been through the reports of the Committee stage of the Bill with a toothcomb. I have yet to see the case made. I followed the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr, Wainwright) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor). Their arguments were not answered. The hon Member for Colne Valley underlined the fact that we were dealing with different, small-scale, service industries. He said there were different methods of finding work for the ship repairing and shipbuilding industries. The need to respond quickly in emergency situations was pointed out. The high export content of this industry is important. There is a need for long-term planning.
      The hon. Member for Colne Valley said that this was a new departure in nationalisation and that it held out a threat. If nationalisation is moving in the direction of service industries we may well see garages and corner shops coming under the same scrutiny as the type of industry that may employ only 30 or 40 people in one location.
      Overseas shipowners may well not want to use companies forming part of the United Kingdom nationalised industry when they know that features incorporated into their ships built elsewhere may be picked up at the repair stage and used by manufacturers in the United Kingdom. As a result of that we may lose business. Other equally valid points were put forward.
      Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman suggested that the two industries were distinct. I hope to disprove that point later. The hon. Gentleman made the point that foreign owners may not wish to place their ships for repairs in British nationalised ship repairing companies as the owners will pick up and use the ideas incorporated in the foreign-built ships. Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the majority of British ship repairing companies are already part of British shipbuilding companies such as Swan Hunter, Court Line, Vosper, Cammell Laird and Harland and Wolff? Will he recognise that point before going any further?
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Wigley: I recognise that point. An Answer I received to a Parliamentary Question yesterday showed that the turnover of the industry was £150 million. Of that sum £30 million came from overseas business. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd., the only ship repair company in Wales, accounted for about one-quarter of that export content. I contend that there is a real danger. It was expressed in Committee by a number of hon. Members.
      The hon. Member for Cathcart put forward an equally valid point. There is no need for special aid for this sector in the way in which there may be a case for aid for the shipbuilding industry. Nor is there a need for restructuring, which has started, in view of changes in the world situation from 1968 onwards.
      In Committee the Minister, in reply, covered a number of points. I should like to answer those points, as I do not believe that he gave satisfactory answers. Chronologically, his first reason— I do not know whether it came first in his list of priorities—was that this commitment was contained in the Labour Party manifesto. We recognise that there are some commitments in that manifesto with which some members of the Opposition agree, such as child benefit or the provision of economic planning in Wales, but these are not being honoured.
      The Minister said that there was a natural affinity between ship repairing and shipbuilding. That natural affinity is not evident in the case of the 70 companies not being nationalised under the Bill. The Minister said that if there were not full cover of the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry there would be a rough and ready frontier through the heart of the ship repairing industry. Surely that rough and ready frontier exists already. A line is being drawn between the companies covered by the Bill and those that are excluded.
      The Minister drew heavily from the PA consultants' report on the ship repairing industry. He said that several ship repairers existed on one estuary and that in consequence there was a tendency for them to compete against each other. That situation will continue

      667
      Let us take the case of the Severn Estuary. The ship repairing company of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers will be nationalised. Jefferies of Avonmouth will not be nationalised. The firms will compete with each other. That does not change the situation.
      The Minister underlined the fact that the consultants' report referred to outdated facilities. Why has not the National Enterprise Board got "stuck in" with its powers under the Industry Act? The report referred to unsatisfactory labour relations. That does not hold water when we compare the hideous labour relations in the nationalised steel industry in Llanwern with the fact that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited has not lost time or production as a result of labour difficulties over the past eight years.
      The Minister referred to the possibility of losses of jobs. He said that 2,000 or 3,000 jobs might be lost in the ship repairing industry by 1980 if it were not nationalised. But if those jobs are to be saved, from where is the additional business to come? Do the Government believe that they will be able to make inroads into international competition, in present circumstances, through a State corporation, to pick up 2,000 or 3,000 extra jobs?
      How does that tie up with the other point that there is a need for increased productivity? Increased productivity in a frozen market situation will lead to a decrease in the number of people employed. The productivity of a company such as the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers is three times higher than that of Jefferies of Avonmouth, which is excluded from this Bill. Productivity has clearly not been an important point in deciding which companies are to be included in the schedule.
      The Minister referred to the need for a coherent strategy for ship repair yards. How is it possible to arrive at a coherent strategy when the international market is volatile and on short lead time? The argument that may be valid for the shipbuilding and aircraft construction industries is not valid in the case of the ship repairing industry.
      The Minister pointed to the need for a ship repairing facility on every major estuary. He said that no large ship repair-
      668
      ing company located on such an estuary was omitted. In fact, major companies have been omitted. Jefferies of Avonmouth employs twice as many people as Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, yet Jefferies has been omitted from the Bill. The Minister was unable to put forward a coherent case on that point.
      A case has not been made for the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry. On the contrary, an overwhelming case has been made against the exclusion of this industry from the Bill.
      I should like to move on quickly to the specific case of the only ship repairing company located in Wales which is included in the Bill—Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. That company has drawn a certain amount of hostility and attention to itself because of the campaign that it has waged over recent weeks, months and even years. That company represents only 0·4 per cent. of the total labour force of the companies which are under threat of nationalisation—380 out of 91,000 employees. That company has the smallest number of employees of any of the companies mentioned. Those employees are not on one site. They are scattered among six different yards over 70 miles of coastline. Indeed, at Newport only 35 men are employed. How can we argue that these are the commanding heights of the economy that need to be taken into public ownership?
      Mr. Bob Cryer: The hon. Gentleman said that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited employed 300 people. Will he explain the difference between the figure given in the annual report for the year ended March 1975, which was 821, and for the previous year—800?
      Mr. Wigley: The 800 represents a group figure. I think that the figure given in that report for ship repairing was 380. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that that is so if he checks it.
      Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited is not a shipbuilding company. It is situated on an estuary where there is no shipbuilding to be nationalised.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is dealing partly with my constituency. Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I was wondering whether the distortion in the figures had anything to

      669
      do with the recent redundancies at that company when consultations, and so on, went by the board.
      Mr. Wigley: It is fair that the hon. Gentleman, who has a constituency interest in this company, should raise that matter. I acknowledge that there were redundancies of about two dozen people in that company this year. That was the result of world-wide pressures. Some would argue that it was the result of uncertainty because the Bill is going through, but that is another matter.
      I move on now to the profitability of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. It is a highly profitable company but it has retained the profits to build itself up by increasing investment and facilities for the work force. Only 10 per cent. of the profits in the last financial year went in dividends. That was £122,000 out of £1·2 million profits. Indeed, the return on shares was 2 per cent. That is hardly the description of a company using its profits in a socially unacceptable way.
      The company's relations with its work force is magnificent. It has not lost any production due to industrial disputes for over eight years. Over the last few years the company has undertaken far-reaching experiments in industrial democracy. That is something that other companies, whether in the private or public sector, have not done. There is one worker-director for every 50 employees, 90 per cent. of whom are shareholders within the company. About 20 per cent. of the control of the company now lies in the hands of the employees. The programme is for that to be built up to a 51 per cent. stake, which will then make it a worker-controlled company. A profit-sharing scheme for employees is also being introduced.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman seems to have a great deal of detailed knowledge about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. In view of his detailed knowledge, will he tell me how much has been spent on advertisements against nationalisation and on lunches and dinners at this House?
      Mr. Wigley: I am sure that a considerable amount has been spent on the campaign against nationalisation, because the company honestly believes and is convinced—I accept its arguments—that the
      670
      future for its employees will be bleak if it is nationalised.
      The hon. Gentleman asked how much money had been spent on lunches. Perhaps he would care to tell the House that he had lunch provided by that company. Indeed, he went back a second time to find out exactly what the situation was regarding that company. [Interruption.] I missed that last point. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was merely confirming what I said.
      The hon. Gentleman raised some matters in the debate yesterday relative to this company and they should be answered. One point was that the company was against trade unions. In fact, 100 per cent. of the company's shoo floor employees are members of trade unions —the Transport and General Workers Union, the AUEW and the boilermakers union. Company policy is to encourage its employees to be members of trade unions. The majority of supervisors are also members of trade unions. Some managers—for instance, both managers at Newport—are members of trade unions.
      The company invited ASTMS, the union in which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has an interest, to send a local representative to its quarterly conference. I hope that he will go, although he failed to go to the last meeting. A similar invitation has been extended to a representative of APEX. Therefore, this company cannot be projected as being hostile to trade unionism.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman seems to have detailed knowledge, apart from what the company has spent on the promotion of its anti-nationalisation campaign. He is saying that the company encouraged—
      Mr. Barnaby Drayson: Put a question.
      Mr. Hoyle: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a point, he should stand up. If he will listen, he will hear the question. I hope that he will not be so impatient. The hon. Gentleman is not often here.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chair takes a considerable interest in what goes on in this

      671
      Chamber. I should be grateful if he would address his remarks to the Chair and not have too much cross-talk below the Gangway.
      Mr. Hoyle: I shall certainly address my remarks to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise. I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) in this Chamber. After all, he is not often with us. If he will be patient, I shall come to the question. Of course, I am always delighted to see and exchange words with the hon. Gentleman.
      The remarks made by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) relating to the white collar staff union do not seem to be in line with what I have heard. I do not know of any invitation to ASTMS to send a representative to the company, but I am sure that it will be delighted to send someone along. I have had conversations with the white collar staff employed by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited. They have said that they are afraid to join a trade union for fear of what might happen to them.
      Mr. Wigley: I am sure that those fears although perhaps genuinely expressed to the hon. Gentleman, were without foundation. The invitation was given to Mr. Clive Jenkins, the general secretary of the union. The hon. Gentleman can no doubt check that with Mr. Jenkins.
      I turn now to the attitude of the employees of Bristol Channel Repairers Limited towards nationalisation. They do not want nationalisation. Yesterday light play was made of the fact that there was a high turn-out in the ballot held by the company. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides would welcome that procedure. If there is a feeling that the ballot within the company is non-representative, why do not the Government accept Amendment No. 314, which provides for a referendum of employees in all the companies to be nationalised if 10 per cent. of employees request one? That is a reasonable proposal which is fully in line with the concept of industrial democracy if that is to mean anything and is not to be a farce, a skin-thin commitment to worker control, or anything of that kind.
      The employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited are of the opinion that they are doing well without being
      672
      nationalised. They feel that the company will do much better if only the Government will get off their backs. They are certain that they will lose customers if the company is nationalised.
      There is good reason for their apprehension. I should like to quote from a letter from one of the company's customers, Holter-Sorensen and Company, which wrote on 18th March last year saying:
      "with our experience with nationalised companies, we must regret to announce that, in the event of nationalisation of your firm, we shall no longer be interested in making use of your docking and repair facilities."
      That is the reality of the situation. About 70 per cent. of the company's business comes from overseas companies which will probably take the same attitude.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I seem to recall the hon. Gentleman rightly making the point that, due to all the pro-Market propaganda which went around, it was not unexpected that people should have voted in such a way. Will he direct his mind to the possibility that this vast amount of money spent by the company may have created a sense of fear amongst its employees and that that is why they voted as they did?
      Mr. Wigley: That is why we have tabled an amendment which would provide for an independent referendum to be taken by, for example, the Hansard Society. That would provide the opportunity for the Government to find out the opinions of the employees. It would not interfere with the type of situation to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
      4.30 p.m.
      Employees have another fear, that in a nationalised situation work could be transferred from the Bristol Channel yard to yards in the nationalised industry which do not have the same facilities for drawing in work. This is a genuine fear of something which could well take place if lame duck yards are given the benefit of the hard work which Bristol Channel company has done in building up markets by its sales efforts.
      Hon. Members opposite may have a point in saying that the public relations campaign which has been undertaken may prove to have been counter-productive, but that is no good reason for including the company in this Bill when all

      673
      common sense suggests that the company should not be included. We know that the energy of Christopher Bailey and his associates would be far better spent looking for orders abroad than in having to fight this kind of campaign. The way of ensuring that is for the Government to leave this company out of the Bill and to let him get on with his job.
      If every industrialist in the nationalised and non-nationalised sector showed as much fight as this company has shown on this issue, the situation in British industry would be very much better. There are hon. Members of all parties who have great sympathy with the situation of the Bristol Channel Company. As we know, there are hon. Members opposite who put down amendments to the same effect as ours. Hon. Members had an amendment on the Order Paper when this debate should have taken place a month or six weeks ago but they are not there now. They have been whipped out, and the hon. Members concerned have been turned into Lobby fodder of the party opposite.
      The case in favour of excluding ship repairing and specifically excluding Bristol Channel Ship Repairers is overwhelming. It is known in the yards and by hon. Members opposite as well as by others outside. I hope that when the vote comes they will show by their vote what they know in their hearts.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: I confess to a little admiration for the idealism of the Welsh National Party. It is perhaps symbolised in this amendment and in remarks by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). He has said that in principle he is not against the extension of public ownership but that he very much resents the bureaucracy that goes with it. We have some common ground there. But, bearing in mind the idealism of the Welsh National Party, it is difficult for me to understand how those hon. Members have come to be caught up in this sordid campaign of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.
      No one would wish to deny this firm the right to put its case, but it has certainly bordered on the realms of impropriety. I believe that it has been subject to certain investigations, and that has cost a fortune. If the object has been to prevent the firm being taken into public
      674
      ownership. I would say that the campaign is having altogether the very opposite effect.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Member realises that he speaks with the privilege that the House confers upon him. He is making extremeley serious allegations the implications of which could be construed in a way which I very much hope he does not intend. So that the headlines do not carry an impression that he would not want, I hope that he will be careful in explaining exactly what he means by those remarks.
      Mr. Hughes: I do not propose to enlarge on my remarks in any way whatsoever in answer to the hon. Gentleman, but certainly hon. Members on this side of the House will be aware of the correctness of my very careful remarks.
      Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has used words that could be interpreted as implying that the conduct of this company was beyond the law. He said that investigations had been considered. I have asked him to make quite clear what he has in mind so that that kind of implication should not be carried in tomorrow's Press. It is extremely serious. The reputation of the company in a situation in which it has no defence should not be impugned in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member carries responsibility for any remark he may make in this place, or for any views he may express, subject to the rules of order. It is entirely up to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford): Further to that point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) used the word "impropriety" in connection with this campaign. It is very easy for hon. Members to use such terms when a campaign is successful, but it is not a term that should be used within the privilege of the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must be allowed to speak for himself. This is not a point of order.
      Mr. Hughes: I have made my point perfectly clearly and I am sure that that will be borne out by the Official Report tomorrow morning. I want to make clear

      675
      that the campaign of this company has certainly hardened the attitude of Ministers. It has certainly closed the ranks of the Parliamentary Labour Party.
      I would say to those workers who have got caught up in this campaign that their proper channel is through their respective trade unions and they should not act as tame poodles of the company. It is worth reminding the House that we got rid of Spencerism in South Wales 40 years ago. The consultation and worker participation allegedly practised by this company were not exactly to the forefront when we had redundancies in this firm only months ago, as trade unionists and trade union officers who dealt with the situation in this company will very readily bear out.
      I should have thought that the huge sum of money spent on this campaign would have been better given to those poor people who were made redundant and whose families have been badly affected as a result. Personally, I would not myself claim Baileys as a good employer. From listening to the hon. Member for Caernarvon one would have thought the company was the natural successor to Robert Owen in Wales, but we are nearer to the scene in South Wales and know the situation rather better, to say the least. Having made these comments on the campaign of this company, I must say I can understand the attitude of certain employees, some of them constituents of mine, who have approached me on the subject of public ownership.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: May I put a question to the hon. Member very mildly? If he is going home one evening and is attacked by robbers, is it wrong for him to defend himself? This is precisely what this company has been doing in this campaign—defending itself against nationalisation. Is that so immoral? Is it sordid?
      Mr. Hughes: I have already dealt with the campaign and I wish to get on.
      This firm has operated in various forms in Newport over a long period and it is worth pointing out—and I say this against my own case—that Newport has had rather a sad experience of public ownership. It is essentially very
      676
      much a steel town. We have experienced the closure of our tube works when 1,500 jobs were lost. Many products were later imported. Chaos has been created at the Llanwern works, perhaps the most modern in the country. The British Steel Corporation has nearly bankrupted our docks by taking away the iron ore trade, and it is time that the Government did something to rectify the situation there.
      The misgivings of the employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers centre around the fact that ship repairing tends to be concentrated in the North-East of England. With nationalisation, there is a suspicion that there might be rationalisation and that the Welsh enterprise could be sacrificed. That is why I welcome Government Amendment No. 320, which provides for the decentralisation of management and decision-taking and the creation of so-called profit centres. In this sense, the Government have answered the criticisms in the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. Under this arrangement, there is no reason why the South Wales enterprise should not continue successfully.
      Publicly-owned industries need to be far more accountable. Here I am on common ground again with the hon. Member for Caernarvon. It was over two years after nationalisation that we had a debate on the steel industry and only then because of the Iron and Steel Act and because Parliament had to authorise vast sums of money to help that vital industry.
      The late Mr. Aneurin Bevan always argued for greater accountability to the House by the publicly owned industries. He was absolutely right. We do not want the same sort of practices in these new enterprises as have happened in steel in recent years. It seems as though the rival bureaucracies in the Department of Industry and the BSC argue about the industry's future while the work people are merely minions in the power game.
      Work people, through their trade unions, must have a far greater say in these new industries which are to be taken into public ownership. We must not have the sham arrangement that we have had with steel. I welcome the new proposals for the mining industry and I hope that we can get that sort of proposal in other publicly owned industries.

      677
      Having made those criticisms, and despite any misgivings I may have, I remain as convinced as ever that public ownership is the right answer for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Heseltine: This debate exists on a number of levels. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has lowered its tone in a way which I find totally regrettable. Perhaps one might try to clarify the position. Any company—any member of the British public—has the right to use its legal resources to present its case to this House and to a wider British public and to exercise any legitimate pressure that it can therefore bring to bear in furtherance of its democratic rights. That must be the basis of our democratic faith.
      Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has undoubtedly done just that with a flair and a skill which has drawn attention to its case very widely. Hon. Members opposite obviously do not like the case—I do not blame them for that, because it is against their own convictions and philosophy—but it must still be attractive to them as an idea that the right of this company to put a case is fundamental.
      The hon. Member for Newport—I regret that he did not find it possible to clarify what he had in mind—suggested that in some way the techniques used by that company were improper, were subject to an investigation, in some way in fringed the law, in some way misused the company's funds. Those were the implications of his remarks.
      I should have thought that the only fair thing for the hon. Member to do was to repeat those remarks outside the House. We should then be able to watch the consequences, since the company would have the right to defend itself in the courts. Otherwise, anyone who challenges the views of the Labour Party is likely to find that the Labour Party's defence is to indulge in smear tactics in the House, tactics against which there is no defence.
      I intervened in the hon. Member's speech to enable him to clarify what could have been—I say this at once—a perfectly legitimate expression. We all know how, speaking extempore from half-prepared notes, one can use words that do
      678
      not 100 per cent. reflect what one would have said with a prepared text.
      Mr. Roy Hughes: Read Hansard tomorrow morning.
      Mr. Heseltine: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said, and I cannot see why it is necessary to wait for tomorrow morning. Why is it not possible for him to clarify what he meant? Then the damage need never be done. By tomorrow morning, when, in the absence of clarification, the implications and the doubts will remain, the damage will have been done.
      The hon. Member is being less than fair to those who work for that company, to those who own it and to the wider public, if he does not explain precisely what he meant by his words. He must recognise that in pursuit of this debate, which is very controversial and in which deep convictions are held by all hon. Members, it does no one any good to use techniques which are perhaps less straightforward than we would expect.
      Mr. Ioan Evans Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare) rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: No—I will give way to the hon. Member for Newport.
      Mr. Evans: On this point.
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Heseltine: Hon. Members know that I give way as frequently as anyone in the House. I have made a direct reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Newport. I will willingly give way to him so that he can clarify the position.
      Mr. Tom King: He is not going to budge.
      Mr. Heseltine: It is totally regrettable that the hon. Member is going to do nothing—
      Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who was recently found swinging the Mace, to lecture this side of the House on law and order?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter of order. It is an irrelevancy.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful for your view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that point of order is irrelevant—just as it would have been if I had referred to the singing of "The Red Flag" on that occasion. I

      679
      have no intention, of course, of referring to the antics of those songsters—antics for which no apology has ever been made in the House.
      Perhaps we can look at the case which was so eloquently—
      Mr. Andrew Bowden: Would my hon. Friend comment further on the speech of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), which I can only regard as cheap and nasty? He said that those employees of the company who protested against the nationalisation scheme should use only their trade unions as a means of protest. That is an extraordinary view, because employees have every right to contact their Member of Parliament and other Members.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is very much the point I had in mind. The point which follows from the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) is that one must ask oneself what the employees of the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. are supposed to have done wrong.
      Trade union members indulge, quite rightly, in political activities on the shop floor of their company and in their own private time on behalf of all political parties in this country. They may use any legitimate weapon available to communicate their views through the trade union movement to Parliament or to Parliament direct. There is no criticism of a trade union member who comes to Westminster and lobbies Members of Parliament, or who writes letters on a large scale to Members of Parliament. Similarly, there is no criticism of any manager who argues his case in the normal political way.
      This being the case, why is Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. being criticised? It is not a question of what the company has done, but simply the fact that it disagrees with the Labour Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, that is so.
      Mr. Cryer: We on this side of the House do not oppose any company putting its case. Those of us who have criticised Bristol Channel Ship Repairers do so because we object to the methods
      680
      of a company employed by it—a firm called International News Service. We criticise the methods that that company employed to present the case, and we believe that the presentation strayed beyond the bounds of reasonableness.
      Mr. Heseltine: I think that it is perfectly reasonable for hon. Members to look carefully at all the methods used to draw views to their attention. We must exercise that judgment all the time. There is an obvious sanction available to us: we do not need to accept the invitations made to us, or read the documents sent to us. There are a thousand different ways in which we can rebel against that technique.
      If Labour Members had consistently opposed these methods, I should understand their protests, but Labour Members have not refused to look at documents sent to them. Is the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) seriously suggesting that Labour Members have not been involved in what I would call the gravy train of this company? Is he saying Labour Members have been immune to this process? It is within the control of every hon. Member to wield the ultimate sanction. The only reason the company asks hon. Members to be entertained is in the expectation that its representations will be accepted. They were accepted by Labour Members. But we do not have to accept them and Members of the Labour Party could say "No."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going very wide of the amendment. I call the House back to the point of the amendment.
      Mr. Heseltine: Of course I accept your ruling Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I take it that there would be a protection for us for the remainder of the debate if this case were raised again.
      I move now to the case against including the ship repairing industry in the context of this nationalisation measure. We have all come to the House today with certain knowledge of how the votes will be cast. The result will be wholly predictable at the end of the day. To that extent, this is not a debate at all We do not believe that there is any prospect whatever of any argument being produced from this side of the House that will influence the Labour Party in any way. Labour Members believe in public

      681
      ownership. They will look at any complex industrial problem, and every research team they put up to investigate it comes up with the answer of nationalisation.
      Mr. John Evans: The hon. Member makes the comment that there is no real debate on this matter. He has been on his feet for 10 minutes, yet he has not talked about the ship repairing industry at all. It might help the debate if he were to do so.
      Mr. Heseltine: I am moving to precisely that subject. The important point is that in the debate this afternoon no one expects that a change of mind will result from the argument deployed by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, or any other arguments that could be conceivably deployed by other hon. Members against including ship repairing. I do not expect the Labour Party to accept that. The only additional tactics that could be adopted to further the debate would be to look at the case histories of individual companies or individual estuaries and give a theoretical denunciation of the practical realities of nationalisation in order to counter what has been said.
      There is a whole myriad and range of problems facing every industry and every company in this country. It is the essence of the managerial concept that one is continually problem-solving. When one range of problems has been solved, others will take its place. The important question is whether the problems of today will be better solved by nationalisation.
      There are a considerable number of companies involved in ship repairing which are short of work, in common with many other industries. Nationalisation will not produce one extra job or find one extra ship in need of repair. It will not divert to British estuaries one single ship which needs work done on it.
      Then there is the question of the possibility of providing investment funds. This Government must have come to understand that money for public expenditure has run out. We saw this in last week's announcement by the Chancellor. The nationalisation investment programme was reduced by £150 million on capital account. To suggest that this is the way to raise money for investors in our yards is quite unrealistic.
      682
      The forward forecasts for the nationalisation budgets of these two corporations do not foresee any increase in capital expenditure. There is no evidence to suggest that capital expenditure will increase under nationalisation—indeed, the evidence is that it might well be reduced.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: We debated this matter in Committee. The White Paper is very vague, talking about "may" and "likely to be" and so on. Therefore, to say that there are specific figures in the White Paper on capital investment in these industries is quite wrong.
      Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member wants to go on believing that sort of thing. It is a political imperative for him to tell his constituents that nationalisation will solve their problems by producing jobs and investments. I hope that he will remember what I have said when the harsh truth dawns and when none of these things has happened because the money has run out.
      The difficulty is that the Government Front Bench says the same thing. It has to take actions which result from having said so, but still the lesson does not get home to Labour Back Benchers. Last week the public expenditure programmes of the nationalised industries were cut. But still Labour Members think that there is a pool of money which can be drawn upon next year or the year after. The realities are quite different. The cash has run out.
      Every time the Chancellor comes to the House and says he will increase public expenditure, for whatever purpose, including the investment programmes of the nationalised industries, there will be a consequent decline in public confidence. It will be necessary to increase interest rates, which will further prejudice employment in the private sector as well as having already reduced it in the public sector. That is the harsh reality which underlies this legislation. It is therefore unrealistic to suggest that nationalisation offers further investment opportunities.
      Labour Back Benchers suggest that nationalisation will prevent unemployment in these industries. To be fair to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry, that is not what the

      683
      small print says. The reality has been put on the record by the responsible Ministers. Of course unemployment will rise, particularly in the areas where these industries are concentrated. Labour Members might like to give their forecasts of what they think unemployment will be in the North-East and on Clyde-side by the end of the year.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: What would it be if the hon. Gentleman's policies were accepted?
      Mr. Heseltine: It is the Government's policy to nationalise these industries in the belief that that will avoid unemployment. It will not. The sooner that Labour Members realise that, the sooner they might realise that we should be talking about how to get jobs into these industries, not how to change their ownership. The mere spending of £300 million of taxpayers' money is destroying jobs. It is time that Labour Members realised that and stopped deluding themselves and the employees in the industries.
      Nationalisation will divert the nation's attention from the realities of these industries. It stops the dialogue about what we should be doing to help them. It is convenient for Labour Members to indulge in this diversion because it is easier to try to pretend that there is a cosy soft option when in reality as a nation we have run out of resources with which to pay for that option.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the amendment with the total conviction that our arguments have been victorious throughout the debate. We shall do so with another certainty. It is that if by any chance we are unsuccessful in this debate, and should the legislalation reach the statute book, we intend, on returning to power, that the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and the other ship repairing companies are returned to the private sector as rapidly as we can do it.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) introduced his amendment in the moderate and agreeable way that we expect of him and his colleagues. I do not criticise him for moving it or for the way in which he did so. He has spoken out of conviction, and I hope that by the time I have concluded
      684
      my remarks he will feel that his convictions are not as soundly based as he at first thought.
      First, I shall deal with the subject of ship repairing in general before coming on to the individual case. Perhaps I should make one preliminary remark. For reasons which I fully understand and which I do not criticise in any way, he has based his remarks upon one individual company. He has said that it is unnecessary to include ship repairing in Wales in the Bill. But before he casts his vote on this amendment he should consider another ship repair company which has implications for Welsh workers and, what is more, Welsh workers who live a good deal nearer to the hon. Member in Caernarvon than do the workers represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and others of my hon. Friends including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
      Has the hon. Gentleman considered what is likely to be the fate of the workers in Western Shiprepairers on Merseyside if the Bill does not embrace ship repairing? Although the total number of workers in that company is roughly the equivalent of the number of workers in the group for which he is speaking today, and although I agree that by no means are all those workers Welsh, he should consider the repercussions of unemployment on Merseyside. That is one of the reasons why the Government took the view they took about the Shotton situation and why they are so anxious to retain the maximum amount of work for the Hawker Siddeley factory in East Flint.
      Mr. Gwynfor Evans: The Minister of State speaks of his fears about possible unemployment on Merseyside if the Bill is amended. Does he fear the same thing, for instance, in Avonmouth and in Bristol, where there is a firm not included in the Bill? Is there likely to be unemployment in that firm as a result of its not being nationalised? Why is it necessary to include Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and not to include a firm twice the size on the same estuary?
      Mr. Kaufman: I shall of course be coming to these matters in due course. Unlike the Opposition Front Bench, which simply regards any dialogue between us

      685
      with cynicism, the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) will know from our contacts that I endeavour to discuss with him, not always on the basis of agreement, but certainly on the basis of mutual respect. I shall respond to him again on that basis.
      Mr. Heseltine: Get on with it.
      Mr. Kaufman: I will not be told by the Conservative Party how to arrange my speech. At least I do not seek to create effects in this House by throwing the caber or something of that kind. My hon. Friends bitterly resented the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) having the nerve to lecture my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, with reference to some of the workers involved in the company, on respect for parliamentary institutions.
      As for ship repairing in general, I remind the House that we have a specific commitment to nationalise in both our 1974 election manifestos. That is distinct from the commitment applying to shipbuilding. Whereas some hon. Members may feel that we are not carrying out all our manifesto commitments, I hope that they will not criticise us when we do carry them out. In fact, we have carried out a great many.
      The ship repairing commitment arose from the report of the joint Labour Party /CSEU/TUC Working Party which was published in 1973 when the Labour Party was in opposition. The joint working party recommended that the proposed corporation should acquire
      "control of all significant companies in the ship building, ship repair and marine engineering industries."
      That recommendation was endorsed by the 1973 annual conference of all three bodies.
      The PA Management Consultants Limited report on the industry, which was commissioned by the previous Conservative Government, identified a number of problems that the industry is facing. It identified a number of "obstacles to growth":
      "the development of an already strong industry on the Continent … the existence in many cases of several ship repairers within one estuary and the consequent tendency for the individual companes to compete against each other instead of concentrating upon meeting overseas competition … outdated facilities of many repairers which will become even
      686
      more unsuitable in the longer term as the average size and type of vessel changes … unsatisfactory labour relations and their impact upon international competitveness."
      When the hon. Member for Caernarvon understandably refers to what he regards as the satisfactory labour relations record of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited, it is significant that that company chooses a term of years within which to measure its good labour relations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that between 1967 and 1969 the company had a strike that lasted for two whole years. Those are the labour relations traditions of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited.
      The hon. Member also referred to financial assistance. Assistance is likely to be needed to finance essential involvement as sufficient funds are unlikely to be forthcoming from the private sector. In the past 10 years employment in ship repairing, as I have already pointed out, has halved. Without moderisation the industry is likely to decline further.
      Mr. Neville Trotter Mr. Neville Trotter (Tynemouth) rose—
      Mr. Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way. I do not want to take too long with my remarks. No doubt he will have an opportunity of speaking after I have concluded.
      Most of the jobs at present provided by the industry are in assisted areas, including Merseyside as well as South Wales. The major aim, therefore, of taking into public ownership the larger ship repairing companies—the hon. Gentleman may say that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited is not one of the larger companies, but, on the other hand, he has said that it is responsible for a quarter of all the exports of the ship repairing industry—is substantially to improve investment and productivity in the industry. Taking into public ownership the larger companies mostly situated on the main estuaries will enable the corporation to produce a coherent strategy for the ship repairing yards as a whole.
      There has been some criticism of the scope of public ownership in the ship repairing industry. The hon. Gentleman took up that point. Some hon. Members have argued that individual companies should be exempted from nationalisation

      687
      on the grounds that they are small, while other hon. Members have pressed for the inclusion of other even smaller ship repairing companies. I think it will be helpful for me to explain the effect of the Government's proposals as detailed in Schedule 2.
      As the PA report pointed out, the most significant ship repairing units are those which are located on the major estuaries in Great Britain—for example, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Thames, the Bristol Channel, the Humber or the lower Clyde. What the Bill seeks to achieve is to bring into public ownership all the large ship repairing companies mostly located on the main estuaries. For these reasons it would be a great mistake if the amendments to delete ship repair were carried. I urge the House to reject them.
      5.15 p.m.
      As I have said, the public ownership proposals set out in the Bill embrace all the large ship repairing groups on major estuaries in Great Britain—for example, the Tyne, the Humber, the Mersey and, by no means least, the Bristol Channel. We believe it right for the purposes of giving British Shipbuilders an adequate industrial base for planning a better future for the ship repairing industry for the large estuarial companies to come into public ownership. The definitions in Schedule 2 were drawn up to achieve this result. The fact that some companies are not in shipbuilding groups is not a relevant consideration. I remind the House that our manifesto commitment to nationalisation refers to ship repair as well as shipbuilding.
      In terms of the number of dry docks operated, Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited is the second most significant company in the list in the Bill. It operates eight dry docks along the South Wales coast. Its annual turnover in the period relevant to the definition was over £1 million above the cut-off. In terms of turnover, several other listed companies are smaller.
      Mr. Albert Roberts: I believe in "one in, all in" when dealing with nationalisation. I point out to my hon. Friend that on nationalising the mines we gave licences to small mines that allowed the owners to work under the private enterprise system provided that
      688
      they employed no more than 30 people. Has my hon. Friend given consideration to that point? I believe it is an important matter that should be considered in terms of the main areas of ship repairing. However, there are places where repairing is nothing more than a scratching shed. If it is possible, to give some relief, it should be done.
      Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend has long experience of the mining industry and understandably draws upon it in considering these matters. We have considered a number of proposals for this company and we have arrived at the one that has been put before the House. One of the reasons for coming forward with the proposal is that we do not believe—I know of my hon. Friend's long advocacy for public ownership of the coal-mining industry and that he will accept what I am about to say—that nationalisation should merely consist of taking over losses and loss-makers.
      One of the reasons for us wanting to take over a successful company such as Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited —nobody has said that it is not successful—is that we want to incorporate the strength of successful companies within ship repairing companies and British Shipbuilders. We aim to do so on the basis of considerable decentralisation.
      Much propaganda has been issued by Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited —indeed, it was referred to by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. That was aimed at the Bill as it was published, but my hon. Friends will know that the Government have come a long way in improving the Bill since it was published. We have two important amendments that I trust will be carried by the House, one that will require decentralisaion as a duty for British Shipbuilders. I shall read the words in the amendment to my hon. Friends to show how decentralisation is to be achieved. It requires the British Shipbuilding Corporation and British Aerospace to take account
      "of the desirability of promoting the largest degree of decentralisation of management consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, and whatever steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries."
      Indeed, we have gone even further than that.
      Mr. Heseltine: Rubbish.
      Mr. Kaufman: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had replied to my letter. I invited him to have discussions on industrial democracy. Maybe he could have improved upon my proposals. I wrote to him inviting him to take part but unlike the Liberal Party and the SNP, who responded, the hon. Gentleman did not even answer the letter. The hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about industrial democracy in the Bill.
      I draw the attention of the House to Amendment No. 320 which requires that British Shipbuilders should seek the
      "largest degree, consistent with the propel discharge of its functions, of decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, in particular of Scotland and Wales and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations and responsibility for financial performance".
      The corporation will have to report to the Secretary of State who will have to report to Parliament within six months of vesting on how this has been carried out.
      Much needless anxiety has been created in the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited's South Wales yards by the management's anti-nationalisation propaganda, including the claim that nationalisation will result in the closure of yards. I repeat emphatically that the Government have no proposals for closing any of these yards. I can see no reason, given the past profitability of the company, why the future corporation should not seek to build on existing strengths and to extend the benefits derived from the South Wales experience to the rest of the ship repair industry.
      The hon. Member for Caernarvon said that the company wanted to get the Government off its back. In the publicity material prepared for the firm by International News Services, there is the statement:
      "We are independent and we have always provided for our own financing."
      But the hon. Member will know that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited has come to the Government for £20 million of financial aid in connection with
      690
      a dry dock that it wishes to build at Port Talbot. The hon. Member for Caernarvon will know about this because he wrote to me supporting the case that was made at the time. I replied on 20th February that this would be considered by the Organising Committee.
      In the document prepared for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited there is a coloured photograph of an iron ore unloading berth in Port Talbot harbour under which it says that with co-operation a dry dock could be at Port Talbot within nine months. By "with co-operation", the company means £20 million of Government assistance.
      Mr. Wigley: Can the Minister confirm that no sum of this magnitude has been paid to the company and that it has received no more than the normal provisions in any development area? If the Port Talbot scheme went ahead, it would provide 1,000 much-needed jobs. Is it not regrettable that the scheme has not been given the go-ahead?
      Mr. Kaufman: Naturally a scheme of this kind, which would cost £40 million, of which the firm wants the Government to pay half, would provide employment and be very valuable, though whether it is economically viable is a matter to be considered.
      We said that it should be considered by the Organising Committee, but the firm seems reluctant to talk to the committee and therefore there has been virtually no movement and a leading figure within C. H. Bailey has said that the Government have passed the buck to the Organising Committee.
      The hon. Member for Caernarvon said that the company could not be depicted as being hostile to trade unions. I am not jeering at the hon. Member, but it is necessary that I should draw the attention of the House to a report in today's South Wales Echo which reads:
      "An Industrial Tribunal has ruled that there was a 'real possibility' of victimisation against 13 men who claimed they were made redundant by a South Wales company because they were in favour of nationalistation.
      The Tribunal decided the men were unfairly dismissed by the Cardiff-based Bristol Channel Shiprepairers.
      The company has been running a long, costly campaign against the Government's nationalisation plans for shipbuilding.

      691
      The comments on victimisation are made in the findings of the Industrial Tribunal following the dismissal of a number of men from the company in June last year.
      In his report the Tribunal Chairman Mr. Patrick Webster said that the company had failed to convince them that one of the men —Mr. T. O. O'Keefe, treated as a test case at the Tribunal—had been dismissed because there was no work for him and also failed to satisfy them that the man had not been victimised.
      Mr. Webster said 'all members were left in a state of very real doubt as the real cause of dismissal and we finding ourselves in the position of believing that there is a real possibility that the dismissal was due to victimisation.'
      The row over victimisation began at the company which is headed by South Welsh Nationalist Mr. Chris Bailey following his campaign in the Press with full page advertisements calling for halts to nationalisation plans for shipbuilding yards. The firm admitted spending more than £100,000 on the campaign last year and almost immediately afterwards 80 men received redundancy notices in South Wales.
      A slump in the world shipping market was given as the reason. Eventually 30 men lost their jobs.
      Mr. John Cooke, a legal advisor the Transport and General Workers Union, who fought the dismissals at the Tribunal held this year, commented today 'the redundancies carried out by the firm have been estimated to save the firm around £120,000 in a 12-month period. It seems to us that Mr. Bailey recouped the anti-nationalisation cause at the expense of workers.'
      After hearing the Tribunal's unanimous decision that the men were unfairly dismissed Mr. Cooke said 'it is our contention from the start that workers were sacked primarily because of their pro-nationalisation views which were in line with official union and Labour Party manifesto policies. The best tonic for Mr. Bailey and others now will be the successful passing of the shipbuilding nationalisation Bill. Bailey's claim that the men were made redundant because of their work records but it seems strange that these men were all prominent Labour Party members and supporters of socialist principles. They were simply weeded out because of their views'."
      Mr. Cooke said a meeting of the men involved in the Tribunal's decision would take place on Monday next week to sort out details of redundancy payments and compensation to be paid by the firm.
      In his concluding remarks Mr. Webster"—
      the Chairman of the tribunal—
      "said Mr. O'Keefe alleged, in detail, that looming large among the reasons why he was chosen (for dismissal) were his pro-nationalisation views and activities. Since we are not satisfied that these expressed views and activities were not the cause we find he was unfairly dismissed'."
      692
      5.30 p.m.
      That is Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited, 1975–76, waging its campaign against nationalisation, and Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has been found unfairly to have dismissed workers who were pro-nationalisation.
      I very much hope that all hon. Members who have been taken in by the glossy propaganda of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers will see what lies below that glossy surface when they cast their votes on both this amendment and the amendments to be discussed tomorrow. I say to hon. Members of Plaid Cymru, whom I have come personally to respect, and to respect as a group, that I know that they would not wish to be associated with that kind of activity. They are good trade unionists and good supporters of justice. I very much hope that they will reconsider their association with this company and this amendment, after we have seen the way in which Welsh workers have been treated by the company.
      Mr. Heseltine: Obviously the report from which the hon. Gentleman has quoted is not available to anyone else in the House. However, as it has arrived at a partciularly interesting moment, I should like to ask why it is that not one of the workers who stayed on showed any sort of interest or sympathy in this argument.
      Mr. Kaufman: If that is the best that the hon. Gentleman can do, he would have done better to retain his seat.
      Mr. Heseltine: Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question?
      Mr. Kaufman: As the House knows, I have endeavoured to visit Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in order to meet the workers and have meaningful discussions with them about the Government's proposals. The company has so far failed to facilitate my visit. After the report in the newspaper to which I have referred, I can well understand why the company does not want a Minister there to tell the workers about the Government's case.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: The whole House will be very grateful to Plaid Cymru Members for bringing to the Floor of the House a debate on the whole question of nationalising ship repairing. Not one company in particular but the whole sphere of ship

      693
      repairing is now to be discussed on the Floor of the House after a debate in Standing Committee on 15th January which the Government refused to make a meaningful debate. Plaid Cymru is performing a very valuable service in that respect.
      The striking thing about the inclusion of ship repairing in the Bill is that it marks a watershed in the operation of nationalisation by a Labour Government, because the inclusion of ship repairing is a deliberate attempt to nationalise very small units in our mixed economy. It is the first time that separate units of groups with as few as 35 workers are deliberately to be nationalised.
      This trade of repairing is essentially, by its nature, carried on in small units on a highly competitive basis, offering service at any hour of the day or night, which is completely in line with the operations of small businesses in any number of trades throughout the country. Until now we have always understood, certainly in the wool industry of Yorkshire, which is also carried on in small units, that it has not hitherto been part of the Labour Party's plans—or so the Labour Party has told the voters—to nationalise these small-scale industries which are carried on in a competitive spirit under managements that know their individual people.
      Mr. Cryer: In the directors' report for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited for the period 31st March 1973 to 29th March 1974, it is stated that
      "The average number of persons employed (including temporaries) in the United Kingdom by the Company, including shiprepairing and engineering, during the period was approximately 850 (1973, 821)."
      Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a company employing about 850 people?
      Mr. Wainwright: That is in no way germane to my argument. The units of operation in distinct places are all small, involving numbers varying from about 35 to about 100. These are units which have never before come under the guillotine of nationalisation. In that sense we are at a watershed in the operation of I abour nationalisation plans. Therefore, all who are involved in small-scale enterprise under highly local management are under notice that they are now under threat of nationalisation. As regards the interjec-
      694
      tion of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I adhere to my point that in ship repairing, to be affected by this Bill, there are not more than 350 employees at most in all the different operational units of the particular company concerned.
      However, my remarks are not in relation simply to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. They relate also to the whole ship repairing industry.
      Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Wainwright: Time is very short under the timetable that has been imposed by the Government.
      I turn to the meaningless guarantees —so-called guarantees—that have been offered by the Government about profit centres. I have some personal experience from my previous professional work of what can happen in these matters. I am very familiar with the assurances that are given in a takeover situation to people who have either sentiment or even a more genuine feeling for some particular unit that is being taken over. They are told in the most lavish and bland way—although I have never come across people in business who can be quite as bland as the Minister of State—that their particular unit will continue to be a profit-centre and to have a local board of directors who can continue to sit around the old walnut table in front of the familiar candlesticks. But what happens? Because these small units that have been give certain temporary assurances are a thorn in the flesh of bureaucratic management, every effort is made to extinguish them, because that is the way in which the promises can be ignored.
      Mr. Kinnock: Rubbish.
      Mr. Wainwright: One gets out of one's promise by extinguishing them. How will these small units of ship repairing be extinguished in order to let the Government out of the letter of their promise? The central bureaucracy of British Shipbuilders will divert work away from the small units that have been given this promise, in Wales and in Scotland, so that gradually the results of these profit-centres will be less and less impressive. When these small centres have eventually been driven into a state of contrived un-

      695
      profitability, they will be given the axe. Nobody is better at sacking people in the most ruthless way than our nationalised industries.
      In conclusion, we understand the determination of, at any rate, a handful of Labour Members to carry out even the embarrassing parts of their manifesto. Let them bring the National Enterprise Board into the field of ship repairing if they must stick to their manifesto, but do not create a complete precedent for nationalisation by taking over units almost of the corner shop size which, hitherto, have been immune from this kind of attack.
      Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) argued that small is beautiful. He clearly had not heard the speech of the Minister who set out the turnover and total capacity of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, for example, nor did the hon. Gentleman take on board the point that if the application for the new dry dock facilities at Port Talbot were to go ahead that would increase the company's capacity very substantially indeed. The hon. Gentleman finally argued that no one is better at sacking people than the nationalised industries. He did not appear to listen to what was said about the expertise of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in sacking people, which has been demonstrated by the tribunal finding today.
      This has been a long running issue made more dramatic by the advertising campaign on behalf of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. That campaign has been characterised by considerable panache and a buccaneering spirit. Indeed, one feels that the campaign itself has been the object rather than the end result of keeping Bristol Channel Ship Repairers out of the clutches of public ownership. I consider that the campaign has been wholly counter-productive which has led to the setting of the company's virility against the Government's virility. Inevitably, in that situation, the Government will succeed. It has prevented a cool appraisal of the case for nationalisation and the position of that company in the new post-reorganisation structure. In short, the company
      696
      has influenced people without making friends.
      I personally accept that Bristol Channel Ship Repairers should in some way be brought under the umbrella of public ownership. I would have preferred to have a less formal relationship leaving the strategic oversight of the company in the hands of the Government while still retaining the flexibility and initiative which has characterised the company.
      Mr. Kinnock: Having shared those same feelings, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to Amendment No. 15, which, hopefully, we shall reach later, which provides that precise flexibility, as well as the retention of identity, plus the advantage of meaningful industrial democracy in the company. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Anderson: I accept that there has been a considerable advance by the Government in both those fields mentioned by my hon. Friend and that many of my own apprehensions have been settled. But at an earlier stage I would have preferred some form of equity participation by the Welsh Development Agency. That was not to be and the possibility for it is now long past.
      The issue has been portrayed in very black and white terms. We are told that this is a small company which will ultimately be swallowed up by a vast bureaucratic machine.
      Mr. John Evans: Would my hon. Friend accept that this is the heart of the matter? Certainly the fears of the workers which have been so skilfully and ruthlessly played upon by the management are genuine. They are that the Bristol Channel Ship Repairers will be closed down and the work sent to Tyne-side and Merseyside in the development areas. Will my hon. Friend accept that in spite of the nonsense talked by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), the Government have no power whatever to direct any ship anywhere? Would he agree that if a ship owner does not like a British ship repair yard he is quite at liberty to send his ship to another company in any part of the world? The Government have no powers in this respect and are not proposing to take any powers.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Anderson: I fully accept that Indeed, because I have a constituency interest with roughly 90 constituents employed by the company, I would certainly not support this Bill if I thought that it would jeopardise their jobs. I accept that there has been a very successful campaign of stirring up the fears of the work force along the lines that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) has mentioned.
      The company has certainly a very impressive record. It took over the Swansea Dry Dock in my constituency about three and a half years ago, built it up, and today it is a thriving concern. But I think that some of its achievements have been vastly over-stated. What abort the labour relations record, for example, when it came to the real test? In a redundancy crisis situation about which one has heard from the Minister today we should ask what the reaction of the company has been. Indeed, redundancies were declared in July of last year without proper consultation with the union and the chairman himself selected the people who were concerned and determined their number. That is hardly the model of consultation which is suggested in the glossy brochures.
      The company claims that it has no interest in assistance from public funds, yet we have been told about the application for funds for the Port Talbot scheme. I personally have a major concern about what the job prospects of South Wales will be as a result of this nationalisation measure.
      I have mentioned that I have 89 constituents employed by this company and their own job fears have been encouraged by the strident propaganda issued on behalf of the company. One of the brochures states:
      "The history of nationalisation is a history of closures."
      My own view is that the men involved are concerned about job security and are not concerned with ideology or who is to be the boss. They are more concerned about whether they will get their pay packet at the end of the day. The question that they and I ask is, how will the employment prospects of South Wales be affected by the Bill? Of course, there cannot be an absolute guarantee about
      698
      job maintenance whether the Bristol Channel Company stays as it is or whether it comes into public ownership. However, to a large extent, I am reassured by the assurances of the Minister and the Lord President.
      I am convinced also that the best guarantee for the continuance of the company at least its present level is the political muscle of South Wales MPs. That has been demonstrated by the fight over the South Wales ports. We shall certainly be ready to act if there is any diversion of orders from the traditional customers in South Wales to other and larger yards. I am also reassured by the fact that under the new structure formidable financial resources of the corporation will be available. I am glad that the Bristol Channel estuary will be organised as a separate profit centre and I welcome the decentralisation which is the feature of it.
      Welsh Nationalist MPs have claimed that this decentralisation comes as a result of their own pressure. They may not have noticed the concession which was made in Committee in January of this year. I wonder what they will be able to show at the end of the day when the debate is over and the company is nationalised?
      The claim that foreign business will go elsewhere if the company is nationalised has also been made. I think that is nonsense. Foreign business men are concerned with the quality of service rather than whether the business is in private or public hands. Finally, the company has claimed that it is patriotic and that it is concerned with jobs and the well-being of its employees. When this Bill is law, that claim can be put to the test. Will it then abandon South Wales, as seems to be apparent in its latest brochure "Specialists for Hire", or will it remain in South Wales and put its expertise at the service of the nation and strive for the success in order to ensure the jobs of its employees? What is the company's commitment to its present labour force? We shall see after nationalisation.
      Mr. Trotter: The future of the ship repairing industry depends not on who owns it but on its efficiency. When deciding who will be best at securing jobs in the industry in future, we have only to look at the record of the existing public industries.

      699
      The ship repairing industry is a completely different industry from the shipbuilding industry. In my constituency there is a repairer who repairs 300 ships a year. Next door, there is a very large building yard which builds only six ships a year. The only similarity between the two industries is that they are both concerned with ships. To equate the two is like equating a garage that repairs cars with a factory that constructs them.
      We are talking of small units. I can think of nothing that is less likely to have its efficiency improved by the bureaucracy which is always present in nationalised industries than these small units dependent upon speed, flexibility and personal contact between management and owners. They will suffer under the dead hand of nationalisation.
      The ship repairing industry is international. There are no captive customers. Anyone who wants to buy gas has to go to the British Gas Board. Anyone who wants a ship repairer can go to Amsterdam or Blohm and Voss in Hamburg if he does not like the service he gets in this country. The myth has been put about that the Bill is the salvation of jobs in the ship repairing industry. Mr. Henry Wilkinson, a union leader at State-owned Greenwells, referring to the closure of that yard and the Government's failure to take action to prevent it, said a few weeks ago:
      "I have no doubt in my mind that if private enterprise had tried to perpetrate some of the evils that the present Government have done on some members employed in this industry probably the whole river would be out on strike."
      That is the sort of attitude we get with public ownership. The sole reason for the inclusion of this small, personal industry in the nationalisation Bill is dogma. The Minister of State said that he had no plans to close yards. The truth is that the Government have no plans of any sort for the industry.
      Mr. Tom King: The amendment seeks to delete ship repairing from the scope of the Bill. In all the arguments we have had about nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, any impartial observer would say that the case for nationalising ship repairing has always been the weakest part of the Govern-
      700
      ment's case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) said, it is an entirely different industry. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) cited flexibility and the need to give customer service. The survival of this industry will depend not on Government money but on the number of customers it has, not just in this country but all over the world, who think that the industry does a good job promptly and efficiently at a reasonable price. We believe that that flexibility and competitiveness of service will be handicapped under nationalisation.
      If hon. Members who take an interest in the Government's amendment on decentralisation, on which we shall be voting, think that it adds up to a row of beans they are even more gullible than I imagined them to be. All it means is that if the corporation comes back within three months and says that it cannot run the industry on those lines and will have to run it in the way it wants to, that is the end of its statutory obligation under the agreement.
      In Committee we got to know the Minister of State. He has a great habit of producing rabbits out of hats in the most surprising way. Today the Minister produced an unconfirmed statement when he most needed it. It was supposed to come from the South Wales Echo, of which I understand there is no copy in the House. We wonder how that is. Is it just a supreme coincidence that this statement was produced at the crucial moment when the Minister of State happened to require it in an awkward debate before any hon. Member has had an opportunity to check it? The Minister has tried to pull one rabbit too many out of the hat, and we shall not be conned.
      Mr. Wigley: This debate has caused a lot of rabbits to be brought out of a lot of hats. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes), who has constituency responsibilities, referred to the safeguards in the amendments against work being transferred from South Wales to other areas. I do not share his views. When South Wales has a big order book and there is no work elsewhere, the political reality is that that work will be moved.
      The Minister referred to unemployment on Merseyside. I agree that if one of the companies went to the wall there would

      701
      be a possibility of unemployment. The fundamental question is from where the work will come or from where it will be transferred. How will more international work be attracted to Merseyside—or do the Government have a magic wand which will create work?
      The Minister referred to the Bristol Channel area from which he said came one-quarter of the exports that have been achieved by the United Kingdom. That is a reflection of the efficiency of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and its performance in attracting work, although it has a smaller work force than has any other company we have discussed.
      In the three minutes that remain to me I shall concentrate on the rabbit that came out of the hat at the end. It so happens that I have in my hand a copy of the proceedings of the industrial tribunal which was signed, not this week, but on 26th May, and which has been held back deliberately to be released today for political reasons. The Minister has perpetrated an offence against the House of which he should be ashamed. The Minister read quotations, supposedly from the report, reported in the South Wales Echo, but he included words which were trade union comment on the case. The onus of proof in this case was on the company. The case was not political. The case put forward by the Transport and General Workers' Union was of inadequate consultation, not political dismissal. That was not the impression the Minister gave a moment ago. The report stated that because insufficient evidence had been brought forward, the tribunal had to go on the side of the employees, but that it was possible that a full case had not been submitted. The company within a few hours of the hearing said that it would go to a higher court and appeal against the decision.
      The Minister said that all the employees in the case were Labour Party members, but I have been told on good authority than one was a strong supporter of the Conservative Party. The test case employee had had two warnings about the performance of his work before he was dismissed. It will be interesting to see what the higher court makes of this.
      It is easy to pull rabbits out of the hat at the last moment to swing opinion on the Floor of the House and to demoralise hon. Members who have no opportunity to reply. When the substance is considered, we see that a very different picture is presented and that the company had nothing proved against it.
      Mr. Roy Hughes Mr. Roy Hughes rose—
      Mr. Wigley: No, I shall not give way. The redundancies that occurred this year were agreed by the unions concerned, in line with the Employment Protection Act. There was no question of unfair dismissal.
      The case is overwhelming that the company should not be nationalised and no case has been made out for the ship repairing industry to be included in the Bill. If it is included, many people will suffer, many jobs will be lost and areas such as Cardiff will lose their economic base. I put it to the House—
      It being Six o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Orders [20th July and yesterday], to put forthwith the Question already proposed front the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made;—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 296, Noes 302.

      Division No. 293.]

      AYES

      [6.0 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Biffen, John

      Buck, Antony

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Budgen, Nick

      Alison, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Body, Richard

      Burden, F. A.

      Arnold, Tom

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Carlisle, Mark

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Channon, Paul

      Baker, Kenneth

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Churchill, W. S.

      Banks, Robert

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Beith, A. J.

      Brittan, Leon

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Bell, Ronald

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Clegg, Waiter

      Bennet, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cockcroft, John

      Benyon, W.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Cope, John

      Cordle, John H.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Cormack. Patrick

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Corrie. John

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Costain, A. P.

      Jopling, Michael

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Crawford, Douglas

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Critchley, Julian

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Crouch, David

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kilfedder, James

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Dunlop, John

      Knox, David

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Durant, Tony

      Lamont, Norman

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lane, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Elliott, Sir William

      Lawrence, Ivan

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Emery, Peter

      Lawson, Nigel

      Scott, Nicholas

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Farr, John

      Loveridge, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fell, Anthony

      Luce. Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacCormick, Iain

      Silvester, Fred

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sims, Roger

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCusker, H.

      Sinclair, Sir Roger

      Forman, Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacGregor, John

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Speed, Keith

      Freud, Clement

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spence, John

      Fry, Peter

      Madel, David

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marten, Neil

      Sproat, Iain

      Gardner. Edward (S Fylde)

      Mates, Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mather, Carol

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Stanley, John

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Stokes, John

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Moate, Roger

      Tebbit, Norman

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Molyneaux, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Grist, Ian

      Monro, Hector

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Grylls, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Thompson, George

      Hall, Sir John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Hannam, John

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Viggers, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mudd, David

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Wakenham, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nelson, Anthony

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neubert, Michael

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Newton, Tony

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Heseltine, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Wall, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Nott, John

      Walters, Dennis

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Warren, Kenneth

      Holland, Philip

      Oppenheim. Mrs Sally

      Watt, Hamish

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Osborn, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hordern, Peter

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Wells, John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pardoe, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Penhaligon, David

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Percival, Ian

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Younger, Hon George

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) James, David

      Price, David (Eastleigh) Prior, Rt Hon James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. Andrew Welsh and

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Mr. D. E. Thomas.

      704

      705

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ennals, David

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Allaun, Frank

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Anderson, Donald

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Archer, Peter

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Ashley, Jack

      Faulds, Andrew

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Flannery, Martin

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Barnetl, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Madden, Max

      Bates, Alf

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Magee, Bryan

      Bean, R. E.

      Ford, Ben

      Mahon, Simon

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Forrester, John

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Marquand, David

      Bishop, E. S.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Boardman, H.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      George, Bruce

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Meacher, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ginsburg, David

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Golding, John

      Mendelson, John

      Bradley, Tom

      Gould, Bryan

      Mikardo, Ian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Gourlay, Harry

      Millan, Bruce

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Graham, Ted

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)

      Buchan, Norman

      Grocott, Bruce

      Moonman, Eric

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Harper, Joseph

      Moyle, Roland

      Campbell, Ian

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Cant, R. B.

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Newens, Stanley

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hatton, Frank

      Noble, Mike

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cartwright, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Ogden, Eric

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Heller, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hooley, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Horam, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cohen, Stanley

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Ovenden, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Owen, Dr David

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Huckfield, Les

      Padley, Walter

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Park, George

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parker, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parry, Robert

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Pendry, Tom

      Cronin, John

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Perry, Ernest

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthonv

      Janner, Greville

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Cryer, Bob

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Prescott, John

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      John, Brynmor

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Radice, Giles

      Davidson, Arthur

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Deakins, Eric

      Kelley, Richard

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rooker, J. W.

      Dempsey, James

      Lambie, David

      Roper, John

      Doig, Peter

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rose, Paul B.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lamond, James

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sandelson, Neville

      Dunn, James A.

      Lee, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Selby, Harry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lipton, Marcus

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Litterick, Tom

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      English, Michael

      Luard, Evan

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      706

      707

      Sillars, James

      Tierney, Sydney

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Silverman, Julius

      Tinn, James

      Whitlock, William

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tomlinson, John

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Small, William

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Urwin, T. W.

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

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

      Wilson, Rt Hon (Huyton)

      Stott, Roger

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Strang, Gavin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Ward, Michael

      Woodall, Alec

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Watkins, David

      Woof, Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Watkinson, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Weetch, Ken

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Weitzman, David

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wellbeloved, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mr. David Stoddart and

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      White, James (Pollok)

      Mr. Peter Snape.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Tom King: I beg to move Amendment No. 268, in page 4, leave out lines 12 to 35.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we may take the following amendments;
      No. 270, in page 4, leave out lines 15 to 19.
      No. 316, in page 4, line 19, after 'order', insert
      'but which in any case shall not include ship-owning'.
      Government Amendment No. 4.
      Amendment No. 265, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'to carry on such activities'.
      Amendment No. 266, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'carry on any such activities'.
      Government Amendment No. 8.
      Mr. King: This group of amendments is intended to restrict the range of activities in which the new corporations can indulge. I hope that we shall have a more serious debate on these topics and not experience the amazing behaviour of the Minister of State in the previous debate; he made a clear attempt to mislead the House on an important matter. He may find that that effort proves counter-productive on a future occasion.
      The amendments are mainly to Clause 2(5) which lays down that the Secretary of State by order may prescribe other activities in which the corporations may take part. Our concern over the widening of activities of the corporations was discussed in Committee, and obviously there are different views on both sides of the House, but the question no Labour Member has been able to answer is how one can be consistent in the view that
      708
      there should be a fixed frontier between the public and private sectors, if at the same time one allows the power of the corporations to spread into yet further related activities. The tendency will be for more and more activities to fall within the scope of the corporations, for reasons which I shall give. This will result once again in the enlargement of the public sector.
      The importance of this consideration is real—not just for the future but foi the present. There are a large number of companies in related activities whose efforts are important to our export, and indeed generally. Some very important companies are involved in related areas in the aircraft and shipbuilding industries—for example, the companies involved in avionics which make outstanding contributions to exports. Those companies are not solely dependent on the British Government or on Ministry of Defence orders, but they have substantial export orders and many are recognised as world leaders in their products. I presume that it is as much in the interests of Labour Members as of us all that such companies should continue to thrive. Many of them will have plants in Labour constituencies. We are anxious to ensure that those exports should continue and that employment opportunities should be maintained and, if possible, increased. Presumably we all wish those companies well.
      However, it is not good enough merely to wish them well without ensuring that we provide a climate in which it is possible for them to thrive. The risk of leaving such vague and loose powers as are contained in subsection (5), giving the Secretary of State power to allow the corporations to undertake activities of a wider kind, represents a threat to those

      709
      other companies. The difficulties are not just theoretical, potential problems that might arise; they can have an immediate impact. We have all heard the pleas of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer constantly urging companies to invest. Therefore, if there is to be a substantial amount of investment in a new range of equipment, companies are entitled to have some security. They are entitled to feel that their assets will not be sequestrated or confiscated by Act of Parliament, with inadequate compensation, and that having funded developments, they will not then find themselves in competition with a State-subsidised body or an expanded public corporation.
      The nation has had answers to some of these questions in the famous Marathon case. The Government faced the need to provide employment in the John Brown yard, and, indeed there was an acute and appalling unemployment prospect on Clydeside. Marathon said very fairly that it was interested in coming to Britain for the purpose of various types of construction which I shall not go into, but it said that it was not prepared to come if it was likely to be nationalised. It had read the Labour Party conference agenda, or the approved resolutions, and knew that nationalisation was part of the Labour Party programme. Mr. Danny McGarvey played a leading role in persuading the Labour Shadow Cabinet, as it then was, that an undertaking should be given to Marathon that if Labour got inti power and the nationalisation proposals went through, Marathon would be excluded. The simple truth, recognised by Mr. McGarvey in his conversation with Mr. Wayne Harbin of Marathon, was that a company threatened with nationalisation would not come here. What is true of Marathon is true of other companies as well.
      The snag in the Bill is that it is not as if people are likely to be compensated to anything like an adequate extent for valuable assets. Any company could be in breach of its statutory responsibilities to its shareholders if it made an investment in the knowledge that it could be threatened later with nationalisation. With the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill there was evidence that
      710
      for a company having assets of £10 million perhaps only £4 million would be paid by way of compensation. In that situation, no board of directors could say, if it made an investment at a time when there was a possible risk of nationalisation, that it was confident on past evidence that its funds would not be lost or confiscated.
      We have dealt with the compensation arguments in an earlier debate. One of the problems that the Government will inherit is that there is now no confidence that there will not be confiscation or confiscatory terms in future nationalisation. One might be asked if this is really a valid fear. Is there really any evidence to support it? Is it, perhaps, the case that this is the sort of clause that draftsmen invariably put into a Bill of this sort? Is it possible to say that it does not really mean anything, and that the Secretary of State will never prescribe by statutory instrument that other activities shall be carried on'?
      In asking these questions, I suppose that companies might look at what is happening in British Leyland. They might well wonder what is the present situation there. There are possibilities which have been discussed, and are being discussed, that British Leyland may use the public funds, which have been made available to it under an Act passed by this House and by orders passed by this House, in order to begin the production of components. These are obviously commercial decisions for British Leyland to take, but I do not think that it is in the national interest for British Leyland to do this, cutting off valuable orders placed with existing component suppliers in this country, and thereby causing unemployment in other areas, That would seem to be quite pointless, and not the sort of exercise which hon. Members on either side of the House would regard as involving the proper use of public money.
      There is a very real temptation to do this, and the temptation is especially great in a declining industry. In an expanding industry, a corporation has more than enough to do in coping with its existing activities. It might need to recruit additional labour to cope with its expanding order book. The problem becomes much more difficult in a

      711
      declining industry, because the corporation, or the organising committee, whatever the title may be, is then faced with very real problems. It has an order book, and forecasts of the levels of work and of prospects. It may feel that it has not enough orders to keep all the employees fully employed. That is a difficult situation.
      The most difficult and most regrettable situation, as all hon. Members know, is that in which a decision has to be taken to reduce employment. This means that some people must lose their jobs. Therefore, every management does everything it can to avoid such a situation. In such circumstances, it will look around for opportunities to expand its activities. It may have 200,000 employees and insufficient work for them to do. It may then go to the Secretary of State and ask to be permitted to make certain other products, and to move into certain other fields of activity.
      In that case, what we have is the State sector expanding and expanding. I recognise that this prospect may not upset some Government Members, but it happens to be totally inconsistent with the pledge of the Leader of the Labour Party that he believes in a fixed frontier between the public and private sectors. If this frontier is to be fixed, it is not possible for such a body to expand into wider and wider activities.
      One amendment of particular relevance is to the effect that, whatever activities the Secretary of State may have prescribed, they shall not include ship-owning. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), who has particular experience in this industry, may have a few words to say about this.
      Hon. Members will recognise that there appears to be a facile argument that somehow the problems of British shipbuilding may be solved if only British shipowning can be brought to heel and made subservient to British shipbuilding. The argument is that in that way all the problems of providing work in the shipyards could be successfully tackled.
      I hope that hon. Members will realise —and that the Government will confirm that they appreciate—the very real hazards in this argument.
      712
      There is an amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about co-ordinating the policies. I think the Under-Secretary of State has on occasion remarked on the difference between co-ordination and coercion. I hope that that distinction will be very closely recognised, and that we shall not slip over the line. In the case of electricity boards, for instance, the Government can exercise some coercion, perhaps, in relation to where plant purchases are placed. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) is familiar with this. It is more of an internal family matter, if I may so put it, than anything else.
      The shipowning industry is a very important one for this country. It is not an industry which can be seen to be at work in hon. Members' constituencies, and, because there is no obvious factory employing 2,000 or 3,000 workers in a particular constituency, many of us are inclined to forget what a significant part shipowning plays in the British industrial effort. Its earnings for this country are very considerable. It exists not in a British market but in a totally international market.
      Obviously, every hon. Member hopes that British shipowners will give very favourable consideration to placing orders in British yards, but there is a great difference between encouraging this and applying any degree of compulsion. It is very dangerous to compel people to buy from yards which they may not think are the yards best suited for producing the particular type of ship or product they require. Shipowning companies have to compete on the world market in terms of rates and performance, and if they are not able to buy in the most appropriate area the most appropriate product for their needs—in the way that every other shipowner of any size is able to do —their performance will obviously be handicapped. This is an undesirable extension of a related activity. Whatever happens to the other activities, we feel that shipowning should not be included.
      6.30 p.m.
      The question of diversification is important to the Government. We discussed it frequently in Committee. There is a difficult point. The corporations cannot be totally hog-tied to the most minute

      713
      definition in the Bill. These powers enable the corporation to move across a much wider field. I hope I have explained why a fear exists. I hope that the Government appreciate that.
      I trust that the Government will encourage inward investment in this country. I understand that they seek to do that. I know that a few members of the Government mumble about multinational companies. However, the majority of the Labour Party and the Conservative Party recognise the contribution that overseas investment has made to the economies of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Confidence, freedom from unfair Government interference, and freedom from the fear of acquisition or confiscation of assets is important to inward and domestic investment. When we speak to members of British companies about investing overseas they mention the countries to which they would not go because the political risks and risks of confiscation are too great. I have heard from presidents of overseas corporations that they are starting to wonder whether some of the same considerations apply to this country as apply to some of the less reliable overseas territories. I trust that we shall discourage them from that view. I believe that the majority of Government supporters do not have an obsessive compulsion with multinational companies and recognise that they make a real contribution.
      Mr. Kinnock Mr. Kinnock rose—
      Mr. King: I am sorry that I omitted to mention Wales, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). However, I am sure that he recognises my point. We do not need to stray far from the Hoover factory and the contributions made by such companies. I shall try to give reassurance and persuade those involved of my belief that common sense will prevail.
      However, I think that my reassurances are not enough when we are faced with instruments such as this, Acts of Parliament containing confiscatory terms of compensation, or lack of compensation, and giving power to Secretaries of State to give directions and make orders and instructions widening the spread of companies involved. We
      714
      are now considering one such action of the Government.
      Mr. F. A. Burden: In the circumstances it would be interesting to contemplate, if firms such as Chrysler or Ford were not here, whether other companies would seriously consider coming to this country to open plants in view of the attitude of the Labour Party to that kind of organisation.
      Mr. King: That is a valid point. I do not know whether the Government welcome inward investment.
      I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bedwellty has spoken to the people working in these industries. It is one matter to speak to the people who are already here. They must live with the situation. They have vast investments in assets here. I do not know whether he has spoken to people who are considering investing here and discussed the considerations going through their minds. Those considerations are not strange. Investors know that the Labour Party is in favour of a massive extension of public ownership of some sections of industry. Such people know that if they come here their companies may be nationalised. They want to know how they would be repaid if the nationalisation affected them. They may say "We might be prepared to take the risk. Nationalisation would be disruptive, but we would take the risk if we knew that we would be compensated."
      The damage is much wider than the effects on the industries involved. When the Labour Party NEC and its home affairs study group produce proposals, a blanket disincentive effect becomes apparent when people read them. Hon. Gentlemen would be surprised at how widely read are the policy proposals. I bitterly regret the damage done from the moment the policy proposals are made. People go through a terrible, turgid stage with the threat of approval of the proposals in Parliament.
      This Bill will do damage enough. That is why it is crucial that we make clear that the extent of its influence is strictly limited. Otherwise the damage done as a result of this legislation will affect a wider range of investment and employment than anyone would wish. For that reason I shall press the amendment to a vote.
      The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I beg leave to speak on these amendments and also on Government Amendments Nos. 4 and 8. Amendment No. 4 seeks to insert a subsection in Clause 2, which reads:
      '(5A) The power to make an order under subsection (5) above includes power to vary or revoke any such order previously made, and no order shall be made under that subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
      Amendment No. 8 seeks to delete Clause 2(8).
      It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate the Government's attitude to those amendments. I also wish to give as many hon. Members as possible time to speak. As usual, I should prefer to reply to the points made in debate later, with the permission of the House.
      I wondered whether the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was talking about the correct set of amendments. Most of the amendments to which he referred seemed to come within the group which starts with Amendment No. 250, which I hope will be moved later by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey).
      The two Government amendments, and the related block of amendments, simply effect a reordering of the subsections in Clause 2. The two amendments to which I refer seek to substitute subsection (5A) for the provisions of subsection (8). In other words, the two amendments are purely drafting amendments. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater thinks that he may make all that he has said out of purely drafting amendments I shudder to think what he will say on Amendment No. 250.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: We have heard the all-purpose speech of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) before.
      Mr. Huckfield: The members of the Committee heard the hon. Gentleman's speech before. We know that it is an all-purpose speech.
      I want to let the House know where the Government stand. The hon. Gentleman seeks to put as many restrictions on the nationalised corporations as he can
      716
      before they are given a chance to get down to business. That is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. The hon. Gentleman knows that in the past, when the duties of nationalised industries have needed to be changed, it has been necessary to introduce a Bill containing the proposed legislation. He also knows that delay may be damaging.
      We seek to introduce a procedure the purpose of which is to allow the duties of these corporations to be adjusted more expeditiously. Although that adjustment may be swift, we still wish to subject it to the approval of Parliament. That is what this amendment is all about. The proposals are that any new or alternative activities that the corporation will be required to carry on may be prescribed. Further, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may prescribe the objectives to be pursued and, apart from that, may lay down conditions subject to which any activities are to be carried on or objectives pursued. That is all that the clause and the amendments are about.
      Looking at what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do—that is his political point of view, and I understand what he is trying to do—the House should be left in no doubt that the end result, if the amendments are carried, will be that these two corporations will be severely hamstrung and shackled from the day that they start.
      The hon. Gentleman is seeking to shackle the assets not merely of a private company, but of the nation, because those assets will be in public ownership. It will be the nation's economic resources on which he proposes to put restrictions.
      The hon. Gentleman also knows that a company in the private sector can change its memorandum and articles of association at a general meeting. We simply propose to give the two corporations the same kind of commercial freedom. The kind of commercial freedom that is good enough for companies in the private sector ought to be allowed to corporations in the public sector. That is what the amendments are all about.
      Mr. Burden Mr. Burden rose—
      Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I hope that my hon. Friends will agree to support the Government amendments

      717
      and to reject the Opposition amendments. We should allow these corporations the measure of commercial freedom which all nationalised industries ought to have.
      Mr. Tom King: Referring to the difficulty about a very narrow restraint on corporations—I understand that difficuty—how will the hon. Gentleman deal with the problem of companies which might be considering investment, either coming from overseas or generated from this country, which are concerned about finding themselves in competition or taken out by an expanded public sector? How will the Department of Industry deal with that issue?
      Mr. Huckfield: The matter gets worse, We had that debate last night. We spent about three hours having precisely that kind of debate on the fair trading activities of the corporation. I introduced a new clause, which the House and the hon. Gentleman accepted last night, which covered precisely that point. Further, it was reported in the newspapers this morning, if the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I said, that the chairmen of the organising committees that will become the boards of the two corporations will want to make a formal declaration of fair trading practice as soon as possible. The hon. Gentleman knows what it is about, because he was present for the debate last night.
      Mr. Tom King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is unintentionally or deliberately trying to avoid the point. It has nothing to do with fair trading. None of those companies can plead the Fair Trading Act, because they will be nationalised under an Act of Parliament. I appreciate that the Minister has only recently joined the Department of Industry, but this is a real problem. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are worried about the investment, which is a matter of real concern to the companies involved.
      If the hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the question, I should prefer that he did not try to talk about anything else and that the matter be left for later consideration. However, if he can comment now, I shall be grateful.
      Mr. Huckfield: I do not want to keep jumping up and down. I want to give my hon. Friends an opportunity to make
      718
      their contributions. The hon. Gentleman cannot be as naïve as that. We recognise precisely what he is trying to do. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to apply restrictions that would have the effect of narrowing the activities of the corporations and ensuring that, from the start, they were channelled in very narrow directions. Commercial operations in the private sector are allowed a degree of commercial freedom. I believe that the public sector and these two corporations ought to have commercial freedom as well.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Farr: I support the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King). As I was not on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, I shall ask the House to rise above the level of low inter-party political battle and to look at the matter from the point of view of a firm in my constituency which is grievously troubled by the Bill and its implications.
      I refer to a company that is a specialist supplier to Rolls-Royce and the aerospace industry. As a Conservative Member, I object to the Bill as a whole, but, in particular, to the part that we wish to have removed. What concerns me and the firm to which I have referred is the bit in page 4, lines 12 and 13 onwards, which refers to "activities … in addition" being undertaken by a corporation
      "by order made by statutory instrument".
      That is causing grave concern to many firms which are specialist suppliers to the aircraft industry. I object to the use of a Statutory Instrument for this purpose, which I think is an obnoxious way of proceeding. Most disconcerting and disturbing to many firms are the words "activities … in addition".
      I ask the Minister, when he replies, to try to answer the point, which I shall put briefly, in an attempt to satisfy not only the firm in my constituency, but many others throughout the country which are worried about the implications of "activities … in addition".
      The example that I have in mind relates to the firm in my constituency which specialises in the narrow area of providing parts for jet engines. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater

      719
      talked about the capital cost of equipment and of the investment in industries which are sub-contractors to the aerospace industry. The bill that the firm in my constituency has to meet to provide one of its sophisticated machines is £130,000 a time. Obviously, if there is any likelihood of a discontinuance of its business at its present level, it will think more than once before it reinvests to keep its machines up to the top line and in line with modern technological progress, as is necessary in its sophisticated area.
      Mr. Huckfield: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. So far, all he has said leads me to conclude that all he wants to talk about is Rolls-Royce and jet machines. I hope that he will accept from me, having spent some time dealing with this Bill, that neither Rolls-Royce nor jet engines are mentioned in it.
      Mr. Farr: I do not think that what the Minister said is of much consequence. The Bill poses a threat to the whole aerospace industry and the many hundreds of specialist firms which supply it in many different ways.
      The example that I wish to give to the House relates to a company called Cannon and Stokes Ltd., of Leicester, which specialises in providing nozzle guide vanes for jet engines. The firm makes this specialist product for a number of engines—in particular the RB211 and the Rolls-Royce Spey, Avon, Tyne and Conway and also the Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca Adour and the Rolls-Royce/ MTU/Fiat RB199. Cannon and Stokes is a specialist manufacturer of this nozzle guide vane, which fits in a gas-turbine engine downstream of the combustion chamber. These components are of very high quality precision-cast nickel alloys and they have to be machined by very advanced technological methods. A number of very sophisticated procedures have to be carried out in this plant, which employs about 1,000 people in Leicester.
      Some of this firm's machine units can cost as much as £130,000 each. Very few of them cost less than £30,000 to purchase. This company is a specialist supplier and in this field has the largest facility for nozzle guide vane manufacture in one concentration in the whole of Europe. It has contracts with the main
      720
      United States of America manufacturing companies and all the European companies, and in other fields. What particularly concerns the company is the implied threat in this Bill under the term "other activities", to which I have referred, because, as the company says, there are implications in the State takeover of the aerospace industry as it is.
      The worry is that the impact of the State takeover could well lessen the degree of specialist sub-contracting done by large companies in an attempt to justify the costs of overheads and other associated research and development charges. Probably the Minister is aware that most countries with a jet engine manufacturing capacity have a number of specialist subcontractors and that in the USA all the big engine manufacturers use specialist sub-contractors to get maximum advantage from high technological capabilities and specialist skills.
      I ask the Minister when he replies to the debate to give an assurance not only to Cannon and Stokes Limited but to the many other specialist sub-contractors in the British engineering industry who are fearful that because of the woolly wording of this totally objectionable clause it may well be possible for the State aerospace industry, later, to move into their fields to justify some other expenditure without regard to the cost involved. I assure the Minister that if he can make a suitable statement he will not only satisfy my concern but will satisfy the anxiety of employees in many hundreds of firms throughout the country.
      Mr. Arthur Palmer: I wish to speak on matters raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in moving the amendment he proposes to this Bill, not because I have so far followed this measure in any great detail but because of my general interest in the working and structure of nationalised industries. It can be said that the experience of nationalisation in this country, in public corporation form, which now goes back a fair way, to before the last war, is that one of the difficulties—the weaknesses, one might say—of the process of parliamentary democracy in operating by statute is that the terms of the statute tend to place the activities of the undertaking in a legislative straitjacket, so that without a new

      721
      statute it is extremely difficult to make any change.
      Life is such that nothing stands still. Things always change and evolve. The private sector of industry is evolving quite naturally all the time to meet changing circumstances, and the public sector must equally be involved in change to meet changing circumstances. If a statute freezes the structure and method of operation, and the interests, of an industry at the particular time of its nationalisation we are giving very grave cause for concern for the future. The Bill as drafted, quite rightly in the light of the experience not only of Labour Governments but, I should have thought, of Conservative Governments, provides that it should be fairly easy, subject to constitutional safeguards, for changes to take place in the organisation and structure, and in opportunities for obtaining new business in nationalised industries, as is normally the case, quite naturally, with joint stock companies. I can see nothing objectionable in that.
      Mr. John Cope Mr. John Cope (Gloucestershire, South) rose—
      Mr. Palmer: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall not give way for a moment, as I wish to make another point; after that I shall give way. There is another reason why I believe it is important. In what he said the hon. Member for Bridgwater did not seem to take into account the question why there should be this provision in the statute. It is to ensure that the Minister does not interfere in matters in which he has no authority to interfere. If ever a set of Ministers interfered with the day-to-day work of the nationalised industries, particularly the fuel industry at the time of the fuel crisis, it was Conservative Ministers. They were always interfering.
      I sometimes talk to chairmen of nationalised industries. If one talks to them privately one finds that they all complain bitterly about the way in which Conservative Ministers interfered. I do not know whether or not they were bought luncheons, but this sort of thing is sometimes known as the "lunchtime directions". They are told, "The Government do not want to make this the subject of an Order, or to bring it out publicly, but if you can adjust your policy it will help a great deal." That
      722
      was done constantly by Conservative Ministers. I see their difficulty. They wanted changes made, but apart from issuing a general directive in the national interest, which is a clumsy method. they had no statutory power. Therefore they did it by way of the so-called "lunchtime direction".
      It is very important for the effective operation of nationalised industries that the powers of all concerned should be strictly and carefully defined in the statute, and if a Minister is to have extra powers so that the activities of a corporation can be broadened—and normally this will be at the request of the corporation—those powers should be defined. In my judgment this would do away with much of the need for the behind-the scenes guidance that can come from Ministers to nationalised industries. This would give a greater sense of security to those who have to run these industries.
      Mr. Cope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I entirely agree with him on his last point—that the statute should be rigid in its terms. The amendment seeks to take out ways in which the statute would be capable of being varied by the Department, so really the hon. Gentleman is not arguing against the amendment.
      The point that I wish to put to the hon. Gentleman arises from his mention of experience. Can he give us from his experience past examples of nationalised industries that have wanted fundamentally to change their activities—which is what this amendment is about—as opposed to wanting to change their organisation, which is not the subject of this amendment?
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Palmer: It is difficult to answer that question off the cuff, but I know from experience that on several occasions the nationalised electricity supply industry or the boards or the CEGB have wished to undertake some marginal manufacturing activity which they thought would be in their interests and which a private company could do if it were within its articles of association—and they have been limited by statute.
      I do not want to get out of order, but I would use this industry as an example It has been said to me by one Chairman of the Electricity Council that he would

      723
      like to do one or two things which he thought were in the interests of his industry but that he could not do so without asking for legislation and that there was no parliamentary time available.
      That is the issue. Therefore, the powers in the Bill to give greater flexibility for the Minister to follow up the changing needs of an industry by simple legislative methods of this kind are very sound. Presumably the Opposition hope to get back to power. I hope that they will not, but one must take account of that constitutional possibility. If they do, they will find that these powers will be just as useful to them, since on past experience they have interfered behind the scenes more than most.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: The Minister's reply was astonishing. He suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) was not on the mark. Although both you and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been up all night debating a tragic decision by the House of Commons on licensing in Scotland, having listened carefully I am afraid that the Minister is the one who has got it all wrong.
      First of all, the Minister said that we are concerned here only with the freedom of State industries to do what they want. That is not what the clause or the amendments are about. Clause 2 is about the duties of the corporations—things which the Minister tells them to do after consultation, but not necessarily with agreement. I hope that the Minister will accept that he was completely wrong on that matter.
      The matter is far more dangerous than that. It is Clause 3 which deals with the activities and powers of the corporations —the things that they can do. I was astonished that, reading from what appeared to be a prepared brief, the Minister should have made this mistake. Either the civil servants have been up far too late and have got it wrong or the Minister has attempted, inadvertently, to mislead the House.
      I hope that the Minister will interrupt me if I am wrong. This clause has nothing to do with commercial freedom. It deals with the Secretary of State's power to prescribe activities.
      724
      The Minister is not even looking. He is hiding his head in shame. Is it true or not that under this clause, far from the corporations being free, the Minister will be able to instruct British Aerospace, for instance, to start producing aero-engines? He said that this clause was not about jet engines or Rolls-Royce.
      Mr. Burden: Which is nonsense.
      Mr. Taylor: I challenge the Minister. Could he not issue an order that British Aerospace, from 1st January next year, must produce aero-engines? He has not interrupted me. Again, he is hiding his head in shame. He is not even looking to his officials to see whether they can say why he has misled the House.
      Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He does not even have a PPS.
      Mr. Taylor: No, he does not even have a PPS to run along and ask the officials. Was the Minister quite blatantly but inadvertently misleading the House when he said that this was a matter of freedom and that jet engines were not involved?
      He is steadying himself to rise. Perhaps he is going to say something. No —he has thought better of it.
      In the absence of any intervention by the Minister, I must assume that he accepts what I said—that he was blatantly but inadvertently misleading the House and the country. Again, he has not budged. He is just looking blankly into space, showing that he would rather not be here listening to what is being said.
      Ah—the PPS has arrived. We shall now see messages flying along to the officials to the effect: "Why did you give me duff gen on which to answer the debate?"
      The Minister was also wrong in saying that the issue was that a nationalised corporation should have some of the powers of a company. He said, "Why should the nationalised industries not have the same powers as capitalists?"
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Absolutely right.
      Mr. Taylor: It is not absolutely right: it is absolutely wrong. If the Minister had some officials who knew a little company law, he would have been told that this was not the case.

      725
      In a private company, a general body of shareholders can attend the general meeting and ask for the articles of association to be changed. If I were a major shareholder in a rubber company, which, unfortunately, I am not, and I thought that the day of rubber was over and that the company should produce aeroengines, I could go to the general meeting and say so. We, the shareholders, could say that the articles of association should be changed so that the objects of the Taylor (Indonesia) Rubber Company would cover the production of rubber in Indonesia and aero-engines in Glasgow.
      There is one vital difference. Whereas under the clause if the Minister tells a corporation what to do it has to do it, the articles of association of a company are more like Clause 3 powers—things that it can do if it wants to. The directors of my rubber company can be told to change the articles of association but we, as shareholders, cannot tell them what to do then. Shareholders do not have the powers of instruction that Ministers will have. So the Minister is absolutely wrong on this.
      Again the Minister is not listening. Instead, he is talking to the Chief Whip, who is no doubt telling him all about the long sitting last night and the unfortunate decision that the House took on Scottish licensing. The Minister should be trying to find out why he gave such "duff gen" to the House on a simple but vital matter.
      Why has the Minister got it so wrong?
      Mr. Russell Kerr: He has not.
      Mr. Taylor: Of course he has.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: He has not.
      Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Member wishes to defend the Minister on these two points, I hope that he will intervene and say so.
      Does the Minister accept that we are talking about duties and not about freedoms? Does he accept that these duties are imposed by the Secretary of State, and are not things that the corporation can choose to do? Does he accept that it is wrong to say that what is being sought is the same basis as a private company? Although the articles of association can be altered, directors cannot be directed to do certain things.
      726
      I have not been challenged and I have not been interrupted, except by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), who always makes rumbling noises throughout our debates.
      What is the precedent? As hon. Members are aware, there are major problems facing us economically. On top of that, we have dangers from this wretched Common Market, because their laws take precedence over ours.
      Mr. Russell Kerr: Now the hon. Member is talking sense.
      Mr. Taylor: It is high time we looked at the effect of the Common Market on our economy. All the promises that were made to us about the advantages of it were wrong. The basic problem is that Common Market law takes precedence over British law.
      In the same way, directions given by the Secretary of State to the corporations take precedence over the basic duties that are laid down in Clause 2 (1) and (2). My understanding is that the duties prescribed by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) take precedence over the basic duties laid down. So, we have our jet engine situation. If the Secretary of State orders British Aerospace to start producing jet engines, that order takes precedence over the basic duties that we have laid down in the Bill. Obviously, we are very worried about this, and industry is worried as well.
      If I were a rich American entrepreneur and investor, with $200 million in my pocket, I would decide that it would be better not to come to Britain and invest, because I might find that British industry starts producing things that I am already producing and that I do not want. That would lead to unfair competition, and there is no real protection in the Bill against unfair competition from State corporations.
      The Minister may claim that this is just scaremongering. Why is it, then, that we have 165,000 unemployed in Scotland? Why is it that the oil industry is going wrong? Only a genius could make a financial disaster of the oil industry, yet that is what is happening. Why are men being put out of work on oil platform sites? The answer to all these questions is that the threat of

      727
      nationalisation has led to a lack of investment. As long as the Government waste money, and Socialism is extended, this sort of thing will continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater is absolutely right, and the Minister is wrong.
      Why are things going so wrong for industry? What is happening to investment? Why are American firms not coming here any more? Part of the reason is this dreadful Common Market, but we cannot discuss that now. The one thing we should get is the expansion of the oil industry, but that is not happening, because of the uncertainty that exists.
      The Minister may tell us that there is no need to worry, because the Secretary of State is a reasonable man. That may be true, but he will not always be there. How do we know that some nutcase from the Labour Party's home affairs committee will not take over, or that the Secretary of State for Energy will not be transferred back to the Department of Industry and start taking over these powers? We have no guarantees at all. We are not talking about investment for a week or two. We are not talking about a petro-chemical factory that will list for a month, or a year; we are talking about investment and factories that will need to last 20 or 30 years. But we shall have no guarantee as long as these powers exist without limit.
      There is nothing to stop the Secretary of State asking the corporation to start making jet engines, machine tools or even motor cars. The Labour Party can achieve full nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and control with this one little subsection of this one little clause in this one little Bill.
      This Bill is really three nationalisation Bills in one. Clause 2(2) gives the Government power to extend State ownership into every activity. It does not merely give the Minister power to do so; it gives him power to instruct the corporation to do so. Suppose that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) decided that the House of Lords needed strengthening, and went there. If,
      728
      because of his talents, he was made Chairman of the Aircraft Industry Board, he would find that even though he was appointed under a Conservative Government, a Labour Secretary of State could instruct him to start producing aircraft engines, to start building hospitals, or to start doing anything at all. My hon. Friend, or my noble Friend as he would be then, would have no option but to do what the Government told him.
      This is not about freedom; it is about duties. It is about the things that the Secretary of State can tell the State corporations to do. The Minister knows that I am right when I say that he has totally misled the House.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I have been listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) very intently. Can he explain why it is quite legitimate for Hawker Siddeley to diversify into all kinds of fields of engineering but quite wrong for BAC to exploit some of the wonderful technological spin-offs from tht production of aircraft or aero-engines?
      Mr. Taylor: Clause 2 gives a duty that is very wide. If it were a case of the State boards diversifying into similar or related fields, that would be fair enough, but there is nothing at all in this subsection to prevent the Secretary of State from instructing the aircraft industry to diversify not just into related fields but into anything at all. It could be instructed to run hotels in the Highlands, or to start growing bananas on Clydeside. The powers are unlimited.
      Nationalisation eats up more and more resources and scares away private industry and investment. We must reject this subsection, go back to 100 per cent. Tory policies, and get rid of this nonsensical obsession of extending Socialism everywhere, which pervades the Labour Party all the time and even creeps into the Tory Party sometimes.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Obviously the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is still suffering from his major defeat on licensing last night. I suggest that he uses the Common Market machinery and goes to the European Court of Justice. Maybe it could help him. Last night I said that an efficient nationalised industry

      729
      should have no fears about competition from the private sector. This sentiment was applauded not only by my Front Bench, but by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. Why is it that today he feels that private industry should fear competition from the public sector?
      If British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace feel that they could do subsidiary work efficiently and in the interests of the country, why should they not do so? If we want to improve the efficiency of these corporations, why should we prevent them from competing with private industry, and why should private industry be afraid of such competition? The Opposition are great upholders of competition, so why should they shackle private industry and prevent it from competing fairly with public industry? What are they afraid of? Do they not believe in fair competition?
      Mr. Cope: The hon. Member talks about fair competition, but does he not realise that the clause that we inserted in the Bill last night does not concern any duty undertaken by either of the corporations under Clause 2?
      Mr. Mitchell: The Conservatives never cease to amaze me. They always try to claim in some way that publicly-owned industry is the sector which acts unfairly. One could give many examples of where privately-owned industry treats nationalised industries unfairly, and if the hon. Member wants an example let him just look at Post Office telecommunications.
      The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made certain remarks about shipowners. He said that it would be impossible to force British owners to buy their vessels from British yards; the Government should try, however, to encourage that as much as possible. The sad fact today is that in many cases, because of the tax situation and other factors, there is a positive incentive for British owners to have their ships built abroad. I hope that the Government will look into that.
      I should like to know what are the rules in Japan. I suspect that Japanese shipowners are subject to certain rules about buying their ships from Japanese yards. The Government should put as much pressure as possible on to British owners to have their vessels built in British yards.
      Mr. Burden: I was not a member of the Standing Committee examining the Bill, but I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), and I was greatly surprised that the Under-Secretary should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) that there was no fear for the company in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman implied that there would be no question of British Aerospace participating in the development and construction of jet engines. However, if the Secretary of State decided that it should he could instruct it to embark upon such activities, or, for that matter, upon any other activity that he might suggest.
      I am sure that many Labour Members below the Gangway who are out-and-out nationalisers would welcome that approach. It will provide the bones of the skeleton upon which they can put the full flesh of nationalisation. Labour Members do not seem to understand that when such a situation arises firms in the areas of private industry threatened by an extension of nationalisation are reluctant to invest and, above all, investment by multinational companies in this country is threatened.
      Many Left-wingers would like to extend nationalisation until it controls the whole of British industry. They have stated that categorically, and the public are aware of their intentions. I am convinced that their attitude frightens away overseas companies which might otherwise want to establish businesses in this country.
      What concerns me is that suddenly on the Labour Benches there is again this great campaign and crusade for more nationalisation. For some time now the words "public ownership" have fallen by the wayside. They became very unpopular because the ordinary people of this country knew full well not only that they had no control over such industries, and many of them are discredited in the eyes of the public. For example, the public had no control over the 35 per cent. increase in the prices of nationalised industries between March 1974 and March 1975. That figure was given to me by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury last Friday, in a Written Answer.

      731
      Now we are told there will be more nationalisation. In addition to the industries in the Bill, public money will be spent in opening up ancillary organisations and businesses, but without any increase in public accountability.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member has raised a very important point. I am sure that he is aware that we use the expression "public ownership" as widely as we can and we try to improve it and to increase public accountability, although that is a difficult job. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that by some strange alchemy the public have some control and accountability over private industry? Is he aware that the much-vaunted private industry of which he speaks receives at least £3 million of public money a day in order to keep it going? At the moment there is a strike of capital in which these companies have thousands of millions of pounds in the banks which they refuse, at the behest of the CBI, to invest. While refusing to invest they talk about patriotism.
      Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. We in this House, as representatives of the electorate, cannot question the day-to-day activities of the nationalised industries that involves such things as fare increases or other price increases. In a private company shareholders have the right to attend an annual meeting, to ask questions and to insist upon proper replies. The hon. Member asked about investment in private industry. I believe that Governments—and I include my own on one occasion—have done wrong to pour public money into private industry. That does not make private industry competitive.
      If the nationalised corporations in the Bill have activities forced upon them by the Minister they cannot be described as independent bodies. Always the threat of that will hang over them, even if they consider that the duties imposed upon them by the Minister—perhaps he will be a Left-wing Minister—are contrary to the best interests of the corporation they manage. But having entered into such an activity they will almost automatically, whatever the cost may be, order all their supplies from the component firm that they have set up, for that is what the Minister will require.
      732
      7.30 p.m.
      What about the other industries, firms and companies that have been supplying components to the nationalised industry, often for a considerable time? Unless they can find new customers in different industries they will probably be forced to close down. I remind Labour Members that some of the industries so affected may be in areas that they represent. I have stated the facts. If we impose these problems upon private industry the sector will withhold investment. That will make it impossible for them to compete in this country. Many of them, not merely because they fear nationalisation but the threat of competition from a company controlled within a nationalised corporation, will not invest and, therefore, will also not be competitive in overseas markets. The effect of that situation could be considerable right across the board.
      It has been said that the Government should find some means of ensuring that British shipowners buy their ships in British yards. But that will not make them competitive in world markets. The only reasons for British ship owners buying ships abroad is because they are of better quality—that also unfortunately now applies to a wide range of goods—cheaper, or on quicker delivery dates. When we consider high cost capital goods such as ships that cost many millions of pounds, against which companies have to borrow, many at high interest rates, such matters become extremely important.
      In answer to me the Prime Miinster stated that there would have to be rationalisation in the shipbuilding industry. That can only mean that there must be cutbacks in the industry to try to make it viable. In other words, some people must lose their jobs. If ship owners are not competitive because they cannot obtain ships from our own yards on favour able terms, they cannot compete in the cost of the freight or passengers they have to carry. If that situation comes about, it will be the Government alone who will be ordering the ships from the yards. For what purpose and with whose money will that be done? What will they do with the ships when they have bought them? No matter what may be said to the contrary, in the final issue only orders for ships will keep the yards open and the men employed.
      Mr. Frederick Willey: I shall intervene briefly. I hope that it does not sound arrogant, but I wish to contribute a little common sense to the debate. It has been an infantile debate so far. Probably this is the only country in the world where this debate could have taken place. We are dealing with the nationalisation of the shipbuilding, ship repairing and aircraft industries. I am sure that no other country would have seen such a debate on these industries.
      I am not too enthusiastic about the provision in the Bill but it happens to be in its present form—namely, providing for a statutory instrument—because of the sort of debate that we have held. Any other country engaged in nationalising these industries would have said "Make a go of it and exercise your judgment on behalf of the industries".
      That is what we must do. We talk about commercial judgment and managerial judgment. It does not make any difference whether the industry has been nationalised or is private; that judgment must be exercised.
      In Committee we had repeated reference to Greenwell's, a yard that has been closed. We have also had discussions about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited, which has an interest in Green-well's. There happens to be in that yard another interest which is concerned with using it for non-ship repair activities. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen will say that my constituency must be inflicted with unemployment, when we can employ the people in the yard.
      That is the issue. It is as simple as that. We have dry dock facilities which can be put to other purposes. I am concerned about my constituents having a chance to work. I do not want any rigidity or inflexibility which would prevent them from having that chance. I do not say that the yard will be put to non-repair purposes, but it is a matter that has to be considered. I do not intend to have the yard precluded from that sort of use.
      The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) knows nothing about shipbuilding or ship repairing. I tell him that it is important that such undertakings should have an association with a shipping line. That is one of the greatest
      734
      assets that a shipbuilding or ship repairing organisation can possess.
      Mr. Burden: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is deliberately misquoting me or suffering from a delusion. I said that British shipowners have to buy ships where they can buy them at prices that are competitive. That is because they have to run them against other countries' ships. Unless they can buy them at competitive rates they will not be able to run them at competitive rates.
      Mr. Willey: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is talking nonsense. One of the strengths of the Sunderland yards—namely, Austin and Pickersgill Ltd. and Sunderland Shipbuilders Ltd.—is that they have an association and relationship with shipping lines. Austin & Pickersgill Ltd. is associated with Overseas Freighters and Sunderland Shipbuilders is associated with Court Line. We do not want this naive Court Line. We do not want this naive and infantile talk. We know full well why such associations are important—namely, because the shipping lines can determine the timing of their orders. That is important for continuity of work. Time and time again orders have been placed in the Sunderland yards because there has been an identity of interest between the builders and the shipping lines.
      I now turn to an essential factor that has had a detrimental effect on the British shipbuilding industry. This is why the industry has fallen behind the shipbuilding industries of other countries. By its nature, it is a cyclical industry. That means that it must diversify. Let us bear in mind that the Japanese yards are part of huge complexes. It is an enormous advantage for a cyclical industry to have diversification. Many other countries have learnt that it is vital to have a measure of diversification. With that background it is possible to be more ambitious. This is where the British yards have lost out. It is possible to be more ambitious on the upswing if it is known that if there is a return swing it is possible to engage in other work.
      The other factor that should be borne in mind is that, in common with other countries, we need a sense of responsibility between firms, whether or not they

      735
      are nationalised, and their work people. If we get that sense of responsibility we shall get a much more effective industrial policy. Let us have our large industries having a full sense of responsibility. For example, let the British Steel Corporation take full responsibility for its employees. In the North-East the National Coal Board was responsible for scores of thousands of miners being paid off without having to take any responsibility. There were no discussions about redundancy but there should have been discussions about jobs. The board should have had a feeling of responsibility, which means diversification. Unless we tackle our industrial problems in this way, we shall continue to lose out to other industries which have done so. We can see how the industry is run in Japan and West Germany.
      We ought to be saying that we appreciate the serious difficulties facing the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. Things have gone so badly in this cycle that no one in the industry believes that there is any alternative to a State takeover. Let us now get down to the basic problem and see that the industries have the tools to tackle the difficult situation facing them.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: If I attempted to follow the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) too closely, I should run a grave risk of being regarded as naive and infantile. Though I have often discussed these matters with the right hon. Member, I cannot accept his analysis of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) said as naïve or infantile.
      In declaring my interest as group economic adviser to a major British shipping company, I can tell the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North that when British ship owners consider where to buy and build ships, many considerations other than the important one of the desirability of building in British yards are taken into account.
      Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) moving the amendment. I realised that was receiving what could be described as launching aid. Following his usual trenchant and vigorous defence of the industry, I also received launching aid
      736
      from other hon. Friends until I worried that there might be a danger of my missing the tide. Fortunately that has not happened and I shall be as brief as I can.
      The Under-Secretary said that nationalised industries were dealing with the nation's assets while privately-owned shipbuilding companies did not control the nation's assets. What an extraordinary statement! If we aggregated the capital of the British shipbuilding and ship owning industries and analysed the shareholdings, sub-dividing them among the insurance and pension funds involved, we should discover that the industry is owned by the whole nation.
      We object to the fact that nationalisation may take place virtually by statutory instrument. It would be bad enough if we were proposing to nationalise the shipping industry, with its vast turnover and overseas assets, and proposing surreptitiously to allow it to nationalise the shipbuilding industry, which is about one-tenth of the size of the shipping industry.
      But we are allowing a very small tail at least the possibility of wagging a very big dog. The Government want to be able, by Statutory Instrument, to use their interest in shipbuilding and the corporation to nationalise shipping. We object to surreptitious nationalisation.
      There is now a crucial dividing line between the public and private sectors in this country. If the Government choose to extend it, let them come formally, officially and publicly to the House to do so. It is crucial that nothing should be done surreptitiously or by chance. It should be done in the most overt possible way.
      The Government may ask why the corporation should be restricted. Let us discuss its options. It may liquidate and stop building until the market recovers and then perhaps diversify. Another option is to build for speculative demand—a concept viewed with horror by hon. Members opposite. Quincy in the United States and Götaverken in Sweden are building for speculative demand and have established ship operating companies to take care of this momentary speculation.
      Finally, the corporation could operate ships and, in the longer term, could reorganise and restructure the industry.

      737
      7.45 p.m.
      The OECD has given specific advice to the Government that there is a structural crisis in the industry and that Western Europe will not escape unless it restructures the industries which will involve a substantial reduction in capacity. The Government apparently do not accept this conclusion.
      We are told that there is a possibility that the shipbuilding corporation might build for speculative demand. This involves creating additional shipping capacity and builders entering a sphere of demand judgment made by ship operators.
      The corporation may do this. We can all deplore its judgment. Ship owning and operating is a very different matter from shipbuilding and is carried on in a very different commercial environment. Such diversification could involve a major diversion of capital, which is already scarce in the shipbuilding industry, as well as a major diversion of managerial skills.
      There has been criticism from both sides of the House about the management of the industry. Are the managers now so richly endowed with enterpreneurial and managerial skills that they can take on the running as well as the building of ships? I doubt it.
      Some hon. Members may say that there is little likelihood of this happening. I say that we should learn from the lesson of Maritime Fruit Carriers and what can happen when a major yard such as Swan Hunter believes that its interests depend on buying out a major customer in order to keep the yard alive.
      I wonder how long it will be before that consortium, whether nationalised or not, will come here saying that it made an error of judgment, entered a market that was heavily over-subscribed, where all the signals were red and all the instruments read "change ", but that they did not see the red and chose to ignore the signals. If the Bill goes through unaltered, we shall be institutionalising within the system the capacity to resist market symbols.
      If there is an institutionalised attempt to resist market signals, one thing is certain—it will be a commercial disaster and the bailing out will rebound on to the backs of the British taxpayer.
      738
      Only this morning we had presented to us the NEDO report which points out that most of the profits made by nationalised industries, about which Ministers have been boasting, would actually be extravagant losses if inflation accounting techniques had been applied to them.
      I am arguing as strongly as I can that there must be no surreptitious nationalisation. The reputation of the technique is damaged enough already. If, for political reasons, the Government wish to extend the technique, there is only one legitimate way of doing it and that is to bring a Bill before the House.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: The hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) does not do himself justice. The clause and the Government amendments go very much along the lines that he has been advocating.
      The hon. Member wants to see freedom for nationalised industries to respond to pressures of the market. The clause and the amendments enable the Secretary of State to amend the duties of the corporation so that it can respond to the market.
      The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want anything done in a covert or secretive way. That is precisely what the clause and these amendments do not allow. The amendments insist that if changes are to be made in the duties of the two corporations, my right hon. Friend will have to come before the House under the affirmative order procedure. In other words, in relation to precisely the kind of things that the hon. Gentleman has been saying he fears, he can find a great deal of reassurance in the clause.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary joined the Committee on the Bill rather late in the day. However, in our discussions on this matter the Minister of State was faced with two opposing forces. Many of us, including myself, wanted to give a large freedom to the corporations to diversify. On the other hand, the Tories wanted to keep them in a straitjacket. The clause seems to fall in the middle.
      Mr. Huckfield: My hon. Friend has been considering the Bill for a long time and obviously knows it better than I do. However, he makes exactly the point that

      739
      I was about to make. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and my hon. Friends the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) and the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell) have been making this kind of point. They want to see these corporations having the flexibility to respond to new activities and having the power to diversify. The clause en, ables my right hon. Friend to amend the corporations' duties, with the approval of the House, so that they can do that.
      Mr. Cope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Huckfield: Perhaps I may make my own speech. The hon. Gentleman has had his chance of catching the eye of the Chair.
      These are powers which were contained in the Iron and Steel Act 1975, which governs the activities of British Steel. They are powers which were also in Section 2(1) of the Iron and Steel Act 1967. Most important of all, however—I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) will listen carefully to this—is that in relation to such activities and duties as these, this kind of freedom is precisely that which was conferred on Rolls-Royce 1971 by the Conservative Government. When the Conservative Government took Rolls-Royce into public ownership, they created a structure which enables the memoranda and articles of Rolls-Royce 1971 to be altered by the shareholders—now the National Enterprise Board—without coming to the House for approval—in other words, precisely the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman was attacking previously. That is precisely what was intended by the Conservative Party when it took Rolls-Royce 1971 into public ownership.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that altering the articles of association of a company alters what the directors can do if they so desire, whereas under the amendment the Minister is taking powers to instruct the nationalised corporations on what they must do, and not what they may do?
      Mr. Huckfield: I am continually at a loss to understand the hon. Gentleman's comments or their relevance to the debate
      740
      —especially when we had that tour de force of the Ceylonese tea plantations and the usual things to which we have become accustomed. He knows that the Secretary of State has powers under the clause to alter the duties of the corporations, just as shareholders may alter the duties of a private company. We seek to give my right hon. Friend the power to change the duties of the corporations in the same way that shareholders can change the duties and objects of a private company.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: There are no duties on a company.
      Mr. Huckfield: The hon. Gentleman always chunters on, and we get used to that. However, I hope that he will recognise that what I have said follows the precedent set by his party when Rolls-Royce 1971 was taken into public ownership.
      The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) talked about a company in his constituency as though it were a very small concern which would be at the mercy of this monolithic, bureaucratic corporation structure that he said we are about to set up. Perhaps the firm has not told him that it happens to be part of the Associated Engineering Group, which last year had a turnover of some £208 million. That hardly sounds the sort of tiny creature that would be at the mercy of the two corporations that the Bill will create.
      The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends seek to distort the objectives of the clause. Under the clause there is not a general, all-pervasive duty to diversify and do everything else concerning these two industries. That is precisely not what is intended. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East made very clear, the duties imposed by the clause are very specific. My right hon. Friend's powers are very specific, as will be the activities of the corporations and their duties to be laid down by my right hon. Friend.
      What we seek to do is to enable my right hon. Friend to confer upon the corporations the freedom to enter new fields on fair terms. I only wish that when Opposition Members were in Government and introduced legislation, the kind of changes that they sought to introduce

      741
      had been subject to the parliamentary approval and parliamentary acquiescence that my right hon. Friend will have to secure before these duties are amended.
      I stress to hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo, that it is right that my right hon. Friend can alter the duties of the corporations under this clause. However, hon. Members should also bear in mind that before my right hon. Friend has the power to do that, he must come to the House. Therefore, while it is true that we want to enable the corporations to have some commercial flexibility to respond to new activities or to changes in the economy, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North said, it is also true that we want to maintain and to keep parliamentary approval.
      Having said that, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 and that they will reject the Opposition amendments as having no intention other than to make sure that the corporations will be nobbled, shackled and hamstrung in a very restrictive way even before they start to operate.
      Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman has more or less implied that it is the Government's wish that there should be parliamentary approval. Does he regard the extension into a major sector of another industry as normal commercial freedom? Before nationalising an industry, all Governments since the war have thought it necessary to bring a major Bill before Parliament. Why should it now be sufficient to do this by Statutory Instrument?
      Mr. Huckfield: I get a little tired of rehearsing the same arguments to the hon. Gentleman. When his own party nationalised Rolls-Royce, it enabled Rolls-Royce to change its memoranda and its articles without coming to the House for legislation.
      Mr. Tom King: I congratulate the Under-Secretary on his reply to the last intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), because it was the first time that he has not started to reply by saying that he was at a loss to understand something As we listened to his two speeches, my hon. Friends and I came to the conclusion that he did not understand anything about
      742
      our amenments. The way in which he began was a Freudian slip.
      The point that I was trying to make in my opening speech is the point that the Under-Secretary has totally failed to understand. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was not present when I spoke earlier, but he referred to this as an infantile debate. I was not aware that he heard the opening speeches, and that was not my impression of the other speeches.
      The question that I should like one Labour Member to answer, if Labour Members do not wish us to press the amendment, is how one can genuinely believe in a fixed frontier between the public and the private sector and yet include powers in a Bill such as this allowing for the continual advance of that frontier and the continual encroachment into the private sector and enlargement of the public sector without there being any formal and considered approach to this problem. The inevitable result will be pressures arising from loss of jobs, from worries about employment and the fact that the public sector will spread yet wider into related activities in industry.
      8.0 p.m.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will take this on board. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will talk to him because, with respect, he did not seem to understand the point that I was making. The Minister must know that there are potential investors who are concerned about the threats of nationalisation. He and his Department should do all they can, in the present circumstances, to encourage inward investment in this country. That was the policy which the previous Conservative Government followed and I hope that he and his Department are following it as well.
      The fact that nationalisation can be accompanied by quite inadequate terms of compensation for assets acquired is a deterrent to the potential investment in this country. We are concerned to see a successful economy in this country, but unless any sort of power, with yet further enlargement of the public sector, is properly constrained we shall not see the increase in investment that we all want to see. For this reason, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendment in the Lobby.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 279, Noes 315.

      Division No. 294.

      AYES

      [8.00 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Madel, David

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Alison, Michael

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marten, Neil

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mates, Michael

      Arnold, Tom

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mather, Carol

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Awdry, Daniel

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Baker, Kenneth

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mawby, Ray

      Banks, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Beith, A. J.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Bell, Ronald

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gray, Hamish

      Mills, Peter

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Biffen, John

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Grist, Ian

      Moate, Roger

      Blaker, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Body, Richard

      Hall, Sir John

      Monro, Hector

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bottomley, Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Hannam, John

      Morgan, Geraint

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Brittan, Leon

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mudd, David

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Nelson, Anthony

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Buck, Antony

      Hicks, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Budgen, Nick

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Normanton, Tom

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Holland, Philip

      Nott. John

      Burden, F. A.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Onslow, Cranley

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hordern, Peter

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Carlisle, Mark

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Osborn, John

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, Ralph (North Norflok)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Pardoe, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Penhaligon, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hurd, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Clegg, Walter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Cockcrott, John

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      James, David

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Cope, John

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

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Cordle, John H.

      Jessel, Toby

      Raison, Timothy

      Cormack, Patrick

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Corrie, John

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Critchley. Julian

      Jopling, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Crouch, David

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaina

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Dunlop, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Durant, Tony

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knox, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lamont, Norman

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Elliott, Sir William

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Emery, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawson, Nigel

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Farr, John

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Fell, Anthony

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lloyd, Ian

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Loveridge, John

      Shepherd, Colin

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      Shersby, Michael

      Forman, Nigel

      McCrindle, Robert

      Silvester, Fred

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCusker, H.

      Sims, Roger

      Fox, Marcus

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir Roger

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      MacGregor, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Freud, Clement

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Speed, Keith

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Spence, John

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Walters, Dennis

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Thatcher, Rr Hon Margaret

      Warren, Kenneth

      Sproat, Iain

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Stainton, Keith

      Trotter, Neville

      Wells, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Stanley, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Stokes, John

      Wakenham, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Mr. W. Benyon and

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Wall, Patrick

      Mr. Jim Lester.

      Tebbit, Norman

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Allaun, Frank

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Archer, Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Janner, Greville

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Doig, Peter

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ashley, Jack

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ashton, Joe

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      John, Brynmor

      Atkinson, Norman

      Dunn, James A.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Edge, Geoff

      Judd, Frank

      Bates, Alf

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bean, R. E.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Kelley, Richard

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Kerr, Russell

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      English, Michael

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ennals, David

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bishop, E. S.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Lambie, David

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Lamond, James

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Lee, John

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Bradley, Tom

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Flannery, Martin

      Lipton, Marcus

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Litterick, Tom

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Buchan, Norman

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Loyden, Eddie

      Buchanan, Richard

      Ford, Ben

      Luard, Evan

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Forrester, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Campbell, Ian

      Freeson, Reginald

      MacCormick, Iain

      Canavan, Dennis

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Cant, R. B.

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Carmichael, Neil

      George, Bruce

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cartwright, John

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Golding, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Gould, Bryan

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, Kevin

      Cohen, Stanley

      Graham, Ted

      Madden, Max

      Coleman, Donald

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Magee, Bryan

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mahon, Simon

      Concannon, J. D.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Hardy, Peter

      Marquand, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hatton, Frank

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Meacher, Michael

      Cronin, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mendelson, John

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hooley, Frank

      Mikardo, Ian

      Cryer, Bob

      Horam, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Huckfield, Les

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Moonman, Eric

      Davies., Bryan (Enfield N)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Hunter, Adam

      Moyle, Roland

      Deakins, Eric

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      746

      747

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Sandelson, Neville

      Tuck, Raphael

      Newens, Stanley

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Urwin, T. W.

      Noble, Mike

      Selby, Harry

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Ogden, Eric

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

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

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Ward, Michael

      Ovenden, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Watkins, David

      Owen, Dr David

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Watkinson, John

      Padley, Walter

      Sillars, James

      Watt, Hamish

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silverman, Julius

      Weetch, Ken

      Park, George

      Skinner, Dennis

      Weitzman, David

      Parker, John

      Small, William

      Wellbeloved, James

      Parry, Robert

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Snape, Peter

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Spearing, Nigel

      White, James (Pollok)

      Pendry, Tom

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Perry, Ernest

      Stallard, A. W.

      Whitlock, William

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Prescott, John

      Stoddart, David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Stott, Roger

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Strang, Gavin

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Radice, Giles

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Reid, George

      Swain, Thomas

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Wilson, Rt Hon (Huyton)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Woodall, Alec

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Woof, Robert

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Thompson, George

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Tierney, Sydney

      Roper, John

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rose, Paul B.

      Tomlinson, John

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Rowlands, Ted

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. line 24, at end insert—
      '(5A) The power to make an order under subsection (5) above includes power to vary or revoke any such order previously made, and no order shall be made under that subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Varley.]
      The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 36, leave out from 'Act' to 'in' in line 38 and insert
      'it shall be the duty of each Corporation to promote industrial democracy in a strong and organic form'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:
      (a), after 'democracy', insert
      'in which adequate powers of decision-making are shared by the Corporations and their subsidiaries with members of the relevant workforces'.
      (b), at end, insert
      'on the basis of one employee, one vote'.
      Government Amendment No. 6, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
      '(7A) It shall be the duty of each Corporation to enter within 3 months of the relevant
      748
      vesting date into consultation with the relevant trade unions as to the methods which it should adopt for the purpose of carrying out its duty under subsection (7) above'.
      (a), at end insert
      'and to come to a conclusion about the appropriate form of industrial democracy in each relevant case within one year of the relevant vesting date.'
      (b), at end add
      'and within twelve months of the relevant vesting day each Corporation shall make a report on the consultations to the Secretary of State who shall lay before each House of Parliament a copy thereof and may, after doing so and after considering the report and consulting the Corporation concerned and the relevant trade unions, give the Corporation such directives as he considers appropriate.'.
      (c), leave out 'the relevant trade unions' and insert 'its employees'
      (d), at end insert
      '(7B) It shall further be the duty of each Corporation at the time of entering into consultation pursuant to the foregoing subsection, to consult with those parts of the concerned work force which are not represented by any relevant trade union'.
      No. 213, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:
      '(7B) This section shall be construed as imposing on each Corporation a liability enforceable by proceedings before a court to create joint management and employees consultative machinery.'.

      749
      No. 305, in Clause 3, page 6, line 11, after 'may', insert:
      'after consultations with the relevant trade unions concerned and'.
      Government Amendment No. 15, in Clause 5, page 7, line 35, leave out from 'organised' to 'and' in line 39 and insert:
      ',taking account of the desirability of promoting the largest degree of decentralisation of management consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries'.
      (a), after 'functions', insert:
      'and taking account of the functions already exercised at yard and factory levels'.
      (b), after 'functions', insert:
      'and in particular trading through subsidiary companies'.
      (c), after 'functions', insert:
      'including forward planning, manpower, market potential, research and development, exports and imports, and diversification'.
      No. 271, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'any relevant trade union' and insert:
      'such organisations including relevant trade unions as appear to it to represent substantial proportions of the persons or of any class of persons in the employment of the Corporation or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries'.
      No. 315, in page 8, line 3, at end insert:
      '(4) Each Corporation shall be required to vest the control of one or more of its subsidiaries in the employees of that subsidiary as an application of the principle of workers' control'.
      No. 226, in page 8, line 16, leave out:
      greatest efficiency in the management'
      and insert:
      'largest degree of decentralisation of management and the most effective measures to promote industrial democracy consistent with the most effecient organisation'.
      No. 256, in Clause 6, page 8, line 21, leave out 'any relevant trade union' and insert 'its employees'.
      No. 257, in page 8, line 22, leave out 'any such trade union' and insert 'its employees'.
      No. 272, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
      '(1A) It shall further be the duty of each Corporation to seek consultations with other organisations not being relevant trade unions, as appear to it to represent substantial proportions of the persons or of any class of persons in the employment of the Corporation or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries in
      750
      respect of the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the purposes specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) in subsection (2) below'.
      No. 277, in page 8, line 29, at end insert:
      who are members of the trade union engaged in such negotiations'.
      No. 273, in page 8, line 43, at end insert—
      '(4) Nothing in this section or in section 5 above shall be construed as prohibiting either Corporation or any wholly owned subsidiary of either Corporation from seeking consultation by such means and in such manner as it thinks fit with any individual employee or groups of such employees on any of the matters in respect of which it is by this section and by section 5 above required to seek consultation with relevant trade unions'.
      No. 211, in Clause 7, page 9, line 1, after 'Corporation', insert:
      'after consulting any relevant trade union,'.
      No. 212, in page 9, line 8, at end insert:
      '(bb) employment of persons;'.
      No. 319, in Clause 54, page 71, line 23, leave out from 'union' to end of line 32 and insert:
      'affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions'.
      We may also discuss Government Amendments Nos. 7, 317, 318, 319, 320 and 321, 16, 322, 17, 323, 18, 36 and 37.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Varley: It will be convenient if I confine my remarks to the Government amendments. If the House gives me leave to speak again, I can refer to the other amendments that are taken in the group, to which other hon. Members will speak.
      The other amendments are most sensibly considered if we look first at those amendments that seek to prescribe specific ways of developing industrial democracy and decentralisation, and then turn to those amendments that affect the organisations that will take part in consultations on industrial democracy, organisation and machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment under Clauses 2, 5 and 6.
      This group of very important amendments that we are putting forward fulfils two major Government commitments made in Committee, relating to industrial democracy and decentralisation. They are grouped because, for reasons of drafting convenience, the very important

      751
      requirement on decentralisation comes within the same amendment as one of the several industrial democracy points. There are, nevertheless, two distinct and highly significant initiatives being taken by the Government in this group of amendments.
      To deal first with industrial democracy, these amendments are designed to strengthen the industrial democracy provisions in the Bill. We have made clear that this is a subject to which we attach the highest importance, and we have brought forward these changes after wide-ranging consultations. They are intended to create a favourable environment in which industrial democracy may grow and flourish. But it must develop organically to reflect the views and wishes of those who work in each industry, and for this reason we want to avoid any requirement for it to take a particular form. The possible forms of industrial democracy are many and varied, but for our amendments to choose between them and attempt to impose a particular structure would be contrary to the very idea of industrial democracy, because we should be imposing our ideas on those in the industry.
      We have strengthened the formula in the original Bill by imposing a duty on both corporations to promote industrial democracy in a strong and organic form. As my hon. Friend explained in Committee, this could give rise to legal problems if the courts were required to adjudicate on industrial democracy. Amendment No. 6, therefore, provides that no duty of either corporation shall be enforceable by proceedings before a court of law. The provision applies to the whole clause, because we wished to follow the precedent of the Iron and Steel Act 1949 as revived by the Iron and Steel Act 1967.
      But our amendments are a great deal more than the expression of our hopes. Although we are not imposing a structure, we are introducing procedures to see that progress is made within a reasonable period and that some kind of action is taken. We are therefore requiring each corporation to consult relevant trade unions within three months about the methods of promoting industrial democracy, which is the purpose of Amendment
      752
      No. 6. Each corporation also has a duty to take into account industrial democracy in designing its organisation. That will ensure that action is taken, and we shall be able to see just what progress is being made, because Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 require the corporations to report on this annually.
      Two other amendments in this group should also help to promote industrial democracy by involving relevant trade unions more closely in the industry. Amendments Nos. 211 and 212 provide that unions are to be consulted before each corporation formulates its corporate plan which must include the subject of most concern to the unions—employment. We have also strengthened the wording in Clause 6, which requires the corporations to consult relevant trade unions about the machinery for settling terms and conditions of employment.
      Although our Amendment No. 15 on decentralisation is, for drafting reasons, inseparable from those on industrial democracy, both reflect our concern to improve the quality of decisions taken by the industries. An important way of doing that is to see that those in the industry are involved in its development, and our amendments on industrial democracy should help to achieve this.
      Mr. Ronald Bell: Before the right hon. Member leaves that point will he tell the House what is meant by "organic growth of industrial democracy"? That is a strange phrase. It must mean something.
      Mr. Varley: I agree that it is a difficult concept to understand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to it. Neither he nor I had the pleasure of attending the 58 sittings of the Committee. In that term we are trying to avoid setting down a precise formula for industrial democracy. It is better that discussions take place within the two corporations, so that industrial democracy grows from the bottom. It expresses the will of those on both sides of the industry. It would be wrong for the Government to try to impose their view. That is all that we are expressing in that amendment.
      But we also believe that decisions should be taken as close as possible to the point of production, so far as that is consistent with the other objectives of

      753
      public ownership. For that reason we are introducing a requirement on the corporations that in formulating their organisational structure they should promote the largest degree of decentralisation consistent with the proper discharge of their functions.
      We emphasised in Committee the importance that we attach to decentralisation, and we consider that this amendment will ensure that decentralisation is given due weight. Both organising committees have clearly stated their intention to decentralise to the greatest possible extent, and to have only small head office organisations, with as little bureaucracy as possible. That is in line with the views of all of us, on both sides of the House; in line with the views of the workers in the two industries; and in line with the interests of the efficient and enterprising management of the industries.
      The special circumstances of the shipbuilding industry, with its particular structure and importance in the regional context, has led the Government to table additional amendments covering British Shipbuilders. Our substantive proposal is in Amendment No. 320. It provides for British Shipbuilders to seek the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, of decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship repairing areas of Great Britain and in particular, of Scotland and Wales and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations and responsibility for financial performance.
      In tabling this amendment the Government recognise the special needs of the industries that will come into public ownership under British Shipbuilders, the vital importance of these industries to the regions in which they are concentrated and the aspirations of Scotland and Wales and the regions in England for decentralisation of decision-making to as great an extent as possible.
      The organising committee for British Shipbuilders has publicly confirmed that it will decentralise as much as possible. The Committee has made an excellent start to its task of preparing for vesting and has visited all the yards and works
      754
      in the industry—with one exception—to meet people at all levels to hear their views.
      Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think me frivolous, but in view of the importance of exports in various sections of the shipbuilding industry, should not such organisations be allowed to retain their own name alongside that of British Shipbuilders? For example, should not Vosper Thornycroft be allowed to retain its name and to include it in British Shipbuilders, because its name is so well known throughout the world?
      Mr. Varley: I do not regard that suggestion as frivolous. It is a worthy suggestion, and I know that it is under consideration by the Organising Committee of British Shipbuilders. I am advised that events are almost certain to happen in the way in which my hon. Friend suggests.
      I was saying that the Organising Committee has made an excellent start. It already has views on the extent to which it will seek to decentralise to separate profit centres, although it is not yet in a position to put forward firm proposals on the structure of the organisation.
      Mr. Robert Adley: Following the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), should not these companies be allowed not only to retain their names but to retain their total independence of decision-making?
      Mr. Varley: That does not follow, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. The Government have reviewed with the organising committee, in fulfilment of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in the House of Commons on 29th June, their own amendment on decentralisation and the amendments tabled by the Scottish National Party. I know that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will be speaking to those amendments, and perhaps I can reserve my comments on that until we have heard his remarks.
      The new amendment which has now been agreed with the Organising Committee makes it quite clear that British Shipbuilders will seek to decentralise real

      755
      powers of management and decision taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship repairing areas. The management of these profit centres will have responsibility for their financial performance and will have the necessary authority to fulfil that responsbility. But British Shipbuilders will of course have overall responsibility.
      There must be flexibility in the provisions of the Bill to allow for differences between industries—shipbuilding, ship repair and engine building—and to permit British Shipbuilders to establish an initial organisational structure to meet these differences and to adapt its structure from time to time to meet changing circumstances in the shipbuilding and ship repairing areas of Great Britain and in particular of Scotland and Wales. There may be companies, either separate or grouped together or in divisions. The first report will have to be will be for British Shipbuilders to consider which of these best meets the particular circumstances.
      8.30 p.m.
      In reporting to me its conclusions on organisation, British Shipbuilders will also be required to report on the actions it will take to implement these conclusions. The first report will have to be made within six months after vesting. The reports will be laid before Parliament.
      I see these amendments paving the way for the revitalisation of the industry. British Shipbuilders will meet the need for a coherent overall strategy in terms of providing essential planning, funds for investment, taking the lead on introducing industrial democracy, co-ordinating research and marketing, introducing new designs and so on. It is the policy of the organising committee that within this framework the individual profit centres will have real powers and responsibility for the efficiency, success and profit of their operations. This is the best way to insure against possible adverse effects of over-centralisation on regional economies. Any rigid form of regional organisation structure which might interpose an unnecessary intermediary body between the small central corporation and the most efficient form of local profit centre is more likely to do harm than good to the region concerned.
      756
      These are important amendments, and we believe that we have gone a great deal of the way to meet some of the suggestions that were made in Committee and to implement Government assurances. We believe that this is the right way to proceed, and we hope that the House will support the amendments.
      Mr. Tom King: I still do not understand the wording of the amendments. It is a pity that the Secretary of State could not give a satisfactory reply to the question asked of him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell.) A committee is now determining exactly what the phrase "industrial democracy" means, and I hope that its members will seek to avoid the Government's prejudiced terms of reference. There is no definition of "industrial democracy" set out in previous Bills. The phrase is still undefined and we do not know what it means.
      We certainly have no idea of the meaning of the word "organic" in this context. However, whatever it means, it is so vague that it must be a good thing The Government are obviously proceeding on the basis that the phrase means all things to all men—in other words, everybody can read what he likes into it. Since it concerns democracy, it must be a good thing. But at the end of all this we still do not understand what is meant by these amendments.
      The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry said that we had discussed this matter in Committee. He went on to say that the Government had sought to put these duties into legislation. I am not quite sure whether we achieve much by adding them in this legislative form. I know that the Government have gone as far as they can by the wording of the Act—
      Mr. A. P. Costain: What happens if this so-called democracy is not achieved?
      Mr. King: My hon. Friend, in his usual percipient way, has anticipated a point that I was about to make, not only on this aspect but in relation to decentralisation as well.
      A study of the Bill will show that there are duties and responsibilities, but they are all very carefully qualified, because the Secretary of State has some intelligent

      757
      advisers who have warned him that if unquantifiable and quite undefinable matters are put in, there must be qualifications which allow even for the non-performance of what cannot be quantified. Therefore, we have total protection in this form.
      But there is one respect in which we take exception to the proposals which have been put forward. I am sorry to introduce this rather sharp note into the otherwise totally cynical atmosphere which suffuses the House at the moment concerning the real merit of the Government's amendments. In their approach to this problem the Government have once again made it a duty of the corporation to consult, but have limited this entirely to relevant trade unions.
      It is a well-known fact that a considerable number of people working in these industries do not belong to trade unions. Therefore, once again there are first-class and second-class citizens. Any member of a relevant trade union is regarded as a first-class citizen, entitled to consultation, but anyone who is not a member of a trade union is not consulted, and his views are not taken into account. This is a fundamental point. We believe that all employees should be entitled to consultation. We believe that the interests of all employees should be considered. Therefore, we have what we believe is an amendment of fundamental importance, namely, to change "the relevant trade unions" into "its employees". This would ensure that there are not large numbers of employees of both corporations who are not consulted at all. In this situation we feel it is only proper that the amendment should be made.
      Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my hon. Friend agree that to use the term "industrial democracy" and to deny it to a large group of those who are working in industry is simply to make an absolute nonsense of the word "democracy"?
      Mr. King: The terms of reference for the Bullock Committee fell into the same trap. It was also meant to be considering the problems of industrial democracy. This is entirely relevant to the terms of reference proposed by the TUC It is quite an unjustifiable attitude for the Government to take.
      758
      Even at this late stage, I hope that the Government will fully recognise the interests of all employees. I hope that there will not be very substantial groups of people, equally important to the per-formation of the corporations, who are denied the right of consultation. I look forward to hearing the Secretary of State recognising that point, even at this late hour.
      Looking at the second strange collection of words, one wonders whether they mean anything at all or whether this is something devised in order to get the Bill through the Report stage in the House of Commons. Some rather awkward and tiresome points have been brought up by one or two Labour Members, but surely these words are a little remote from the reality of political power.
      We now have the great decentralisation amendments—these much-heralded parts of the great package deal by which votes can be not bought but encouraged. Perhaps I might be a little provocative at this moment. Votes can be encouraged at a particular time in order to get the Government over a particular hurdle. We know that there has been meeting after meeting held by the Minister of State in trying to present an agreed case and to persuade people that their interests and the interests of their area can be met. Now we see in legislative form what these amendments add up to.
      I do not know how many hon. Members have read the amendments. What do they mean? They say that the Corporation shall take into account the desirability of promoting the largest degree of decentralisation of management consistent with the proper discharge of its functions. That is the qualification. The corporation may say that it can discharge its functions only in a centralised way. In saying that, it will have fulfilled its duty under that qualification. Amendment No. 320 is the main flag-bearer of the decentralisation proposal. We are told that The corporation shall, forthwith after vesting date,
      "undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries".
      The Bill speaks about how they may be efficiently organised and says that there shall be the largest degree of decentralisation consistent with the proper discharge

      759
      of the corporation's functions. It must make a report to the Secretary of State on its conclusions. When those conclusions are returned it may say that the proper way for it to discharge its functions is to operate in a more centralised way than hon. Members may have discussed in Committee. However, it will still have carried out the requirements of the Bill.
      Let us look at what is likely to happen. I should like to take the Secretary of State through the items involved that may affect the running of the corporation. We shall see how well decentralisation will stand up to that scrutiny. First, let us consider the people employed in the yards. The Minister suggested that there would be different rates in different yards. Does he suggest that employees in different yards would accept lower wage rates if their firms were members of the British Shipbuilders Corporation and if they knew that higher wages were paid in other yards?
      If there are different merit scales or bonuses it is inevitable that there will be understandable pressures from shop stewards and union representatives on the lower-paid yards. If the firms are members of the British Shipbuilders Corporation they will ask why workers do not receive the same rates of pay. As a result, centralised wage negotiations will take place. There will be a central fixing of terms of employment.
      What will happen about procurement? What will happen about the purchases of materials when the Corporation asks for statistics and evidence of prices paid for bought-in components? What will happen when it discovers that one yard is paying more for its components than other yards? Will that not inevitably lead to central purchasing? There will be a central purchasing department.
      What about training? Will training be operated individually yard by yard, large and small? Alternatively, will someone say that it might be more sensible if there were a British shipbuilding training centre in which to conduct training courses for all employees? That matter will also be centralised. None of those steps will be taken vindictively or improperly. All that will follow from the
      760
      discharge of the duties of the members of the British Shipbuilding Corporation and the British Aerospace Corporation. All that will happen within the legal requirements of the amendments moved by the Secretary of State.
      What will happen about matters such as health and safety, which are the responsibility of corporation companies? Will not someone say that there should be centralised employment, personnel, and health and safety officers? People may say that the Corporation has responsibilities under the Act and that it must ensure that they are fulfilled in all the yards.
      There is one more item. What will happen on the marketing side? Are we to have individual sales directors for individual yards flying round the world to different customers spending large amounts on travel? Anyone involved in industry knows how expensive overseas travel is with the increases in air fares.
      8.45 p.m.
      The corporation will say "Look at the selling costs. It is ludicrous to have somebody from Vospers, somebody from Yarrows, and somebody from Swan Hunter"—if those companies keep their names—"going to see the same customers. This is a waste of time and money. We should have one chap going round." The next thing will be a centralised marketing organisation.
      When some of the Secretary of State's hon. Friends rush to him and say "That is not what you said on Report. We thought we should have decentralisation.", he will then turn to British Shipbuilders for an explanation. The corporation will then turn to him and say, "Our selling costs last year were £100,000. We find that if we can get a measure of co-ordination, we can save £50,000 on our selling costs."
      The Secretary of State will then be obliged to agree, and his officials will be obliged to advise him that British Shipbuilders is acting correctly within the proper discharge of its functions in having a centralised marketing operation.
      When we look at the reality of running a business, we realise that these amendments, which talk about decentralisation and attempt to be all things to all men, just will not work. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would call me to

      761
      order if I were to offer a bet across the Floor of the House. However, having covered four specific areas, if they are not all centralised under the corporation within three years after the Bill becomes law, I shall gladly pay my share of any bet. It is inevitable that centralisation will take place.
      We deplore the whole concept of nationalisation. If the industries are to be nationalised, we should prefer decentralisation, but we do not believe that that will happen. Centralisation will inevitably flow from nationalisation.
      Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman has made the important statement that the Conservative Party is now in favour of the decentralisation of public corporations. If so, will he tell me whether this is a recent view? It will be within the recollection of the House that in 1972 the then Conservative Government brought in the Gas Bill to establish the British Gas Corporation which abolished all the statutory regional organisations, including the statutory regions for Wales and Scotland. I remember it well. The hon. Gentleman has probably made instant policy, because he has told us that the Conservative Party has abandoned the policy that it was following in 1972.
      Mr. King: I should not presume to quote the Prime Minister's words of yesterday, but I suggest that the Secretary of State is a little too young to live in the past. The right hon. Gentleman is not comparing like with like in any respect. We are dealing with independent, free-standing commercial operations.
      Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has touched on an extremely important aspect concerning decentralisation. The House will not expect me to deal with the four points he has made but I will take two. First, concerning training on Tyneside, when the yards were individually owned, before the Geddes Report, there was no such thing as training in the yards. People got no training at all. But when Swan Hunter took over they set about introducing a first-class excellent training school at which apprentices in the Swan Hunter group on Tyneside were trained. They were not brought from Teeside which had its own training centre. Secondly, on wage rates in the Swan Hunter group, the hon.
      762
      Gentleman will appreciate that there were different wage rates within that group but there was no outrageous pressure from the trade unions to operate at the highest wages within the organisation.
      Mr. King: I stand by what I said on wage rates and I shall be very interested to see what happens. The hon. Gentleman has his view and I have mine. My forecast is that throughout the corporation within a short period of time the level of the best will have been reached by everybody. We should like to have seen the independence of the yards preserved. We consider that if decentralisation can be achieved in this field it is desirable but we consider that the Government's amendments are pious in content and likely to prove singularly ineffective. We bitterly deplore the continuing preferential treatment particularly for the relevant trade unions. This is a matter which we shall particularly seek to press later in a Division.
      Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the amendments that he has put down. I particularly express my appreciation and that of many of my colleagues for the Minister's response to the points that we made on industrial democracy and decentralisation, which were major matters raised from the Government side in Committee. We certainly appreciate the steps that have been taken. On industrial democracy, I believe that one of the reasons why this country is lagging behind other industrial competitors is that we have a Front Bench spokesman who can say that he does not know what industrial democracy means.
      Mr. Tom King: That is right.
      Mr. Willey: In West Germany, for instance, no responsible politician would say that he did not know what industrial democracy meant, or that he did not know its importance to industrial competitiveness. We have a Committee sitting on this matter now. This reflects on this country. There is no commission in West Germany to determine what industrial democracy is. All our competitors are well ahead of us on matters like industrial democracy and participation. Industrial competition is very strong, and it is about time that we recognised it. It is recognised by the importance of the

      763
      amendments now before us, in that they provide procedures for progress.
      We have to be very much alive to the importance of industrial democracy to British industry. Here we have an opportunity, at any rate, to get going now, without waiting for the report of the Bullock Committee.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: I much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but, as a responsible politician about to cast his vote, will he say what he thinks industrial democracy means in the context of this Bill?
      Mr. Willey: I have a very clear concept of what it means in the context of the Bill, but I have not the time to tell hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]—because this is not something that can be disposed of in generalities. It will be understood and appreciated at the point of managerial decision. I say no more than that it is because we regard this as a great joke, as something to be resisted at all costs, that we have not achieved the productivity that other countries have. Therefore, if we are to take over responsibility—still speaking only of shipbuilding and ship repair—for industries facing very intense competition, we had better get the same industrial participation and democracy as our competitors have.
      Unlike the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) I have always argued for decentralisation. This is not peculiar to nationalised industries. There are other corporations of this size. I complained earlier about the infantile discussion that we often have of issues like this. We must consider the problem and the best solution. We have a lot of experience in shipbuilding. Geddes has been mentioned. In Sunderland, a few years ago, we had eight yards. We now have two. We did not follow Geddes. This raises real difficulties in terms of decentralisation. We must face this problem and do the best we can.
      The question whether famous names should be preserved with decentralisation is not an easy problem. Famous names have gone from Sunderland—not through the actions of public enterprise but by private enterprise. JLs was a famous shipbuilders. It is difficult to know how important this problem is. We have two of the most famous yards in the country
      764
      —Austin & Pickersgill and Sunderland Shipbuilders.
      Because I argued for them in Committee, I welcome the words that are now being put into the Bill—the reference to
      "…decentralisation of management and decison-taking to separate profit centres."
      I am being parochial, but I have argued that performance must be related to the position in Austin & Pickersgill and that if Sunderland Shipbuilders remain separate, it must relate to that company too. Perhaps it should also relate to Swan Hunter.
      If one is to take a realistic view of an industry that is being taken into public ownership, this is the best way of doing it. One then faces problems. One knows what the risks are. The profit centres must be decentralised and management made as autonomous as possible. Industrial democracy goes very much with decentralisation.
      Neither of these matters is easy to work out. We cannot do so here. That is why I declined to give a definition of industrial democracy and would equally decline to define decentralisation.
      With the support of the Committee, I got another new principle introduced in the Bill—that we should lay down guidelines on nationalisation; that British Shipbuilders, and the Secretary of State in giving directions, should have regard to regional policy and unemployment. We should say to British Shipbuilders "We shall monitor what you achieve. You must have discussions and agree with the trade unions a pattern of industrial democracy. You must also work out a decentralised structure. Forget about the Tories and the Gas Bill: we are taking an entirely different approach."
      Particularly with shipbuilding and ship repairing, this is a vital approach. Initiative and resources at the effective local level of management are absolutely essential if these industries are to compete.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I appeal to hon. Members for brevity of speeches. Many hon. Members still wish to speak and I want to try to accommodate as many as possible.
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Adley: This is one of the main and most important stages of the Report

      765
      stage of this Bill. No one would deny that industrial democracy and decentralisation are separate subjects. Therefore it is not easy to make one short and concise speech on both of them. What bothers many of us on these Benches is that this Bill will be an Act of Parliament soon and there really should be a legal definition of industrial democracy before that happens.
      In my constituency I have been trying, in discussions with trade unionists, to find out their views on industrial democracy. Recently I discussed this with five shop stewards. I was forcing the conversation on to the subject of industrial democracy when one of them asked me whether I minded if we talked about something else. They said they would prefer to discuss immigration!
      In the discussion we had on industrial democracy one thing became clear—industrial demoracy means something very different to many British trade unionists from what it means to trade unionists in West Germany and the United States. Many British trade unionists want the power without the responsibility. They want to take part in decisions but they are unwilling to accept any responsibility for the aftermath of the decisions to which they have been a party. This is a dangerous situation, and one which this Bill will promote.
      I would hope that if and when industrial democracy really reaches this country it will bring about a change of attitude on the part of both unions and management. Unions particularly should recognise the vital importance of profits in industry. It is important to work towards making a company profitable so that everyone can share the fruits of those profits. [Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to interrupt me I shall gladly give way.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must just ignore it. That is all.
      Mr. Adley: That is very sound advice, particularly when it is related to the contents of the comments coming from across the Floor of the House. I shall ignore them.
      Many of us would like to see the elimination of the phrase "both sides of industry", yet that is most unlikely to be achieved by these amendments. Some of these amendments were born in a
      766
      frantic few hours, or even less, of discussion between the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State and the leaders of the Scottish National Party, which culminated in the speech made so uncharacteristically and read so carefully by the Lord President on 29th June. He told the House, in effect, that he had hacked a deal to keep the Scottish National. Party out of the Lobby; but his words at 9 p.m. that night seemed to have evaporated by 9 o'clock the next morning, if we are to believe what the Scottish National Party has been saying in the past few days. That will surprise nobody. The Lord President's words that night were worked out very carefully, with the connivance of the Secretary of State, and they were intended to mean that the Government would transfer jobs from profitable yards in England to unprofitable yards in Scotland. I think it is extremely unfair to impose this situation on successful yards such as Vosper-Thorneycroft Ltd. in Southampton and Portsmouth which are efficient and effective and have done nothing whatsoever—save being lumbered with a Labour Government—to deserve the unenviable treatment they will receive if the spirit of the agreement between the Lord President, the Secretary of State and the Scottish National Party is carried through.
      I suspect that the amendments will lead inevitably to a power struggle between different shipyards in the fight for orders, that commercial considerations will go out of the window and that ultimately the yards which can rustle up the most industrial muscle, probably with the greatest degree of militancy, will get the orders. That is a wholly unsatisfactory way in which to contemplate the future of the British shipbuilding industry.
      The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) intervened briefly earlier today and yesterday as well. Just now he was asking for the retention of the name Vosper Thornycroft. From what he said yesterday it is clear that in his heart he knows that the Bill will have a severely damaging effect on the jobs of his constituents. He said yesterday:
      "One thing which I fear from the setting up of the British Shipbuilding Corporation is that the Bill may allow Ministers to try to put pressure on the corporation to do things which are not commercially correct. It

      767
      is right that ships should be built where they can be built most efficiently and not where there is high unemployment, or because some particular area fits in with someone's regional policy. If the shipbuilding industry is to survive, it must be efficient, and it can be efficent only if it is not interfered with from the outside."—[Official Report, 27th July 1976; Vol. 916, c. 336.]
      When the hon. Member talks about the interference of Ministers he means not just the inevitable interference surrounding the transfer of jobs, but the interference of Labour Ministers over orders from Brazil, Chile and South Africa which would mean jobs for British shipyard workers. The Vosper Thornycroft customers will be the first to suffer from this political interference which the hon. Member rightly deplored yesterday.
      The boilermaker barons of the Tyne, the Clyde and the Wear will deprive the efficient, profitable and vital yards of Hampshire of their work and the shipyard workers of their jobs with inevitable damage to the local economy. I have no doubt that in due course the electors of Southampton will know what to do at the next General Election.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) suggested that it might be improper to seek to challenge the views of hon. Members by suggesting a bet, but I would not mind betting 1p for every job plus or minus—the results to go to charity—that one year from the day when the Bill gets a Third Reading there will be fewer, and not more, people actively employed in building ships in Southampton and Portsmouth.
      Industrial democracy, like race relations, cannot be imposed by Government legislation. It must grow from seeds planted by those who believe in it. One can impose industrial democracy in a totally Communist oriented society where the organisation concerned can be shielded from international competition. Alternatively, industrial democracy can grow in a free enterprise unit with profit-sharing the obvious motive which can be understood both by management and unions. But these amendments will not achieve any of the Government's intentions, and like the Bill, they are wholly irrelevant to the problems of the shipbuilding industry.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I ask again for brevity. There are still many hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate. Mr. Lambie.
      Mr. David Lambie: As a Member who took part in most of the 58 sittings in Committee, I submitted amendments on industrial democracy and devolution of power. I also supported major amendments on those issues put forward by some of my hon. Friends. I am glad that the Government have tabled amendments on Report that take into account the points of view of my right hon. and hon. Friends in Committee.
      On the first of the 58 Committee sittings it was my opinion that we should introduce statutory controls over British Aerospace and British Shipbuilders. During the debates in Committee I took the view that there should be statutory controls on industrial democracy and devolution of power, but during consultations with trade union colleagues at shop steward level, and with management of shipyards and aircraft factories, I changed my mind. I now realise that the solution offered by the Government and introduced in the amendments is the correct one.
      Industrial democracy must come from the bottom. If it comes from the top, a situation arises similar to the industrial democracy concept within the British Steel Corporation. The idea of the industrial democracy that Sir Monty Finniston applied within the British Steel Corporation is not the type of industrial democracy that we shall get within British Aerospace and British Shipbuilding. That is why I support the Government tonight, and why I am glad now that I withdrew my amendments in Committee.
      We have heard much about a deal that was made by the Lord President and Scottish National Members, but those of us from Scotland know that there was no deal. We know that we put the fear of death into Members of the Scottish National Party. We know that the meeting that took place on the Monday in the famous hotel in Edinburgh with members of the trade union movement, including shop stewards and the STUC, put the fear of death into the Scottish National Members.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that at the meeting of shop stewards in an hotel at Edinburgh that he has described, there was much more interest in gaining our support to save their jobs in a political sense than in our votes on the nationalisation measures?
      Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman knows that he is only trying to cover up a major retreat. The shop stewards and the members of the STUC were not asking for an emergency meeting on the morning of the vote except for the purpose of getting Scottish National Members to support the Government or to abstain. Luckily for the Government and the shipbuilding and aircraft workers in Scotland, the Scottish National Members did abstain.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Tell us about Hunterston.
      Mr. Lambie: The hon. Gentleman spoke enough about the drinking laws last night. Perhaps he is still feeling the after-effects. I remind him that we are now discussing serious matters. After all that he had to say last night, let him keep quiet now.
      I was pointing out that the decision of the Scottish National Party was a narrow one. If reports are correct its Members took the decision to abstain by six votes to five. In spite of that decision, five Scottish National Members voted on the first Division. There were two Divisions, and on the first one the minority five voted along with the Tories, because, in effect, they are also Tories. They are Tories in disguise, here to sabotage the Socialist policies of a Labour Government. They will vote against the Government tomorrow night, because they know that we shall not be defeated. They hope to be able to say that they have achieved industrial democracy and a decentralisation of power for workers in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries in Scotland
      9.15 p.m.
      We should remind Scottish workers that if the crucial vote in the SNP had gone the other way, the Bill would have been lost and, we should have had a General Election, with the Tories returned to power to carry out policies that would
      770
      have hammered the working class in Scotland and England.
      Throughout our debates in Committee I spoke up for the firm of Scottish Aviation, in my constituency.
      Mr. George Younger: The firm is in my constituency.
      Mr. Lambie: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) is correct. The firm is in his constituency, but most of the workers are in my constituency. During the last two or three months the hon. Member's presence has been sadly lacking in the negotiations with the workers and management of Scottish Aviation. I hope that tomorrow night, the hon. Member for Ayr—who is one of the decent Tories, certainly compared to the Tories in the SNP—will vote in the interests not of the Tory Party but of the workers in Scottish Aviation.
      The Secretary of State spelled out the future of Scottish Aviation last month when he said:
      "Lord Beswick, the Chairman of the Organising Committee, has had considerable discussion with the work force at all levels in Scottish Aviation. They expressed the strong view that they would like to maintain the separate identity of Scottish Aviation. Lord Beswick informs me that it is the Organising Committee's intention to maintain the separate identity of Scottish Aviation, with a high degree of local autonomy as a separate profit centre within British Aerospace."—[Official Report, 29th June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 237.]
      That statement was in reply to one of my amendments suggesting that Scottish Aviation should be given a separate identity within British Aerospace.
      I was challenged and attacked in Committee by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) for selling Scottish workers down the river. The SNP had tabled an amendment to set up a Scottish Aerospace Board, independent of British Aerospace. We know that Scottish Aviation represents under 5 per cent. of the British aerospace industry. It would have been nonsense to set up a Scottish Aerospace Board representing 5 per cent. of the aerospace industry and to put the other 95 per cent. of it under a board covering England and Wales. The Secretary of State recognised that. We now have the solution that I have been wanting. I put clearly on record that it is the solution that has been demanded by the work force and the management in Scottish Aviation.

      771
      The idea of SNP Members, of setting up a separate Scottish Aerospace Board, has been rejected by the Government. I am glad about that. Although SNP Members will try to make that out to be a victory, because they now accept it, the House will notice that they have no amendments dealing with Scottish Aviation. We have convinced them of the justice of the case that I have put forward and the case that is now accepted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      Speaking on behalf of the aircraft workers in Scotland, I am happy with the present situation. I am happy with the Government's policy on industrial democracy and on the devolution of power. I am glad that the present Labour Government will win the vote tomorrow night. I hope that SNP Members vote against us, because we shall then see them along with their friends in the Tory Party—the party that they should never have left.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: There speaks a frightened man. It is not for nothing that he is known as "Lost deposit Lambie" in Central Ayrshire. After a speech of such considerable buffoonery as he has just produced, it is not surprising that other hon. Members will realise that that is so. When it comes to him putting his Socialist principles to the test on Monday, will he be voting for or against the Government's cuts in public expenditure? Just as he has backtracked on decentralisation and independence, we shall see how he votes then.
      Mr. Lambie: It is a simple question that is easily answered. Since becoming a Member of Parliament in 1970, I have always voted against Governments, Tory or Labour, on the issue of public expenditure cuts. I have been consistent—as I am sometimes told by the Whips.
      Mr. Wilson: We shall see what the hon. Gentleman does on Monday in relation to that. If it is a question of the Government's life and his continued existence in this Parliament being at stake, I am sure where his vote will go.
      I should like to deal with the amendment on industrial democracy. Unlike some hon. Members, I accept that industrial democracy is essential for the improvement of labour relations. I
      772
      accept that workers in an industry have a right to take part in decision making. I do not think it necessary to go very much further than that at this stage because, as hon. Members will know, I argued on these matters very strongly in Committee.
      However, what do Labour Members find has been altered when they look at the Government's amendment? Instead of getting a vague promise of industrial democracy, we are now to be given a vague promise of an industrial democracy in a strong and organic form. That is an amendment that I once described as a manure amendment. As it has been growing from the bottom, I have not changed my view.
      Our amendment, which I hope will be voted upon later tonight if the Government find it impossible to accept it, tries to give some advice to British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace when they decide these questions. The amendment is not intended to lay down fixed and arbitrary rules which they must follow, but it defines industrial democracy in terms with which I hope all hon. Members would agree—that is, that adequate powers of decision making are shared by the corporations and their subsidiaries and representatives of the relevant work forces.
      That definition is one to which the Government themselves might find it difficut to object. It does not lay down a fixed and stratified form of industrial democracy which must be adopted by the shipbuilding corporation or the aerospace corporation. It allows for growth and flexibility by laying down the principle that industrial democracy must include decision sharing democracy must include must have the right to take part in decision making. It is within that context that industrial democracy must develop.
      Mr. Eddie Loyden: Would the hon. Gentleman like to develop his argument and say in which areas the decision making will take place, because so often when people refer to "industrial democracy" they mean the right of workers to choose whether they will use a red-handled screwdriver or a black-handled screwdriver? Is he saying that industrial democracy should be extended to cover such questions as the policy and direction of a company as well as the question of markets and the

      773
      extent of the distribution and profits of the company?
      Mr. Wilson: I went into this question in great detail in Committee and I put down an amendment which sought to define the different areas of responsibility for the workers in the corporations or the boards structure who might be involved. I also introduced amendments relating to profit sharing. The criticism from the Government was that they were too rigid and that they wanted to build up industrial domocracy in organic form, that is, growing from something within each individual subsidiary and each corporation.
      I had a meeting to discuss this with the Minister of State and the then Under-Secretary of State. They put to me forcibly that they must allow for flexibility. I accepted that argument. What I am therefore trying to do is, first, to strengthen the Government amendment in relation to industrial democracy by extending it to decision making. Secondly, I share an amendment with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) which seeks to bring in a time limit in order that there can be a report back from the corporations in relation to these matters. I hope that the Government will take into account the views of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North and myself and my hon. Friends. If the Government cannot accept this very reasonable amendment I hope that at least it can be put to the test in a vote later.
      Mr. Esmond Bulmer: Has the hon. Gentleman spoken to any of the representatives of the work force concerned and can he say whether they wish to be involved in the initial policy making when so many of the decisions will be very painful?
      Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says that the decisions will be painful. Certainly we in the Scottish National Party have given our support to the work forces. We want to make these decisions less painful and to keep the Scottish shipbuilding yards and Scottish aviation in full production.
      I have discussed these matters with members of the work force of my own shipyard, I went down and canvassed them at a workers' meeting in relation to the various proposals that I had in
      774
      mind and I discussed these matters with them. The trade unions want to ensure that their own position is not sabotaged in relation to industrial democracy. Members of the work force share that interest too.
      The second question relates to decentralisation and Scottish control and to the debates which took place a month ago in respect of referrel to the Select Committee. On record in HANSARD is a pledge by the Lord President that the Government would look at amendments which are tabled by Members of the Scottish National Party, as well as their own amendments, in relation to decentralisation. The right hon. Gentleman specifically referred to
      "a recognised Scottish entity within the industry,"—[Official Report, 29th June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 325.]
      9.30 p.m.
      Our reaction to the amendments which have been tabled by the Government has been one of disappointment. The amendments represent a reasonable answer to decentralisation. The SNP had lodged amendments to deal with decentralisation but the Government, rather like Don Quixote, were tilting at windmills, and they tilted at the wrong windmill. They arrived at decentralisation, but all they could do in the context of a Scottish entity in shipbuilding terms was to use this vague phrase which occurs in the amendment—
      "with special reference to Scotland and Wales".
      It is hardly surprising that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North tabled an amendment to cut out the reference to Scotland and Wales, although he was very say this evening in dealing with it.
      Mr. Adley: What on earth convinced the hon. Gentleman that the Lord President of the Council would do what he said he would do?
      Mr. Wilson: We were prepared to enter into negotiations with the Government on an honourable basis in relation to jobs. I know that many hon. Members would rather take their standpoint from party ideology than discuss jobs, but the question of jobs in Scotland is paramount to the SNP.
      It was said that our vote saved the Government, but it did not. Had we

      775
      voted with the members of Plaid Cymru a month ago, there would have been a tied vote, and in accordance with the traditions of the House, the Government would have won because a member of the Conservative Party was absent, as happened on the first vote in May. Whenever there is a crucial vote a member of the Conservative Party is absent, to avoid any question of the Government's being defeated and the calling of an early General Election for which the Conservative Party is not ready.
      The amendments before us today have been presented as much because of the representations which I and my hon. Friends have made as for any other reason. I join the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in his analysis of the amendments. They are to be welcomed in so far as they tend to decentralise certain important areas of action to given units. The important areas are substantial, as they have to be, because the natural process with all organisations is for power to flow towards the centre, particularly when the purse strings are held at the centre. If there is one special weakness in the decentralisation content of the amendments, it is that the approval of the investment plans is in the hands of British Shipbuilders. In terms of the amendments, overall control is still to be left with British Shipbuilders.
      The only way out of the mess is for the Government to set up a Scottish shipbuilding corporation, no doubt coordinating and liaising with British Shipbuilders, whereby the decentralisation procedures go to the individual yards. If an intermediate body is interposed, British Shipbuilders at the top has control of the purse strings and there is no control at the yards.
      The Government are in an illogical mess. I have told the Government that this vague promise to Scotland and Wales will not do. The only hope for the Scottish shipyards is Scottish control—or at any rate decentralisation—and, above all, funds from Scottish oil resources to keep jobs going during the critical period ahead of the industry.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: Amongst the batch of amendments are five which have been tabled by some of my hon.
      776
      Friends and myself. They are Amendment No. 305, Amendment (c) to Government Amendment No. 15, and Amendments Nos. 211, 212 and 329. Before speaking to those amendments I should welcome your advice, Mr. Speaker. We want to vote on Amendment No. 329 and I hope that by mentioning that now I have made the position clear and that we shall have that opportunity.
      Mr. Speaker: I have to advise the hon. Member that after 11 o'clock I shall put only Government Amendments. Much depends on the order of amendments and the way in which the debate goes.
      Mr. Thomas: I welcome the Government's amendment on industrial democracy and the consequential amendments which follow from it and which place a duty on the corporations to develop a strong and organic growth of industrial democracy. I welcome that because it is precisely along the lines of the amendment that we moved in Committee.
      I have been involved with workers in Bristol aircraft factories and I have discussed industrial democracy with them. The lack of understanding of hon. Members opposite flows more than anything else from their remoteness from the workers and trade unions in the industries. The trade unions and the TUC have produced documents, reports and ideas of what industrial democracy is all about.
      It is impossible for the Government or any outside agency to try to impose any kind of blueprint for industrial democracy. But it is right for the Government to create the environment in which it can develop. I can assure the Minister that the trade unions will not be reticent in coming forward with proposals for the type of industrial democracy that they want to see. But I am worried whether we can push managements to accept the ideas that will emerge from the trade union side.
      If I were asked quickly to define industrial democracy I would say that it is a real sense of involvement by work people in the decisions which affect their working lives. That is not a difficult task. If the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) talked to shop

      777
      stewards in the industry he would find that industrial democracy does not operate at present.
      The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. He has only to read the well-known court inquiries into the Ford dispute, when management turned to the trade union members who complained of lack of consultation and said that they did not understand the complaint because they always told workers what they were going to do. That is the extent of industrial democracy in industry today. Hon. Members opposite jealously guard such decisions as their prerogative. They say that workers should have nothing to do with management decisions on matters such as capital investment and pricing policy. They say that such decisions are the prerogative of the management.
      We want to change that situation. At present management is prepared to invite shop stewards to talk about the canteen tea or the state of the toilets, but very little more.
      I ask the Government seriously to consider accepting Amendment (c) to Government Amendment No. 15 That deals with forward planning, manpower, marketing, research and development, exports and imports and all the rest of it. We must have in mind the massive increase in the number of finished and semi-finished manufactured goods. Industry, especially the aerospace industry, must have the right to diversify and to take advantage of technological spin-off. That is a crucial consideration.
      I turn to Amendment No. 329, which seeks to ensure that a "relevant trade union" should be a trade union affiliated to the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Whenever the Government—Tory or Labour—want any dirty work carried out, whenever they want to police workers and to bring in a prices and incomes policy, they call on the TUC and the recognised trade unions. They do not call on the sweetheart organisations represented by the Tories. Whenever they want to sort out the imbalances in the capitalist system, they call not on those sweetheart organisations but on the trade unions. Again, whenever they want people to serve on hospital boards and organisations of that kind, they go to the trades councils that
      778
      consist of trade unions affiliated to the TUC rather than to the sweetheart organisations.
      In the aerospace industry there has been a pernicious growth of these sweetheart associations which try to pretend that they are trade unions in some form or other but which have the full backing of employers. I must tell the Minister that if any of those sweetheart organisations are recognised in these industries, we shall be in for a period of industrial conflict that we shall all regret.
      The only way to deal with the situation is to provide that a "relevant trade union" shall be a body that is affiliated to the confederation. The procedures governing collective bargaining, disputes and many other areas of trade union activity have been built up between the shipbuilding and aerospace industries and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.
      Mr. Stan Thorne: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my area the representatives of 12,000 to 15,000 aircraft workers have already signified to me in writing that if there is any attempt on the part of the new Aerospace Board to call them together to meet the sweetheart associations, they will flatly refuse to do so? They recognise the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions as the appropriate body to conduct negotiations with the Aerospace Board.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Thomas: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is certainly the same kind of feeling in the Bristol aircraft factories.
      The Conservative Front Bench spokesman could talk only about first-class and second-class citizens. But when the Government want dirty work done, when they want to control workers, they turn to the trade unions—the so-called first-class and second-class citizens.
      Time and time again Conservative Members have insisted in debates in this Chamber that there are far too many trade unions, but when it suits them they support the sweet head associations, under the domination of the employers, whose main function is to undermine real and collective bargaining, which we all on both sides of the House ought to be supporting.
      Mr. Edward Gardner: The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was bold enough to try to define industrial democracy. He said that it must come from the workers. That seems to me to mean that if the workers, by a majority, want something, they must have it. But it must also mean that if, by a majority, they do not want it, it should be avoided.
      I think it would be agreed by most people outside the House and by most right hon. and hon. Members in the House, that the majority of people in this country have never voted for and never would vote for more nationalisation. In talking of industrial democracy, when we narrow it down, to what most British workers want, I feel that The Times of 13th January 1975 summed it up when it pointed out that most British workers are against nationalisation. It was referring to the result of an Opinion Research Centre survey of attitudes in industry, which indicated that 67 per cent. of workers in British industry were against any attempt to nationalise the industries for which they worked.
      In my constituency I have two divisions of the British Aircraft Corporation. I cannot accept, and I have not accepted, that these workers are so blind to their own interests and to the interests of the country that they are welcoming nationalisation in the way described by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne).
      Last Saturday morning I had the privilege of meeting representatives of the trade unions, including shop stewards, from the British Aircraft Corporation. One of them was a supporter of the hon. Member for Preston, South—a strong Labour supporter who believed in nationalisation—
      Mr. Hoyle: What was his name?
      Mr. Gardner: He said that the majority of the people who work for the British Aircraft Corporation do not want nationalisation of their industry.
      Mr. Thorne Mr. Thorne rose—
      Mr. Gardner: I shall not give way. I want to go on and tell the House that the treasurer of a local branch of ASTMS has authorised me to give his name. He
      780
      is Mr. Andrew Ridley, the treasurer of No. 834 Branch of ASTMS. He told me that his members were so outraged by what the Government are doing in nationalising the aircraft industry that they were now talking about strike action.
      I am reporting this matter accurately. I received the impression that nationalisation was regarded by those people as an indication of failure—a stigma that they resented. They felt that the Bill showed that the Government's better acquaintance with the realities of economics had done nothing to correct their prejudices, although it appeared to have enlarged their knowledge.
      The Bill, which is supported by prejudiced people, has nothing to do with industrial democracy. The majority of the workers of the British Aircraft Corporation see only the dark prospect of unemployment coming from the provisions of the Bill. Until now the British Aircraft Corporation has been one of the most successful and prosperous aircraft industries in the world, envied by Europe and admired by America.
      If the Bill is supposed to be a model of industrial democracy, I assure the House that the majority of the workers at BAC want nothing to do with it.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: I should like to commend the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), on which we shall shortly be voting, and which he moved in a robust manner. He gave no ground before the churlish attacks by Government supporters occupying sedentary positions.
      The Liberal amendment is in much the same spirit as the amendment of the Scottish National Party. It makes it clear that if there is to be any talk about industrial democracy it must be on the basis of one employee, one vote. We are not talking about "trade union-ocracy" or "confederationocracy". We are talking about democracy for the employee.
      There was some debate in Standing Committee in January on an extraordinary form of words. I refer to the expression "strong and organic". This evening an answer was given to a question that has troubled me for years. I often wondered why thoughtful Socialist

      781
      long ago developed a contempt for the Tribune Group. In centres such as the Tyneside Socialist Centre the Tribune Group has for long been a dirty expression. The Government have chosen to insert this extraordinary form of words into this appeasement legislation but which the Bill says cannot be enforced in the courts. Therefore, this is not legislation. It is just a pious declaration. The form of words
      "industrial democracy in a strong and organic form"
      sidesteps all the crucial issues of industrial power in the world today. It is a contemptible con trick to try to suggest to a few innocent people that the Left wing of the Labour Party in this House is putting up a tremendous stand on matters of great principle. The words "strong and organic" which the Government have so cravenly adopted—but which they have castrated by including in the Bill a statement that they cannot be enforced in the courts—are typical of the preacher who marks his sermon "Argument weak here; shout like hell". I apologise if that reference should give offence to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that those words are never found on your sermon notes.
      The Left wing does not know what it means when it talks about industrial democracy. It argues, under a fine form of words, in favour of trade union monopoly rule. It qualifies that argument with this extraordinary, meaningless expression, "strong and organic". The Government have abdicated their responsibilities. They say, We do not know what the phrase means. Heaven forbid that we should tell the two corporations what to do. They must allow it to grow." That is the ultimate abdication. I repeat that to suggest that we should put in a statute that, having passed these words, if we do, we should declare that they shall certainly not be capable of enforcement by the courts, is an essay in the ludicrous.
      Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt realise that it also means that nobody could go to the court and get it to decide what "industrial democracy" means as the Government clearly and confessedly do not know what it means.
      Mr. Wainwright: Of course. This concept, to have any meaning, must be based on the principle that it is about one-
      782
      employee one-vote, regardless whether he or she belongs to an organisation or what that organisation is. On that basis, it seems that the court will be able to enforce a provision that each centre of these two corporations should have its own powerful workplace council democratically elected by the workers. At the top, for controlling purposes, assuming that there might be 12 members on the board of each corporation, five of the 12 should be elected by the workers, again on the basis of one-employee one-vote.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: Why not seven?
      Mr. Wainwright: Because the taxpayers' money, although out of appallingly small incomes, will have purchased the assets which are being administered. It would be a betrayal to say to a majority of the workers "Here are hundreds of millions of pounds. You now have majority control over what you do with that money." That would be a betrayal if, as Labour Members perversely want, we were to hand over control not to the workers but to the representatives of certain powerful trade unions. That is a form of appeasement of industrial power which I am sure Parliament would never tolerate.
      Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman talks about powerful trade unions. I should like to know where the Liberal Party stands in relation to the bogus staff associations which have grown up in the shipbuilding and aircraft industries.
      Mr. Wainwright: Our view is that they are bogus, but it is up to the workers to decide whether they want to remain in them. I think that they are foolish to remain in them. However, this must be a matter for the workers themselves. If the Members of the Tribune Group could command some respect among the work force, they might be able to convince workers that these sweetheart associations are no good. But as long as they go on seeking to put pious words into statutes which are then declared to be unenforceable by the courts, they will be the laughing stock of their Socialist friends.
      The amendment in the name of the Scottish National Party seems eminently sensible. It embodies the true spirit of democracy—one-person one-vote. My

      783
      right hon. and hon. Friends and I will fully support that amendment tonight.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Varley: I Know that the House is anxious to come to a decision on the amendments. Therefore, it may be convenient for me now, with the leave of the House, to comment on the debate.
      The Government amendments fulfil commitments made in Committee relating to industrial democracy and decentralisation. I am pleased that my hon. Friends have said that the amendments have gone a long way to fulfilling our commitments.
      I am disappointed at the attitude of the official Opposition to these amendments. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made some disparaging remarks about industrial democracy.
      Mr. Tom King: No.
      Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman pretended not to know what it meant. Those who have had some industrial experience know precisely what it means. The hon. Gentleman says that we should tell him. It really means that we have to identify those who work in industry with the decision-taking in their industries. If we are to make any progress on the basis of getting to the boundary of the possibility of improving our performance in international industrial competitiveness and on the basis of getting workers involved in decision-making at the plant, that is what industrial democracy means; not a set and rigid formula that can be laid down by statute, but giving opportunities for those who work in industry to participate in decision-taking. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that.
      An interesting proposition came from the hon. Member for Bridgwater. He said that the Conservative Party is very much in favour of the decentralisation of State corporations.
      Mr. Tom King: No.
      Mr. Varley: He may be hedging a bit now but I well remember the legislation setting up the Gas Corporation, because I was leading for the Opposition when the then Conservative Government got rid of the Gas Council and the area and statutory boards. That made sense in the context of the new gas industry, but the Conservative Government abolished the
      784
      Scottish statutory board and the Welsh statutory board. Now they have changed their policy on that, and I am very disappointed that they take that view.
      The Scottish National Party has again said that we have not met commitments we have given. I have in my hand a copy of the Glasgow Herald of Saturday last, which refers to all kinds of comments on the matter. The Secretary of the Clyde Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions is reported as saying, in relation to our amendment:
      "This is what we have been arguing for. We want a regional identity to cover control over our own manufacturing planning. The amendment seems to give us that without the establishment of a completely separate shipbuilding industry called for by the SNP".
      So the Scottish trade unions understand our amendment and welcome it. It is most significant to realise that this is the first decentralisation amendment that any Government have ever inserted into a nationalised industry Bill going through this House.
      The only other matter to which I need refer concerns the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas)—Amendment No. 329. I know that it does not come up for vote tonight because is is really related to Clause 54 of the Bill; but in my view my hon. Friend made a very good case in referring to what he called "bogus" staff associations that were coming into being within the aircraft industry. He got some support from the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) who recognised that these associations were bogus.
      We have to consider this very carefully. We thought that we had covered the situation adequately within the Employment Protection Bill. We need to consider it further to see whether difficulties have arisen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is here, and has heard what my hon. Friend had to say. I shall be consulting him tomorrow morning to see whether any help can be given in relation to Amendment No. 329 to overcome the difficulties that have been so well described.
      Mr. Tom King: Is it the Secretary of State's view that any association that is not affiliated to the TUC is bogus? What is his attitude to the Shipbuilding and

      785
      Allied Industries Management Accosiation, which I understand has a membership of 60 per cent. of the managers within the shipbuilding industry?
      Mr. Varley: I am not saying that all staff associations are bogus, but over the past few days I have heard horrifying stories of the way in which organisations have been established, within the aircraft industry in particular, which would undermine genuine trade union organisations, Again, I believe that the Conservative Party is being schizenophrenic. It knows that when it was in government it would have no truck with such organisations. When the Conservative Government of the day had to consult with the trade union movemen they did not go to bogus organisations or staff associations. They organised their representation from the TUC and affiliated organisations, and they were right to do so. When the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had his long and detailed discussions about union affairs, he did so through the TUC. That was perfectly proper.
      My right hon. Friend and I want to establish, over the next few hours, exactly how serious the situation is. If it is serious and if it will undermine what I think is an understandable arrangement among all parties, we need to do something about it.
      I hope that Scottish National Party Members will not press their amendment, because we have gone a great deal of the way to meet the anxieties that they expressed when we last debated this matter, I think in May. The amendment
      incorporates in statute a principle of decentralisation which has never been tried before.
      Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not know whether the Secretary of State was listening to what I said, but I said that the Division would be in relation to Amendment (a) to Amendment No. 5. I said that although the main amendment on decentralisation is totally inadequate, some of the concepts within it are welcome, certainly in a Scottish context. But the Division will take place in relation to industrial democracy and the strengthening of the reporting back provisions. It is on that question that we should like an answer.
      Mr. Varley: Everyone on the Opposition side seems to be trying to court the SNP. We have gone a long way to meet the genuine anxiety expressed about this matter and I think that we have done so. As for reporting back the progress of industrial democracy, we have laid a duty on British Shipbuilders to report every 12 months on progress and within six months after vesting. I hope that SNP Members will not persist with their amendment.
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment, (a), after 'democracy', insert:
      'in which adequate powers of decision-making are shared by the Corporations and their subsidiaries with members of the relevant work-forces '.—[Mr. Gordon Wilson.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 26. Noes 302.

      Division No. 295.]

      AYES

      [10.08 p.m.

      Beith, A. J.

      Kilfedder, James

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Crawford, Douglas

      MacCormick, Iain

      Thompson, George

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Mawby, Ray

      Watt, Hamish

      Eiving, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      Mudd, David

      Welsh, Andrew

      Freud, Clement

      Pardoe, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Penhaligon, David

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Mrs. Margaret Bain and

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Mr. Richard Wainwright.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Allaun, Frank

      Bates, Alf

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Anderson, Donald

      Bean, R. E.

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Archer, Peter

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Bradley, Tom

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ashley, Jack

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ashton, Joe

      Bishop, E. S.

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boardman, H.

      Buchan, Norman

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Buchanan, Richard

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Ogden, Eric

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hatton, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hayman, Mrs Helena

      Orbach, Maurice

      Campbell, Ian

      Heifer, Eric S.

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hooley, Frank

      Ovenden, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Horam, John

      Owen, Dr David

      Carmichael, Neil

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

      Padley, Walter

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Cartwright, John

      Huckfield, Les

      Park, George

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Parker, John

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Parry, Robert

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Coleman, Donald

      Hunter, Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Perry, Ernest

      Concannon, J. D.

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Prescott, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Radice, Giles

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Cronin, John

      John, Brynmor

      Reid, George

      Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Judd, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kelley, Richard

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kerr, Russell

      Rooker, J. W.

      Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Roper, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lambie, David

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamborn, Harry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamond, James

      Sandelson, Neville

      de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Selby, Harry

      Dempsey, James

      Lee, John

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dunn, James A.

      Litterick, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Sillars, James

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silverman, Julius

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Small, William

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Snape, Peter

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Spearing, Nigel

      English, Michael

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ennals, David

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Strang, Gavin

      Faulds, Andrew

      McNamara, Kevin

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Madden, Max

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Magee, Bryan

      Swain, Thomas

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Marion. Simon

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Mallalleu, J. P. W.

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Marquand, David

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Tinn, James

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Tomlinson, John

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mendelson, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Urwin, T. W.

      George, Bruce

      Millan, Bruce

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Ginsburg, David

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

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

      Golding, John

      Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Gould, Bryan

      Moonman, Eric

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wylhenshawe)

      Ward, Michael

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Watkins, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Watkinson, John

      Grocott, Bruce

      Moyle, Roland

      Weetch, Ken

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Weitzman, David

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Newens, Stanley

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Noble, Mike

      White, James (Pollok)

      Hart. Rt Hon Judith

      Oakes, Gordon

      Whitehead, Phillip

      788

      789

      Whitlock, William

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Woodall, Alec

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Proposed amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 6, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:
      '(7A) It shall be the duty of each Corporation to enter within 3 months of the relevant vesting date into consultation with the relevant trade unions as to the methods which it should adopt for the purpose of carrying out its duty under subsection (7) above'.—[Mr. Varley.]
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (c) leave out 'the relevant trade unions' and insert 'its employees'.—[Mr. Toni King.]
      Question put, That the amendment to the proposed amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 303.

      Division No. 296.]

      AYES

      [10.26 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Hordern, Peter

      Alison, Michael

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Dunlop, John

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Arnold, Tom

      Durant, Tony

      Howell, Ralph (North Norflok)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hunt, John (Bromley)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Elliott, Sir William

      Hurd, Douglas

      Banks, Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Beith, A. J.

      Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Bell, Ronald

      Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

      James, David

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

      Eyre, Reginald

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

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Jessel, Toby

      Benyon, W.

      Farr, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fell, Anthony

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Bitten, John

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Jopling, Michael

      Blaker, Peter

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Body, Richard

      Forman, Nigel

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Kellelt-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

      Botlomley, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford a St)

      Kilfedder, James

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Freud, Clement

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Fry, Peter

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Galbrailh, Hon T. Q. D.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Brittan, Leon

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kirk, Sir Peter

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Brotherton, Michael

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Knox, David

      Rryan, Sir Paul

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Lamont, Norman

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lane, David

      Buck, Antony

      Goodhew, Victor

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Budgen, Nick

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Latham, Michael (Mellon)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Gorst, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Burden, F. A.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Carlisle, Mark

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Gray, Hamish

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Channon, Paul

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Lloyd, Ian

      Churchill, W. S.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Loveridge, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Grist, Ian

      Luce, Richard

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Grylls, Michael

      MacCormick, Iain

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hall, Sir John

      McCrindle, Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      McCusker, H.

      Cockcroft, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      MacGregor, John

      Cope, John

      Hannam, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Corrie, John

      Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Costaln, A. P.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Madel, David

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Havers, Sir Michael

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Crawford, Douglas

      Hawkins, Paul

      Marten, Neil

      Critchley, Julian

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mates, Michael

      Crouch, David

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Maude, Angus

      Crowder, F. P.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald

      Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

      Hicks, Robert

      Mawby, Ray

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Holland, Philip

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Stokes, John

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mills, Peter

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tapsell, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Moate, Roger

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Tebbit, Norman

      Molyneaux, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Monro, Hector

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Thompson, George

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Morgan, Geraint

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Trotter, Neville

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Sainsbury, Tim

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Mudd, David

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Neave, Alrey

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Wakenham, John

      Nelson, Anthony

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Neubert, Michael

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Newton, Tony

      Shepherd, Colin

      Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

      Normanton, Tom

      Shersby, Michael

      Wall, Patrick

      Nott, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Walters, Dennis

      Onslow, Cranley

      Sims, Roger

      Warren, Kenneth

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Watt, Hamish

      Osborn, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Wells, John

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Pardoe, John

      Speed, Keith

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Spence, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Penhaligon, David

      Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Percival, Ian

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Sproat, Iain

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Stainton, Keith

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Price, David (Eastlelgh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Stanley, John

      Younger, Hon George

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Raison, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Mr. Carol Mather and

      Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Mr. Michael Roberts.

      Rees, Peler (Dover & Deal)

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Allaun, Frank

      Cohen, Stanley

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Anderson, Donald

      Coleman, Donald

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Archer, Peter

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Faulds, Andrew

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Ashley, Jack

      Conlan, Bernard

      Fitch. Alan (Wigan)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Flannery, Martin

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Crostand, Rt Hon Anthony

      Ford, Ben

      Bates, All

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Forrester, John

      Bean, R. E.

      Cryer, Bob

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

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

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dalyell, Tam

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      George, Bruce

      Boardman, H.

      Davis, Denzil (Llanelli)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Ginsburg, David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Golding, John

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Deakins, Eric

      Gould, Bryan

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Bradley, Tom

      de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Brown, Hugh D. (provan)

      Dempsey, James

      Grocott, Bruce

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Doig, Peter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Buchan, Norman

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Hardy, Peter

      Buchanan, Richard

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Dunn, James A.

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hatton, Frank

      Campbell, Ian

      Eadie, Alex

      Hayman, Mrs Helens

      Canavan, Dennis

      Edge, Geoff

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Cant, R. B.

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Hooley, Frank

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Horam, John

      Cartwright, John

      English, Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham,Sm H)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Ennals, David

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Huckfield, Les

      792

      793

      Hushes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Hellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Sillars, James

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mendelson, John

      Silverman, Julius

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Small, William

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

      Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

      Snape, Peter

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartlord)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Moonman, Eric

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Janner, Greville

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Stoddart, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Moyle, Roland

      Stott, Roger

      Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Strang, Gavin

      John, Brynmor

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Newens, Stanley

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Noble, Mike

      Swain, Thomas

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ogden, Eric

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Judd, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Orbach, Maurice

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Kelley, Richard

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Kerr, Russell

      Ovenden, John

      Tierney, Sydney

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Owen, Dr David

      Tinn, James

      Kinnock, Neil

      Padley, Walter

      Tomlinson, John

      Lambie, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Tomney, Frank

      Lamborn, Harry

      Park, George

      Torney, Tom

      Lamond, James

      Parker, John

      Tuck, Raphael

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Parry, Robert

      Urwin, T. W,

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Lee, John

      Peart, Rt Hon Fred

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Perry, Ernest

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lewis, Arthur (Newham, N)

      Phipps, Dr Colin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Ward, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Prescott, John

      Watkins, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Price, C (Lewisham W)

      Watkinson, John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Weetch, Ken

      Loyden, Eddie

      Radice, Giles

      Weizman, David

      Luard, Evan

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      White, James (Pollok)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Whitlock, William

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      MacKenzie, Gregor

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Rooker, J. W.

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Roper, John

      Williams, Sir Thomas

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Wilson, Rt Hon (Huyton)

      Madden, Max

      Rowlands, Ted

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Magee, Bryan

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mahon, Simon

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Woodall, Alec

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Selby, Harry

      Woof, Robert

      Marks, Kenneth

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Marquand, David

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE)

      Mr, Ted Graham and

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Meacher, Michael

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Proposed amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 7, in page 4, line 39, at end insert:
      '(7B) Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing upon either Corporation, directly or indirectly, any form of duty or liability enforceable by proceedings before any court'.
      No. 8, in page 4, line 40, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Hack field.]

    Clause 3

      ACTIVITIES AND POWERS OF THE CORPORATIONS
      Mr. Les Hucklield: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 32, after '1948)', insert:
      'and section 200 of the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendments Nos. 10, 116, 118 to 121, 130, 179, 180, 185, 187 and 195.
      Mr. Huckfield: This group of amendments, is concerned largely with technical matters with relevance to Scottish law and the law in Northern Ireland. Because of the technical nature of the matter, I ask the leave of the House to move the amendment formally.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'that section' and insert 'those sections'.—[Mr. Huck field.]
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 18, leave out subsection (8).
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may discuss Government Amendment No. 12.
      Mr. Huckfield: We had a debate about this clause this afternoon, and after careful consideration we have accepted that the provision in Clause 3(6) and (8) to allow the Secretary of State to amend the corporation's powers by statutory instrument does not materially increase the element of flexibility, and we have therefore tabled these amendments to delete the two sections. The Secretary of State retains the power under Clause 2 to amend the duties of the corporation by Statutory Instrument. Under Clause 3(1)(b) the corporations, with the consent
      796
      of the Secretary of State, have the power to undertake new activities.
      The provisions will introduce a substantial new element of flexibility into the operations of the corporations and into their relationship with the Secretary of State. This is not weakened by the amendments, and I urge hon. Members to accept them because they eliminate potential technical difficulties.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 6, line 34, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. Flack field.]

    Clause 4

      CORPORATIONS TO GIVE EFFECT TO DIRECTIONS OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Amendment made: No. 13, in page 7, line 9, leave out 'companies' and insert:
      'bodies corporate, whether or not incorporated into the United Kingdom'.—[Mr. Huck field.]
      Mr. Willey: I beg to move Amendment No. 250, in page 7, line 12, leave out subsection (3).
      I gather than it will also be convenient to take with this amendment the following amendments:
      Amendment No. 251, in page 7, line 25, leave out 'directions' and insert 'direction to either Corporation').
      Amendment No. 252, in page 7, line 26, leave out 'shall consult the Corporation to which they are to be given' and insert:

      (a) shall consider all factors relating to that Corporation that appear to him to be relevant to the proposed direction, and

      (b) shall consult the Corporation'.

      Government Amendment No. 14.
      Amendment No. 253, in page 7, line 27, at end insert:
      '(3B) Before giving any such direction to British Shipbuilders, the Secretary of State shall have full regard to the need—

      (a) to co-ordinate the operation of British Shipbuilders with those of the British shiping industry;

      (b) to take account of any shipbuilding policy for the time being adopted by any international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;

      (c) to ensure that British Shipbuilders is able to compete in world markets on equal terms with its competitors in other countries; and

      797

      (d) to take account of any special considerations relating to parts of the United Kingdom and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of those considerations, relating to employment'.

      and Government Amendment No. 35.
      These are important amendments laying down guidelines to the Secretary of State in giving directions to British Shipbuilders. This matter was fully discussed in Committee, and I am obliged to the Department for affording me the services of parliamentary draftsmen, who have improved the wording of the amendments.
      Mr. Tom King: The important point about the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and discussed in Committee concerns subsection (3B)(a). It is important to make clear that there is a marked distinction between "co-ordination" and "coercion". It is also important to have a sensible understanding of the operations of British Shipbuilders in its relationships with the British shipbuilding industry.
      We are concerned to ensure that this provision shall not be interpreted in a reverse way, so to speak, to compel the British shipbuilding industry to be coordinated with British Shipbuilders. In Committee the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North made clear that that was not his intention, but this is a sensitive area of activity. Although we should like to see the maximum use made of British shipbuilding yards, there are difficulties and disadvantages in bringing in compulsory powers.
      The other question that arises on these amendments relates to the State taking power on account of special employment considerations. Those hon. Members who represent the Southampton area, which is not a development area and does not have the same unemployment problems, would be concerned if that consideration were regarded as an overriding one in placing orders for ships. Since the provisions of (3B) could be regarded as running counter to the proposals for decentralisation, the Government should make their position clear.
      Mr. Les Huckfield: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for his comments and, indeed, for his assistance in Committee on this point.
      798
      The basic purpose of Amendments Nos. 250 to 253 is to replace subsection (2A) which was inserted into the Bill in Committee at the instance of my right hon Friend.
      Although the Government opposed my right hon. Friend's amendment at the time, we now accept the verdict of the Committee that the important considerations enumerated in my right hon. Friend's subsection should be mentioned in the Bill. There is no difference of view between us on the need to ensure that our shipbuilding industry meets the needs of our shipping industry, that full account is taken of international obligations, about the need to ensure that our shipbuilders compete on equal terms with foreign rivals, about which concern has been expressed by my hon. Friends, and about the importance of shipbuilding to the regions.
      However, the form in which the Bill left Committee would restrict the circumstances in which a general direction could be given. In practice, a direction might be appropriate on a matter not covered by the criteria set out in the existing version of Clause 4. Therefore, in addition to accepting my right hon. Friend's Amendment No. 250, the Government also commend the other amendments in the group so that there will be flexibility to give directions on other grounds—for example, on matters relating to national security.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Trotter: I wonder whether the Minister can say a little about the international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member, because the amendment says that British Shipbuilders shall take account of the policy adopted by any international organisation of which Britain is a member. Can the Minister tell us which international organisations these are, and what their policies are? If there are any such effective organisations, they have not been putting forward policies that are adequate to deal with the enormous overcapacity of this industry. I should be grateful for any help that the Minister can give about what the Government are doing on this front, because unless the problem is dealt with internationally there will be no solution to it.
      Mr. Les Huck field: The hon. Gentleman, with his usual assiduousness in these matters, has raised a relevant point. As he knows, we had several debates in Committee upstairs about the policies of other nations and, in particular, the policies that were pursued and were to be pursued in the European Community. If there is a reference to international obligations, it refers to any international obligations that may in the future accrue under the EEC and other bodies such as OECD. That was the purpose of inserting the reference in that form.
      Mr. Tebbit: I should like to raise two points with the Minister. First, under Amendment No. 253, paragraph (a) says that in future it will be necessary to have full regard to the need
      "to co-ordinate the operations of British Shipbuilders with those of the British shipping industry."
      Can the Minister tell us whether we should read any significance into the way in which that is put; that is, that it is British Shipbuilders which will have to have regard to the needs of the shipping industry?
      Do we interpret from that that the Government have set their face against any form of persuasion, arm-twisting, direction or anything else on the shipping industry to persuade it to buy British ships which it does not think are necessarily most suited to a shipping line's business? If we read the amendment carefully we see that it is British Shipbuilders which have to do the adjustment and the co-ordinating. If I read that correctly I am happy with it, but I hope the Minister will be able to say whether I am reading more into this paragraph than I should.
      Secondly, in Amendment No. 27, which we are considering with this group, there is an addition to the end of line 27 concerning the giving of directions under subsection (2). The Secretary of State is obliged to lay a copy of any direction before the House within 28 days of giving it, unless he has notified the corporation to which it is given that he is of the opinion that it is against the national interest to lay it, or if he accepts the corporation's contention that it is against the corporation's commercial interests to lay it. I am not sure that there are precedents for that. The Minister of
      800
      State is nodding. I assume that if there are precedents they would have been in the original draft.
      Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman created the precedent, because it was in response to a case that he made in Committee that we tabled this amendment.
      Mr. Tebbit: Indeed. That is why I put it as gently as I did. I wonder whether the Minister can say in this case how it will be ensured that even if the direction is not laid before the House because of the national interest the security of it will be maintained by the corporation. Will there be any safeguard against the corporation revealing that such a direction has been given to it if it is a direction which it does not like?
      In the past day or so, we have had certain explosions from the Chairman of British Rail because he is not very fond of Government policy. If a direction were given to one of the coroprations and the Minister decided that it was against the national interest that it should be laid before this House, what sanction would the Minister or the Government have against that direction being made public by the corporation itself?
      Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the Minister will amplify a little the meaning of this amendment. On reading it and reflecting upon it, my feeling is that it is an amendment which apparently is desirable to have included in legislation of this kind but which, in practice, has no meaning of any sort.
      When we come to consider what the Secretary of State would have power to deal with under this amendment in reality, we realise that he does not have any power to co-ordinate the activities of British Shipbuilders with the operations of the British shipping industry because he has no power over the British shipping industry.
      Mr. Kaufman: That may be a valid point. But why, then, did the hon. Gentleman vote for the amendment now in the Bill which this one seeks to replace? The amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in Committee was carried against the Government because the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) led his hon. Friends to support it. That requires the Secrtary of State to

      801
      have full regard to the need to co-ordinate shipbuilding and shipping policies. If the hon. Gentleman is not satisfied with those words, why did he vote for them?
      Mr. Willey Mr. Willey rose—
      Mr. Heseltine: No. I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman. Time is short. I had given way to the Minister—
      Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) to question my hon. Friend about an amendment which I tabled, as my hon. Frend explained, and which was agreed to by the Committee despite the Government's opposition to it? It is now claimed—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that it is quite in order to ask a question. The answer that he gets is quite another matter.
      Mr. Heseltine: The amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) which I supported was to bring about some co-ordination of the European aspects of policy, and I thought it important that that should be in the Minister's mind. But it is also important to look at this amendment. It appears innocuous enough, but, in reality—[Interruption.] If the songsters on the Government Benches below the Gangway want to get to their feet and render "The Red Flag", I shall be very happy to let them sing. That is all that they understand. However, the serious content of this debate is best pursued by discussing this amendment.
      In reality, the only significance that the amendment has in practice is the impact that it will have on people with ships who are considering whether to stay on or to leave the British Register. That is the only impact that we should be considering.
      In order that there should be no false doubts, it would help if the Minister could make it clear that the Government recognise how limited are the powers that they could claim to have over the shipping industry, that they have no wish to extend those powers, and that anyone joining the British Register will not be co-ordinated with the British
      802
      shipbuilding industry, but will be free to pursue the commercial interests of his company operating on the British Shipping Register without pressures being brought which he might consider to be against his commercial interests. If that assurance is not given, the only consequence will be a flight from the British Register or a reluctance to join it, and that will be harmful to the overall national interest. As that is the only practical effect of the amendment it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify it.
      Mr. Willey: I say once again that this was a matter that was very fully discussed in Standing Committee. It had the general support of the Committee.
      With regard to the point about co-ordination, the amendment does not say a word about coercing anybody.
      I suspect that the Opposition are afraid to reach the next amendment, because it is an Opposition Front Bench one and they will be exposed because they have not sufficient Members here to support them. Therefore, we are having an interesting discussion on my present amendment.
      "Co-ordination" means "to coordinate". We can deal only with British shipbuilders because the Secretary of State has powers to deal only with British shipbuilders. But coordination is mutual. One can facilitate it only if there is co-ordination between two parties. There is the explanation of the first leg of the amendment.
      Employment, is, from my point of view, a much more important issue. I have lived in and represented a shipbuilding area for a long time. We were a distressed area, a development area, and now an assisted area. I believe that any real regional policy must be centred on the basic industries of the region. I think that if we had had any full and proper development area policy over the past years it would have been centred on shipbuilding, and if we had concentrated on that we might have taken a far bigger share of the world market that existed then. Instead, we built factories for light industry and so on. The basic industry where basic capital investment was needed in my constituency was shipbuilding. That is why I am very anxious to make it quite clear

      803
      that in giving directions to British Shipbuilders this should be a factor to be taken into account. If only the investment put into new factories in my constituency had been put into the basic industry of shipbuilding we would have had a far larger share of the world market.
      I think this must satisfy the purposes of the hon. Gentleman in having an interesting discussion on this amendment. The Secretary of State indicated in one of our recent debates that he regards the clause as a very important part of the present Bill, and I think it is, too. The Bill is considerably strengthened by this provision. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wants to take up a few more seconds or whether he wants me to take them up.
      Mr. Anthony Nelson: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would care to refer to the example of Greenwell's in his constituency, where some 400 workers have been made unemployed. It is a State-controlled firm and seems to exemplify all the worst possible aspects of State ownership.
      Mr Willey: I am fighting very hard for the people who lost their jobs in Green-well's. What we do not like are people who know nothing about it, such us the hon. Gentleman, trying to make political capital. We do not want it and it does not help us. If the hon. Gentleman can do anything to help, let him help.
      It being Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [20th July and yesterday], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question agreed to.
      Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Orders [20th July and yesterday], to put forthwith the Questions on amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.
      Amendments made: No. 251, in page 7, line 25, leave out 'directions' and insert 'direction to either Corporation'.
      No. 252, in page 7, line 26, leave out
      'shall consult the Corporation to which they are to be given'
      804
      and insert—

      '(a) shall consider all factors relating to that Corporation that appear to him to be relevant to the proposed direction, and

      (b) shall consult the Corporation'

      No. 253, in page 7, line 27, at end insert—
      '(3B) Before giving any such direction to British Shipbuilders, the Secretary of State shall have full regard to the need—

      (a) to co-ordinate the operations of British Shipbuilders with those of the British shipping industry;

      (b) to take account of any shipbuilding policy for the time being adopted by any international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member;

      (c) to ensure that British Shipbuilders is able to compete in world markets on equal terms with its competitors in other countries; and

      (d) to take account of any special considerations relating to parts of the United Kingdom and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of those considerations, relating to employment'.

      No. 14, in page 7, line 27, at end add—
      '(4A) When the Secretary of State gives a direction under subsection (2) above, he shall lay a copy of it before each Housc of Parliament within 28 days of giving it, unless he has notified the Corporation to which it is given that he is of opinion that it is against the national interest to lay it or that he accepts the Corporation's contention that it is against the Corporation's commercial interests to lay it'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 5

      DUTIES OF THE CORPORATIONS TO REVIEW AND REPORT ON MANAGEMENT OF THEIR AFFAIRS
      Amendment made: No. 317, in page 7, line 28, leave out 'Each Corporation and insert 'British Aerospace'.
      No. 318, in page 7, line 28, leave out 'relevant' and insert 'aircraft industry'.
      No. 15, in page 7, line 35, leave out from 'organised' to 'and' in line 39 and insert
      ',taking account of the desirability of promoting the largest degree of decentralisation of management consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries'.
      No. 319, in page 7, line 41, at end insert
      'and the action it proposes to take in the light of those conclusions'.
      No. 320, in page 7, line 41, at end insert—
      '(1A) British Shipbuilders shall, forthwith after the shipbuilding industry vesting date and subsequently from time to time when it considers it appropriate or the Secretary of State so requires—

      (a) undertake a review of the affairs of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries for the purposes—

      (i) of determining how the management of the activities of the Corporation and those subsidiaries can most efficiently be organised, and what steps are necessary in order effectively to promote industrial democracy in its undertakings and the undertakings of its wholly owned subsidiaries; and

      (ii) without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (i) above, of seeking the largest degree, consistent with the proper discharge of its functions, of decentralisation of management and decision-taking to separate profit centres in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas of Great Britain, and in particular of Scotland and Wales, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in relation to sales, pricing, production, the formulation and implementation of investment programmes, manpower planning and management, industrial relations, and responsibility for financial performance; and

      (b) make a report to the Secretary of State upon the Corporation's conclusions arising from the review and the action it proposes to take in the light of those conclusions.'.

      No. 321, in page 7, line 43, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.
      No. 16, in page 7, line 44, after 'date', insert—
      'not more than 6 months after the relevant vesting date'.
      No. 322, in page 8, line 2, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.
      No. 17, in page 8, line 3, leave out 'seek consultation with' and insert 'consult'.
      No. 323, in page 8, line 6, after '(1)', insert 'or (1A)'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 6
      MACHINERY FOR SETTLING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 18, in page 8, line 20, leave out 'seek consultation with' and insert 'consult'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Clause 7

      FORMULATION OF THE CORPORATIONS' POLICIES AND PLANS AND CONDUCT OF THEIR OPERATIONS.
      Amendments made: No. 211, in page 9, line 1, after 'Corporation' insert
      'after consulting any relevant trade union,'—[Mr. Ron Thomas.]
      No. 19, in page 9, line 2, after 'year' insert
      'other than that which it is constituted'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
      No. 212, in page 9, line 8, at end insert
      '(bb) employment of persons;'—[Mr. Ron Thomas.]
      No. 20, in page 9, line 22, leave out from 'State' to end of line 23.
      No. 21, in page 9, line 37, leave out ` subsection (3) above' and insert 'this section'.
      No. 22, in page 9, line 40, at end insert
      'and "year" means the period of 12 months beginning on 1st January'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 10

      FINANCIAL DUTIES OF THE CORPORATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 11, line 6, leave out 'may be' and insert 'possible'.
      No. 24, in page 11, line 8, leave out 'and each' and insert—
      '3A) Each'.
      No. 25, in page 11, line 9, leave out
      'such determination of which it is given notice during that year'
      and insert
      'determination made in relation to it under subsection (I) above, other than a determination which was wholly superseded before the beginning of the accounting year to which the report relates'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 11

      BORROWING POWERS OF THE CORPORATIONS AND THEIR WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
      Amendments made: No. 26, in page 11, line 24, leave out 'to (6)' and insert 'and (5)'.
      No. 27, in page 11, line 27, leave out 'and (3)' and insert', (3) and (3A)'.
      No. 28, in page 11, line 27, leave out from 'below' to end of line 31.
      No. 29, in page 12, line 11, at end insert—
      '(3A) Each Corporation may borrow from any of its wholly owned subsidiaries, without any consent, approval or other authority.
      (3B) It shall be the duty of each Corporation to secure that none of its wholly owned subsidiaries borrows otherwise than from the Corporation or from another of its wholly owned subsidiaries except with the consent of the Secretary of State and the approval of the Treasury'.
      No. 30, in page 12, line 34, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 31, in page 13, line 3, leave out
      'in circumstances falling within subsection (6) above'
      and insert—

      '(i) by a Corporation from one of its wholly owned subsidiaries, or

      (ii) by one of a Corporation's wholly owned subsidiaries from another such subsidiary or from the Corporation;

      No. 209, in page 13, line 10, at end insert—
      '(bb) it is a loan guaranteed under section 10 of the Industry Act 1972 (construction credits for ships); or'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 15

      THE COMMENCING CAPITAL OF EACH CORPORATION
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 16, line 24, leave out from 'applies' to 'and' in line 26.
      No. 33, in page 16, line 30, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 32.—[Mr. Kaufman.]

    Clause 17
      ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
      Amendment made: No. 34, in page 18, line 11, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Kaufman.]
    Clause 18

      ANNUAL REPORT
      Amendments made:
      No. 35, in page 20, line 2, leave out from 'has' to end of line 5 and insert
      'given a notice concerning it under section 4(4A) above and has not revoked it.
      (2A) The Secretary of State may at any time revoke a notice under section 4(4A) above by notice given to the Corporation concerned.'.
      No. 36, in page 20, line 6, leave out
      'of a Corporation under subsection (1) above'.
      No. 37, in page 20, line 8, leave out from 'Corporation's' to 'section' in line 9 and insert 'duty under'.
      No. 38, in page 20, line 10, at end insert—
      '(3A) A copy of the register under section 1(8A) above maintained by the Secretary of State in respect of the Corporation shall be annexed to each such report.'.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
      Further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee and on Recommittal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

POLICE DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
11.1 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am in some difficulty in this debate because apparently there is no Minister here to reply to it. Perhaps I could therefore seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: There is an answer to that question that I need not provide since I see that the Minister has just arrived.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the subject of police disciplinary offences. I would start by expressing my admiration for the police in the difficult role they have to fulfil in our society. Their's is a role and a duty which has become more difficult and dangerous as crime figures have soared and as criminals have resorted to the use of violence, both in terms of weapons and in terms of assault upon persons. In turn this has forced the police to modify the ways in which they deal with the problems of crime in our society.
Indeed, it is remarkable that they have been able to modify their approach while at the same time maintaining the respect and the co-operation of the general public to the extent that we all still consider that the policeman, wherever we may see him, is essentially our friend. Of course, as I said, the type of criminal the police have to deal with is not only more violent but in some cases more ruthless and more unscrupulous than those of a previous generation. The question of scruple comes into play in

809
particular in the way in which those criminals when they appear before the courts are dealt with by the courts.
Many top policemen—at the moment I have in mind Sir Robert Mark in particular—feel that the proceedings of the courts are such as to give the criminal undue—unreasonable, shall we say—licence and therefore often to avoid the sentences which Sir Robert Mark feels are justly their due. It comes to a question whether the courts are tilted overmuch in favour of the villian.
It follows that if someone as distinguished as Sir Robert Mark makes those comments, he is undoubtedly reflecting the views held by policemen below him and of the constabularies of our country. From that it probably follows that policemen, if they feel that the courts are not giving them the crack of the whip that they feel their deserve, might look for opportunities of remedying the balance by the way in which they act before a person is charged, before the suspect comes within the rules of custody.
On 5th July as reported in The Guardian, Lord Justice Lawson summed up the position in these words:
"The phrase 'a man is helping police with their inquiries' is a polite euphemism for 'a man is being held illegally while the police decide whether they have enough evidence to justify a charge'."
The article, by Mr. Michael Zander, went on to say:
"The judge warned the police that they had no right to keep people simply for questioning. They must either arrest somebody or not. If a subject was not under arrest he was free to go."
Mr. Zander then summed up the judge's remarks in these words:
"If this is right, a suspect must be charged as soon as he is taken into custody—often before the police know whether there is enough evidence against him. Moreover under the Judges' Rules when charged, questioning is supposed to stop."
In fact, Mr. K. W. Lidstone, Lecturer in Law, University of Sheffield, touched on the same point in the Criminal Law Review of November 1975, when he wrote:
"The attitude of the police seems to be that one can take liberties and providing they do so in a proper case the courts will support them. We then have a creeping tide of common law which gradually erodes the liberties of the individual. If the courts were to adopt a
810
harder line it would no doubt mean that the task of the police becomes harder. Few civil libertarians would want that. However, it would make Parliament take up the responsibilities society places on it."
I want to talk about some of these responsibilities in the light of a case which affects a constituent of mine, Mr. George Montgomery, a stable lad in a training establishment in Lamboum. But before I do that, I want to quote again from Mr. Michael Zander, because on this most important point he says:
"For years the police have been breaking the rules more or less openly—sometimes holding suspects incommunicado for days before either charging them or allowing them to go".
So my first question to the Minister is who decides when breaches of the rules in terms of charging are such as to require disciplinary action.
Returning to my constituent's case—Mr. Montgomery was under suspicion as long ago as 1971 for doping horses at Haydock Park because he had overlooked some duties relating to a horse for which he was responsible and had decided to put the matter right by visiting the horse in the early hours of the morning—20th August—to see that it had the provision he should have given it earlier.
At roughly that time the Merseyside Police had the responsibility for investigating the doping of horses and they found out that Mr. Montgomery had visited the horse in the early morning. They wondered, perhaps not unnaturally, why a stable lad should visit a horse in the early hours of the morning. They came to the conclusion he was nobbling the horse. So on 31st October 1971 they went to see Mr. Montgomery.
At about lunch time they started their investigation and inquiry. They questioned him throughout the afternoon and evening and decided that there was a prima facie case against him. They charged him at Epsom police station and took him north to Liverpool. During the journey they continued with their ruthless and rigorous cross-examination. That cross-examination was to continue until 3.30 the following morning, and it ended 12 hours or more later when Mr. Montgomery was punched, struck on the cheek and hit on the mouth. Having taken that action against him and having failed totally to make him change his statements

811
of innocence, they then apologised and the following morning returned him to his father's house in Liverpool.
To quote his father, George Montgomery returned home in
"a state of shock, incoherent, with his mouth bruised and puffed up."
One may say that if Montgomery had broken down that would have been reason enough for the police to have made that assault. But he did not break down. In a subsequent civil action against the police Montgomery was awarded £2,500
"in respect of the treatment he had received in the course of the inquiry."
But Mr. Montgomery did not have to wait for the end of his action for that settlement because four days after it had started counsel for the police advised them that it was better to offer him a settlement and finish the case.
So the situation arose in which my constituent Mr. George Montgomery was charged, cross-examined ruthlessly for hours, was struck, and received damages from the police for the injuries he suffered from two police officers. Yet although one might say that these police officers deserved disciplinary action to be taken against them, no such action is to be taken. Earlier in my speech I said that according to the Judges' Rules once a person is charged the questioning ends. But in Mr. Montgomery's case it did not and he had to suffer assault.
It is conceivable that I should not have known about the case because it happened in 1971 and I have represented Newbury only since 1974. That might have been the case but for the Stable Lads Welfare Trust, and in particular Mr. Alfred Sherman who was so concerned about the case that he brought it to my attention and I took it up with the Home Office. I had considerable correspondence with the Minister of State, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
I might have let the matter lapse after one or two of his letters, but on 18th June this year I received a letter in which Lord Harris described why the police had not taken disciplinary action in the matter and why the Home Office felt unable to intervene. The letter contained the following paragraph, and it was because of this paragraph that I sought tonight's Adjournment debate. It reads
812
"Prior to the trial an undertaking was given that notwithstanding the outcome of the civil action, no disciplinary proceedings would be contemplated against any member of the Merseyside Police joined in the action."
In effect, whether Montgomery had won his case or not, the police would get off scot free, that is, the two police officers who assaulted him and any other policemen who might have been involved.
Tonight I ask the Minister whether she will tell me how it is possible for police officers to assault an innocent man and yet escape any form of disciplinary proceedings. The Minister will know that the chief constable who made the decision that no disciplinary proceedings should take place, was Mr. James Haughton, now Sir James Haughton, Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and that he has never offered any reason in public why no disciplinary action was taken against those officers.
I suggest to the Minister that, even though I have strong views about the police and the service they give, it can do nothing for public confidence if any one of us can feel that we, like Mr. Montgomery, might be subjected to cross-examination and assault, even though we are innocent. I therefore ask the Minister whether the then Chief Constable of Merseyside, Mr. James Haughton as he was, told the Home Office why he felt that no disciplinary proceedings should be taken against the officers, or whether the Home Office, having heard about the case, asked the Chief Constable for his reasons. I do not think that my concern or that of anyone else interested in the subject of police powers and civil liberties can be satisfied when an innocent man can be punched and hit by police officers without there being rather more explanation than the present Chief Constable of Merseyside—who I think was Sir James's assistant—gave in a statement which said
"there were good reasons for it".
When asked by The Sunday Times what the reasons were he refused to say.
11.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I join in the initial remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and praise the work of the police. The answer to the specific question he asked will emerge as I deal

813
with his other points. On the general subject of the handling of police disciplinary cases, the hon. Member has related his remarks largely to a case concerning police inquiries involving a stable lad, his constituent, Mr. Montgomery.
The case as a whole spans a period of time from the point at which the inquiries involved Mr. Montgomery to the time at which a civil action brought on his behalf was settled out of court. That is a period of no less than four years. That might help to put the time span in perspective. This has been a particularly long case. During that period, because of changes in police areas consequent upon local government reorganisation, police responsibility for the case passed from the Lancashire Constabulary and the Lancashire Police Authority to the Merseyside police and the police authority for that force.
There are general considerations and statutory provisions which are essential and relevant factors to be borne in mind when formulating any conclusions about the outcome of the case. I shall briefly state those considerations, which will provide the answer to the specific question asked by the hon. Member. First, the chief officer of police concerned is entirely responsible for the investigation of alleged criminal offences and for the disciplinary control of his force. Parliament has approved a discipline code for police officers and discipline regulations which lay down procedures for handling discipline offences and the punishments that may be awarded by the chief officer if he finds that there has been a disciplinary offence.
There is the power of appeal to the Home Secretary against the chief officer's decision in any disciplinary proceedings. This is the only situation in which the Home Secretary might be concerned in any individual disciplinary case. Similarly it is for the chief officer, and only for him, to decide who should be promoted in his force.
As the House is aware, the chief officer is also responsible under the Police Act 1964 for the investigation of complaints by members of the public against officers of his force. Most often, the recording and investigation of a complaint will ordinarily follow within a short time of the receipt of the complaint, though, as the House knows from the recent debates
814
on the Police Bill, there are circumstances in which this may not always be feasible or desirable.
One such circumstance is where there are related civil proceedings. If a complainant indicates that he is minded to institute civil proceedings in respect of the matter he has complained of, there are obviously difficulties in the way of the police conducting a full investigation of the complaint in accordance with the usual procedures under the Police Act and the discipline regulations, the first step in which is normally for the investigating officer to interview the complainant to obtain full and precise details of his complaint, and similarly, to interview the complainant's witnesses, if there are any.
The chief officer concerned is also liable in respect of alleged torts committed by his officers, and, in addition, Section 48 of the Police Act 1964 empowers the appropriate police authority to pay the costs incurred by an officer in such proceedings and not recovered by him in the proceedings, to such extent as it may think fit. Further, the police authority is similarly empowered to pay any damages and costs awarded against the officer in such proceedings.
In conclusion to my general remarks in respect of all these matter, the responsibility rests wholly with the chief officer and—as indicated in regard to costs in civil proceedings—with the police authority. These are not matters in which the Home Secretary has any power to intervene.
I turn now to the inquiry which gave rise to the incident which resulted ultimately in the out-of-court settlement last October of the action brought by Mr. Montgomery.
The hon. Gentleman knows full well the sequence of events of this long case. Writs were eventually received by the clerk to the Lancashire police authority on 2nd May 1972, and were later served on the two officers. The writs alleged wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and assault and battery at Epsom and in Lancashire. The officers denied the allegations of assault and the police authority, following representations by the officers' legal representatives, and in the light of all the relevant evidence available, decided that the officers should be financially supported in their defence to the

815
action, and indemnified against any damages and costs that might be awarded against them.
This is not of course in any way remarkable. It was a decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 48 of the Police Act 1964, and such indemnities in civil actions against police officers are not uncommon. The indemnity was subsequently confirmed by the Merseyside police authority after the officers' transfer to its force on local government reorganisation on 1st April 1974.
Before the hearing of the civil action, as a result of a further request by the officers' legal representatives, the Chief Constable also gave an undertaking that no disciplinary proceedings would be contemplated against any member of the force who might be joined in the action. We understand that the view was taken by the Chief Constable that, in view of the decision of the respective police authorities to indemnify the officers against costs and damages and considering the long passage of time since the incident occurred—some four years—it would be invidious to subject the officers to formal disciplinary action.
As I have said, these were the considered decisions of the responsible authorities. They were decisions which they were legitimately entitled to make and as regards in particular the undertaking relating to disciplinary proceedings, a decision which in the light of all the circumstances and the sequence and timing of events the Chief Constable considered could be validly justified.
The hon. Member has made the point that there was no formal investigation of a complaint of alleged assault on Mr Montgomery whilst in police custody. Here, however, it is relevant to remember that when any complaint of this nature first came to the notice of the police, Mr. Sirrett's solicitors said that it was not desired that Mr. Montgomery should be interviewed. Mr. Sirrett's purpose was to obtain an apology; and this was given. The investigating officer was not aware of Mr. Montgomery's whereabouts, and within a relatively short time events took a different turn in the shape of the infor-
816
mation from other solicitors instructed on Mr. Montgomery's behalf that civil proceedings were being instituted.
The situation as it appeared then therefore was that Mr. Montgomery had not pursued a complaint under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964; nor did he bring criminal proceedings against the police in respect of an alleged assault. He had evidently decided instead, as he was perfectly entitled to do, to pursue a civil remedy through the courts.
In the event, the civil action went ahead and was concluded in October 1975, when by consent the action was withdrawn on terms which included payment to the defendant by the police authorities of £2,500 and his costs. The terms of the settlement were explicit in that for their part the defendants recognised that at all times the plaintiff, Mr. Montgomery, was wholly innocent and never involved in any offence. They were at the same time also explicit in that for his part the plaintiff accepted that at the time the police inquiries were initiated the information in the hands of the police required thorough investigation both in the interests of the public and of horse racing generally. Further, it should be noted that the agreed terms of the settlement entailed no admission by the police of his allegations of assault: in essence the sum paid was in respect of inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff in the course of the said inquiry.
I accept that the Chief Constable's undertaking to the officers that there would be no disciplinary proceedings was unusual. This was said plainly in the full reply which was sent by my noble Friend the Minister of State.
It was, of course, as the hon. Member knows, a decision entirely within the discretion of the Chief Constable who alone is responsible for the disciplinary control of his force: it is final and not now open to review. However, I think it will be clear to the House from what I have said about the facts and sequence of events in this case that is was an unusual case. The Chief Constable was no doubt confronted with a situation in which he had to make a difficult decision.
As I have said, in view of the decision of the respective police authorities to indemnify the officers against damages

817
and costs, and considering the long passage of time—over four years—since the original incident, the Chief Constable took the view that it would be invidious at the end of the day to initiate disciplinary proceedings. That was his
818
decision, legitimately made after full consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

Second Reading Committee
The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Sir Donald Kaberry (in the Chair)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Fareham)

Hunt, Mr. David (Wirral)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda (Wallasey)

Lester, Mr. Jim (Beeston)

Crouch, Mr. David (Canterbury)

Lomas, Mr. Kenneth (H udders field,West)

Crowther, Mr. Stan (Rotherham)

Cunningham, Mr. George (Islington, South and Finsbury)

Moonman, Mr. Eric (Basildon)

Ovenden, Mr. John (Gravesend)

Deakins, Mr Eric (The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security)

Shepherd, Mr. Colin (Hereford)

Harper, Mr. Joseph (Pontefract and Castleford)

Thompson, Mr. George (Galloway)

Hatton, Mr. Frank (Manchester, Moss Side)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard (Reading, South)

Mr. W. A. Proctor, Committee Clerk.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [Lords]
10.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I beg to move,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
The Bill which I commend today to the Committee is a simple but significant measure aimed at improving standards in primary care. Its purpose, which is strongly backed by the academic and professional bodies—including the British Medical Association—is to tighten the entry requirements for becoming a general practitioner principal in the National Health Service by introducing a period of compulsory post-registration
820
"vocational training". The Bill marks a development not only in the National Health Service, but in the recognition of general practice as a specialty in its own right.
There is no need for me to remind the Committee that the Bill comes before us at a time of severe restraint in public expenditure. However, as the Government's recent consultative document on Priorities for Health and Social Services in England pointed out, while it is essential at any time to work out our priorities carefully, at such time of severe restraint it is all the more imperative that we should choose the right priorities. The same document stressed the rôle of primary care in helping to relieve pressure on hospital and residential services and

821
described as a "key element" in the strategy
"to maintain and where necessary increase the level of training and to improve the ways in which skilled manpower is used".
This Bill reflects both these priorities: the importance of primary care and the increased emphasis on training.
Vocational training for general practitioners has existed for some years now on a voluntary basis, and its development has been encouraged by successive Governments. Many doctors already embark on organised schemes, comprising two years in appropriate hospital posts and one year as a trainee in general practice. Others, after a period in hospital, decide that they wish to take up general practice as a career, and also take a trainee year in general practice. In 1970, there were 211 trainees in England; in 1975, about 660—a most encouraging increase. Wales and Scotland have seen a similar development. The Government, strongly backed by the medical profession and other interested bodies, believe that the time has now come to increase the momentum already generated by making vocational training for new general practitioner principals compulsory from a future date to be agreed with the profession. I shall return to the question of timing later.
I should perhaps make clear now those to whom it is proposed the new compulsory arrangements will not apply. They will not apply to general practitioners already providing the full range of general medical services when the new arrangements start. They will not apply to doctors entering general practice as locums or assistants. There will be other groups as well who for some reason should not come under these arrangements but these will include the general run of family doctors providing the normal range of services.
We shall also need to consider very carefully the position of those doctors not in general practice when the new arrangements start but whose experience may warrant particular consideration; for example, those who have previously been general practitioner principals or have had considerable hospital experience. This is something that we shall
822
be looking at closely in consultation with the medical profession.
The regulations will, of course, also need to take account of the wider European scene and the agreement on free movement of doctors. With that in mind we have already discussed our plans with our colleagues in the EEC, in the forum of the Committee of Senior Officials in Public Health. Already it is clear that our EEC partners warmly welcome the proposals in the Bill and the contribution that it will make to the development of general practice as a specialty within the Community. Some EEC countries already require a measure of vocational training before their general practitioners can work within their social insurance schemes.
I turn now to the mechanics of the legislation, and to explain these I should first remind the Committee of the current procedures by which a doctor—who must already be a fully registered medical practitioner—sots up as a general practitioner principal in the NHS. First, he must apply to a family practitioner committee, administering these arrangements on behalf of an area health authority, for inclusion in its list of doctors undertaking to provide general medical services in its area. The family practitioner committee refers the application to the Medical Practices Committee for a decision. The Medical Practices Committee may refuse the application, but only on the grounds that there is already an adequate number of medical practitioners undertaking to provide general medical services in the area or part of an area concerned. Thus, the family practitioner committees, which receive the applications and make subsequent arrangements with those doctors whose applications have been accepted, have no power to accept or refuse applications, and the powers of refusal of the Medical Practices Committee are confined by law to the grounds of adequate provision in the area.
What the Bill does is to extend the powers of the Medical Practices Committee to refuse applications so that after the appointed day it can, and indeed it must, refuse applications from doctors who have not been vocationally

823
trained and who are not entitled to exemption. The exemptions will, of course, cover doctors providing general medical services on the appointed day and subsequently moving to another family practitioner committee area.
Because the Bill extends to Scotland, I should mention here that arrangements there are similar except that they are operated by the health boards, not family practitioner committees, and that there is a separate Scottish Medical Practices Committee; the Bill makes suitable corresponding provision.
I come now to the very important question of timing. The Bill provides for the new powers of the Medical Practices Committee to operate after an appointed day—that is a day appointed in regulations—and there are a number of factors to be taken into account before a decision is made on what that date shall be. We cannot commence these new arrangements tomorrow. The full period of training will be three years, and clearly in the regulations we must give doctors at least three years' warning so that they can plan their careers to comply with these statutory requirements. The medical profession has proposed 1980 as the target date for the full three years' training requirement and this will be in our minds when consulting on the regulations.
The Committee will wish to know something of the kind of training that it is proposed to prescribe under the powers in the Bill. Let me preface my remarks by saying that in laying down details in the regulations we shall want to consult very closely with the medical profession and the educational bodies on these matters. But we expect the general pattern to follow the pattern of training at present undertaken voluntarily by many young doctors; namely, a period in hospital, normally in senior house officer posts, and a period attached to an established general practitioner who has been approved by the general practice sub-committee of the regional committee for postgraduate medical education. This pattern of voluntary training is greatly influenced by the requirements for the vocational training allowance, at present payable to principals during their early years in practice. These include three years in hospital posts—including the pre-registration house officer year—
824
and one year as a trainee in general practice. During the hospital period the doctor occupies a post in a number of specialties. He may spend either six or 12 months in each of several specialties, so as to get the broad base of experience so valuable to a general practitioner. There are some posts which provide for rotation through a number of departments for short periods. In order to qualify for the allowance, he must include at least six months in two or more specialties from a specific list which includes general medicine, chest medicine, traumatic surgery or accident or emergency work, obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatrics, psychiatry, geriatrics, otorhynolaryngology, dermatology, ophthalmology and anaesthesia. It may be that when we consult the profession it will wish to amend these criteria in the light of experience before adopting them as the basis of compulsory arrangements, but I hope that that gives the Committee the general picture.
Mr. Kenneth Lomas: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is to have consultations with the EEC, but what consultation has been taking place with junior doctors, consultants, other people inside the health service and the trade unions on this matter? Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to elucidate that. He may have had two hours' sleep. I have had only one hour. He may be better for it.
Mr. Deakins: I wonder whether I could crave my hon. Friend's indulgence. I shall come to the question of consultations in a moment. There is quite a lot that I can say about consultations, and I want to give the Committee all the relevant information about the processes through which we have gone in consulting people and organisations. Perhaps I might be permitted to return to what I was saying.
Whilst working in hospital, the potential general practitioner does the same kind of work as his colleagues who are planning a hospital career—he is in effect a hospital junior in the specialty. However, in addition he may throughout his training attend special lectures and courses arranged by the local clinical tutor in consultation with the regional postgraduate dean and the general practice sub-committee. During the year in

825
general practice, the trainee gains practical experience of the work of the primary health care team, the links with local authority services and the whole pattern of the organisation and delivery of primary health care. He will have an individual training programme designed for him by his trainer, and may participate in visits and consultations with the trainer or undertake them on his own.
At all times he will work closely with his trainer and other members of the team in order to gain a deeper understanding of the medical and social problems involved in the medical care of a patient and his or her family. He may be seconded for short periods to other practices, and recently some short experimental attachments to social services departments have been arranged. I hope those will become more widespread.
However, we do not wish to make the regulations so inflexible that all doctors must follow the same training pattern. For that reason, we have provided for an alternative route—the certificate of equivalent experience. A postgraduate medical dean and regional adviser in general practice may wish to experiment with different specialties, for example. Also, doctors coming from overseas need to have their experience individually assessed.
There is also the question of doctors who can train only part time. Clearly, the regulations will need to provide for part-time training, and the Bill requires them to be framed so as to allow the prescribed experience to be acquired without undertaking whole-time employment. As far as administrative arrangements are concerned, part-time junior hospital posts already exist, but we shall be emphasising to health authorities the importance of planning for the needs of these potential general practitioners. Similarly, part-time training in general practice also occurs and we see no problem in extending this. We shall, of course, keep the operation under review.
A doctor who has completed the prescribed training or has had equivalent experience will need a certificate to support his application to the family practitioner committee, and professional committees will be responsible for issuing these. The detailed arrangements will of course be subject to full consultation.
826
There is also the question of appeals. Clearly, it should be possible to appeal against a refusal on the part of such a committee to issue a certificate of prescribed or equivalent experience. Committees having such appeals will be professional bodies set up after full consultation with the medical profession. There will, of course, be no appeal against a refusal by the Medical Practices Committee to admit a doctor to a family practitioner committee list on the ground that he has not had the necessary experience, whether prescribed or equivalent, and is not entitled to exemption.
The Committee will appreciate that flexibility is essential to operate a system such as I have outlined and to allow also for future developments and variations. That is why we feel that the details of the training are more appropriate to regulations, where changes can be more readily made, than to the Bill itself—so the Bill before the Committee is a short one. In fact there are only five clauses, and I shall describe them briefly.
Clause 1 is the basic provision of the Bill. It contains the new powers of the Medical Practices Committee and the Scottish Medical Practices Committee to which I have already referred. Clause 2 contains the regulation-making powers, including the powers to prescribe details of the training to be required. There are also powers for medical experience judged to be equivalent to that prescribed to be accepted as meeting the requirement, to prescribe exemptions from the requirement and to make what administrative arrangements may be necessary. The remaining three clauses consist of minor amendments to other legislation arising out of the Bill, definitions of terms, authority for expenditure incurred by the proposals and the usual formal provisions for citation and extent. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, but I understand that there is a proposal to introduce a similar requirement there by means of an Order in Council.
The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) is that we have had consultation in advance of presenting the Bill, and we shall have extensive consultations following the passage of the Bill into law.
Mr. Lomas: With whom?
Mr. Deakins: I make that point for the benefit of my hon. Friend. We have had preliminary views from the General Medical Services Committee, which is the appropriate body representative of all interests in the profession, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education. I should say, for the benefit of the laymen like myself on the Committee, that the General Medical Services Committee is an autonomous committee of the British Medical Association, recognised as representing the interests of general practitioners.
Further consultations will include representatives of the health authorities who usually invite a multi-disciplinary team to advise the Department. Our further consultations will be on a number of matters, such as administrative arrangements, training arrangements and categories, with the bodies that I have mentioned, but I do not rule out consultation with other interested bodies. Those that I have mentioned are the main ones to be consulted automatically on a Bill of this nature which affects the medical profession.
Mr. Lomas: I take the Minister's point, but what about the trade unions? Are they not being consulted? Members of NUPE and NALGO are employed in the NHS and individuals are represented in various professions in the service.
Mr. Deakins: They have not been consulted, and until now it has not been our intention that they should necessarily be consulted on a Bill which concerns solely general practice. General practitioners do not employ members of NUPE and NALGO, who work mainly in the hospital service. The Bill will have no impact on the hospital service, because two-thirds or three-quarters of general practitioners already do two years in general hospitals, and this is merely to extend that slightly.
The Bill will mean that people who go to their family doctor will go to someone who if he qualifies after the Bill is passed, will have been compulsorily trained. The Bill is an important step, a result of which should be a significant and ongoing improvement in the standards of primary care in this country. I am
828
sure that the Committee and the House will welcome the measure.
10.49 a.m.
Dr. Gerard Vaughan: I thank the Minister for his clear-cut and helpful description of the Bill and for presenting it in the way that he did. I also welcome your presence, Sir Donald, as Chairman. I think that under your experienced guidance this Committee will not only be entertaining, but entertainingly brief.
In welcoming the Bill—from a party point of view it is non-controversial—I would say that the extent of the agreement already felt about it is unusual. All the medical organisations are agreed about it, and my experience is that when a large number of medical people agree about something, it will be very good or very bad indeed.
In a way this is a historic Bill, because when it becomes law gone will be the days of the Cronin era when one could go out, put up a plate and see whether any customers came along. I welcome the change. It fits in with the general wish to raise the status of general practitioners, and it will give them a much more specialist rôle in our medical services.
The Minister said that it was a simple and significant Bill. It may be significant, but I am not sure that it is so simple. One worry about it is that so much is left to regulations that we are literally presenting the Minister with a blank cheque, or blank prescription, the details of which he will fill in later. I hope that things are not being left open to regulations because the Government do not know what they intend to do. We have had one or two examples of legislation covering up uncertainty about the action that the Government intend to take. We need more certainty, and to be reassured.
The Minister says that vocational training will be for three years and that he has no intention of extending it but the recent BMA conference thought that it should be five years. I believe that three years is long enough. I should like a list of those who were consulted about the Bill because when that was discussed in the other place the noble Lord said that the consultations were so extensive that he was not able to list all those

829
involved because that would be too complicated.
We should like to know more about the exemptions. I find it sinister when the Minister says that he has three groups in mind. Which three groups? I understand that people doing maternity services only will be exempted, as will those doing family planning. We should like to know what others will be exempted.
The Minister was disarmingly vague about the implications of the Bill for the EEC. I ask him to look at the debate in the other place. The noble Lord said:
"…our lawyers advise that the medical Directives, when read with the Treaty of Rome, may be interpreted as meaning that doctors from other EEC countries cannot be subject to mandatory vocational training—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17th June, 1976; Vol. 371, c. 1396.]
The noble Lord went on to say, that BMA's legal view was that the position was not clear and that it must be clarified in the immediate future. The Minister did not make it clear today. Have we a right to make it mandatory for people from other parts of Europe. to undertake vocational training If not can we leave open the possibility of changing the Bill to include changes in EEC regulations?
We should like to know how people doctors, and I should like the Minister to confirm that it is the Government's intention that they can break off their training to have a baby and then return.
We should like to know how people will be selected. There will be grants amounting to £580 a year.
Mr. Deakins: When the hon. Member asks "How will people be selected?" I am not sure what he means, because this will apply to everyone who wishes to become a general practitioner.
Dr. Vaughan: That is exactly what I wished to ask. Will anybody who wishes to become a general practitioner automatically be able to apply for a grant and go in, or will the Medical Practice Committee select people? No one has any idea what effect this will have on recruitment. I asked my students the other day what they would do, In previous years, 50 per cent. would have wanted to go into the hospital
830
service. Now, 50 per cent. want to go into general practice, other than those who wish to emigrate. It may be that a training scheme of this kind will reduce, rather than increase recruiting. I see that £1 million is allocated, but already people are saying that that will not be enough. I should like to know exactly how much the Minister thinks the scheme will cost.
Those are the main points that I wanted to make. We welcome the Bill, and we support the principle, but I must make it clear that there are a number of detailed points about which we want to be satisfied before we give the measure our full support.
10.56 a.m.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: I should like, as a layman and a potential, but I hope not too regular, consumer of medical services, to say that I welcome this attempt to improve the standards that will be available to us in the National Health Service.
There are a number of points that I should like to mention. They are nontechnical, but I share the concern of my hon. Friend for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) that this is enabling legislation and is subject to variation by statutory instrument under the negative procedure.
I agree that there is no question of consultation with the trade unions, but, on the medical side, would it be possible for a schedule to be added indicating the make-up and constitution of the bodies that will have to be consulted before the regulations can be firmed up and setting out the means by which their views will be taken into account?
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that there will not be any increase in public service manpower. The temptation within an administrative empire like the National Health Service is to create departments and departmental responsibility for training. There are already in area health authorities with teaching hospitals departments that cover training, and I cannot help thinking that the increased training facilities will lead to increased staff. I should like to hear what the Minister says about that, and especially how it is considered possible to increase the training commitment drastically without increasing the number of employees covering the administration

831
of training. That affects the money cost, which has been put at an annual level of £1 million. As my hon. Friend said, it has been suggested that that is not enough. Paragraph 7 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that small administrative costs may arise as a result of these proposals, but the answer is to get a closer estimate of the expenditure involved.
Those are two points to which I should like the Minister to give consideration because they are important in terms of principle and expenditure at a time of severe public expenditure restraint.
11.0 a.m.
Mr. George Thompson: Last night at about 2.30 a.m. I made a little self-denying ordinance for myself. I had prepared a five-minute speech for that debate and I thought that in order to assist the House I would forbear to make that speech. Little did I know that that debate would eventually end at 9.50 a.m. this morning and that I could have made my five minute speech. I have decided not to exercise that self-denying ordinance in this Committee. I am grateful that the fact that the blinds are drawn in this Committee will mean that nobody will be able to see my 11 o'clock shadow.
I am grateful to the Minister for referring to the separate arrangements in Scotland. All the consultations that I have had in Scotland point to the fact that the Scottish medical profession welcomes the Bill because it provides for compulsory vocational training for general practitioners and can also be said to meet the needs of patients. Therefore, it will he welcome from all sides.
I wish to pay a small tribute to the voluntary training scheme which has existed for a number of years. In my locality we have benefited for many years from the fact that a local general practitioner has acted as trainer in that scheme. Therefore, we have had the benefit of the services of young medical men. Admittedly they have taken their first steps in general practice in our area, but I am sure that that has not been to thy disadvantage of patients. Indeed, they may well have benefited from the advantage of those young doctors and the freshness of their new knowledge and skill. It appears that the move towards
832
compulsory training makes excellent sense.
At this stage in Scotland we are concerned mostly about whether finance will be provided for the necessary facilities required for training. A certain number of these trainees will be required to do their training in deprived areas in West Central Scotland. It worries us that well-motivated and trained doctors go into deprived areas and can—I do not necessarily say that this happens often—become overwhelmed by the conditions which they see around them and in which they work, and thus become disillusioned. There is a tendency in those areas for general practitioners to have rather more patients than do doctors in rural areas, but to have possibly less equipment with which to deal with the situation.
There is a need for improvements in the National Health Service in those areas not only for the sake of the trainee but for the sake of the trainer. Our medical schools give the ideals and the skills, and it is up to the community—and in this case ourselves—to provide the necessary facilities for the trainee to make the best of his training. We must help to encourage some of the young men and women to take up medical practice in deprived areas and, indeed, to look upon this work as a challenge, a medical crusade. We hope that many people will undertake that work, but I believe that we should give them especially generous help in those areas.
I wish to ask the Minister whether, even in the nation's present economic straits, there will be sufficient finance to provide better equipment and facilities, such as health centres, and so on, which will be required to give those young doctors a good send off in their careers as general practitioners.
With those remarks, I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly on behalf of Scotland.
11.4 a.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), who sits in the place of honour in front of me on the Opposition Front Bench, in extending our felicitous greetings to you, Sir Donald, on chairing our Committee. It is a great privilege for hon. Members

833
to see you presiding over our deliberations. We appreciate that very much indeed.
This Bill seems to me, at first blush, to be a wholly beneficial arrangement, having behind it excellent intentions. As I understand it, it does not prolong the training period in regard to general practitioners who are subordinate partners as they are generally understood, but applies only to those who wish to embark as principals in practice. That is my interpretation of the word "principal". It is therefore desirable that people should not be able to come into general practice straight from qualification, even though that may be the moment at which they know most in medicine. They should not be able to come in straight from qualification or from abroad and set up as principals in general practice without having established themselves, to the satisfaction of the community, as having acquired enough experience. If that is the case, I am certain that this is a beneficial measure and deserves our support. I have certainly heard no word of doubt about this matter so far from any part of the Committee.
It is curious that a dozen or so years ago I was asked to attend a dinner given by the Society of Apothecaries. It was a livery dinner, but I hasten to say that there was nothing hepatic about it. I was asked to speak on a topic that alarmed the members of that society; namely, the impending negotiations for Britain's entry into the EEC. Their fear was that should we join there would be a completely uncontrolled flow of doctors in all directions within the Community. I attempted to reassure the assembled company that we were not likely to allow into this country people with inadequate training or qualification to practise here.
Will the Minister underline the fact that the relationship with the other EEC countries will mean that we shall insist on fully mutual arrangements within the EEC? Will he seek to ensure that the EEC countries adopt these undoubtedly admirable principles of ensuring that the skills exist among those who seek to practise and who, so to speak, have the power of life or death?
I have only one misgiving about the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will
834
be able to dispel it. I refer to the kind of derogatory journalism that often attaches to these measures, to the effect that these are further examples of restrictive practices within an established profession, and that that is a thoroughly bad thing. It must be left to the Government's abilities to expound the virtues of this Bill and to demonstrate that it is not a way of shutting the door to aspirants to the medical profesion, but rather a method of seeing that those who practise practise well.
I support the Bill and wish it a speedy passage.
11.9 a.m.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I wish, first, to apologise to the Committee for not having been present at the beginning. I was down the corridor in a Committee considering a statutory instrument.
I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), but it would appear that we do not in any way wish to oppose this Bill—for the simple reason that there is not very much meat in it. The Bill appears only to pave the way for the regulations that must follow giving the details of how vocational training should be carried out. Therefore, we await with interest to see the extent of the regulations that no doubt will come before us, probably later this year, and we shall look to see whether all the matters that are beginning to be raised on these issues are incorporated in them.
In seeking the wide acceptance of the idea of vocational training, I believe that these matters should not be entered into willy-nilly without canvassing the views of doctors about the extent of vocational training. We should see that information is exchanged on a wider basis than hitherto has been possible.
I was surprised to learn that a number of general practitioners have always felt it right to participate in one or two sessions in a hospital from time to time, but that they have undertaken that activity of their own free will. The difference between the voluntary vocational training that they are currently carrying out and what is now to be required through the Bill by the regulations is extreme. There is a good deal of work

835
to be done before we arrive at the regulation stage. I hope that some way will be found through the BMA and the Medical Women's Federation to assure the medical profession as to the right way of proceeding and taking into consideration those reservations that exist on the compulsory vocational training that we now require.
I wish to refer briefly to the 1972 Women Doctors Retainer Scheme and to ask the Minister whether the Government have any intention of extending that facility. I regard that scheme as a great step forward for women doctors, and the matter was referred to in Committee in another place on 28th June at column 641. The scheme provided for increased facilities to be offered to women doctors who wished to undertake part-time training posts. When the other place considered amendments to the Bill, their Lordships were most concerned that women doctors who are now required to undertake an additional three years in total vocational training should have the opportunity to undertake part-time work when perhaps the coming of a family might intervene in the total training period, which now extends up to eight or nine years.
The noble Lady, Baroness Young, tabled an amendment in the other place, which was accepted by the Government and which seeks to put at rest the minds of women doctors who go into practice but on a more part-time basis than their male colleagues. I ask the Minister to consult with the Medical Women's Federation in the coming months to ensure that the final regulations will not be subject to argument, because we cannot amend them. In other words, our homework must be wisely completed in this respect.
I wish to refer to the question of vocational training for general practitioners compared with post graduate training for some of the general practitioners who will be exempted from the three-year period—in other words, those who have been in practice for a considerable time. We are aware that apart from one or two sessions a week, many general practitioners hardly have the contact with the hospital service that we would wish them to have. I do not know whether the Minister is thinking of any way in which these exempted general practitioners can
836
be encouraged to do voluntarily at least a part of what is now being done by those general practitioners who have contracted to do a few sessions a week. That is particularly important, because there are departments of medicine which do not have enough junior staff.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me for saying this, but I have had the experience of an accident and emergency unit closing suddenly in my constituency. One wonders why it is that the general day-to-day work cannot be taken over by the kind of facility of which some GPs avail themselves already, by offering to give some sessions to a hospital for specific reasons. The older GPs can bring their experience to bear and they in turn can gain from contact with junior doctors who have been more recently trained and from contact with consultants, and thus keep going some aspects of our health service that is under the severest pressure that it has ever experienced. I hope that the Minister will turn his mind to that.
The EEC regulations must be clarified. It is my understanding that in the interval between the Bill being considered in another place and today the matter has not yet been fully clarified, but I shall be happy to be corrected if I am wrong, As long as EEC-trained doctors cannot be mandated to undergo vocational training in this country they will not be able to be principals here, however good their English standards or anything else. If we are to have free movement of labour between this country and the other EEC countries, that would create two levels of doctors, without the real reason for having two different levels. It may not be on a training basis. The vocational training in their own country may be just as good as ours. It may be that special regulations will be required if the EEC Directives will allow that. That is where the matter is totally unclear.
Dr. Vaughan: It could be the other way round. A doctor from the EEC could come here, put up a plate and set up a one-man practice, and there would be no way of stopping him.
Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is correct. He could so do. The point is that before he can put up a plate presumably the Medical Practices Committee will have something to say about his ability to.

837
practise. Not long ago it was found that a motor mechanic in Scotland had spent six months advertising himself as a doctor and treating patients before it was discovered that he had no qualifications whatsoever. If that can happen north and south of the Border, the problems that could occur across the English Channel might be even greater. This matter is obviously in urgent need of clarification from the Minister.
We feel rather strongly that the Bill is a blanket cheque, and that until the consultations about the regulations are openly held, which I hope they will be, with all the interested parties listed in another place during the debate there we shall not really see how vocational training will work out in practice.
We give the Bill a welcome because anything that improves the primary care standards in our health service and removes the pressure from our hospitals and residential homes must, as the White Paper on Priorities for Health and Social Services said, be welcome. If it is to be done, there is no point in spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. I look forward to being involved in the consultations that will come prior to the drawing up of the regulations. They are the heart of vocational training. I want to see the blood flowing freely through vocational training, and that will happen only if the preparation is thorough.
11.19 a.m.
Mr. Deakins: We have had a very interesting discussion. On behalf of the Government, I am glad that there has been a wide welcome for the provisions in the Bill and the principles involved. The hon. Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan) asked a number of questions, and I shall do my best to answer them all.
I start with our intentions for the training period. The hon. Gentleman made the point that the BMA might want to lengthen this to five years. That is news to me. I accept what he says. The current target is three years because the medical profession has been pressing us strongly to bring this into effect as soon as practicable. That means that we shall be allowing for the fact that we have to give doctors a chance to decide what their specialties are to be, and what
838
arrangements are to be made in the future. There are a number of administrative arrangements to be made, and this scheme could not possibly be brought into effect before 1980. I do not believe that the medical profession will turn round in the course of consultations and say that three years is not adequate and that it wants five years. That seems unlikely.
On the question of resources and costs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, in view of the potential resource costs, we should prefer, and the profession would prefer, if one is to judge from our consultations with it, that the training period should be for three years, and not for more. We have had consultations with three or four bodies. If the hon. Gentleman wishes I should be happy to provide him with a list of all the bodies that we consulted about the Bill. It goes rather wider than the major bodies that I have indicated.
The hon. Gentleman asked about exemptions, and this is an important matter. We have not yet agreed a list of exemptions with the medical profession, but we expect that it will include the following. First, those who have been in general practise some time in the past, although not actually practising on the appointed day. I should enter a caveat there. If someone had been in general practice in the 1920s and 1930s and had not practised for the past 20 years, the appropriate professional body would have to see whether he had the appropriate qualifications for service. Secondly, doctors in practice on the appointed day subsequent to moving to another family practitioner area. Thirdly, doctors contracting to provide maternity medical services only, and doctors contracting to provide family planning service only in the National Health Service.
There are two other groups that it will not be necessary to exempt, because the provisions of the Bill will automatically not apply to them. These are doctors already in general practice on the appointed day, and doctors entering general practice as locums or assistants. The former will not be making applications to the Medical Practices Committee after the appointed day in respect of their current practice. The latter do not contract with a family practitioner committee to provide services but are employed by general practitioners who

839
are on a family practitioner committee's list.
It may be that other groups will be exempted; for example, general practitioners who were at one time on the family practitioner committee list. As I said earlier, we may want to place some time limit which should elapse before they can re-apply automatically.
We shall also consider the position of other doctors who have been assistants or hospital doctors and who wish to move into general practice. It may be appropriate for them to be exempted, or it may be appropriate for them to apply for a certificate of equivalent experience, which has to be taken into account.
Dr. Vaughan: What will be the condition of Service doctors who leave the Armed Forces?
Mr. Deakins: Vocational training requirements apply only to the National Health Service. Many doctors in the Armed Forces already undertake vocational training in preparation for their return to civilian life. Their experience in the Armed Forces will be considered either under the certificate of prescribed experience or under the certificate of equivalent experience, whichever is the more appropriate.
I now turn to the thorny question of EEC medical practice which the hon. Members for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) mentioned. We see mandatory vocational training as a necessary consequence of the emergence of general practice as a specialty in its own right, and there is certainly strong support for this approach among our Community partners, some of whom intend to move in the direction that we are taking, and some of whom have already done so. We should like to apply this requirement to all new principals after the appointed day. For that reason we wrote to Brussels recently, to the Directorate there, explaining our plans so that there could be full and informed discussions, and the discussions that we have had so far have been highly encouraging. I cannot say, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman or the Committee, that they have yet been finalised. If problems are raised about applying this regulation to EEC doctors we shall look into it further, but we are con-
840
fident that we shall have the sympathy of our EEC partners, many of whom will be or already are in the same position.
We are not trail-blazers in this respect. If one looks at other EEC countries, one sees that most are agreed on the need to improve the postgraduate training periods for medical practitioners. Denmark already has a mandatory 18-months course, which is to be increased to three years from December of this year. The French are hoping to make a modest start by introducing a one-year course initially, aiming for a two-year course later. These arrangements, like those for Britain, apply only to the State-supervised health services. I cannot go further on the EEC point at the moment. We shall work very hard in Brussels to do our best to ensure that in terms of medical directives these arrangements do apply. I am not in a position to give an undertaking to the Committee when that will apply, but it is our intention that it should be subject to what happens in Brussels.
The hon. Gentleman asked about recruitment. Perhaps it will help if I deal with the more general problem which I am sure is in the minds of some hon. Members—it is in mine—and that is the effect on the number of general practitioners. Until the regulations are effective, any fully registered doctor can continue to enter general practice as a principal without further training after his pre-registration year. However, there has been an increasing tendency for doctors first to undertake voluntarily some form of vocational training. At the beginning of this year the number of trainees in Great Britain was about 900. About 1,300 new general practitioners are needed annually to replace deaths and retirements and to sustain the 1 per cent. growth of recent years. We do not expect the transition to the new compulsory position adversely to affect general practice or the numbers of doctors needed.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady were concerned about women doctors, and this was one of the major points with which the House of Lords were concerned. I have read through the debates with great interest. The argument used in the other place was that by lengthening the training period to perhaps five years or six years, and three

841
years extra—which means that we are talking about nine years—this would hinder the chances of women becoming general practitioner principals.
Certainly the period that we are discussing will considerably lengthen the time spent in training for general practice, but that has not discouraged those women who have already voluntarily become trainee general practitioners. About 28 per cent. of all trainee general practitioners in 1974 were women. Female principals made up only 12 per cent. of the total in the same year. There is a larger block of women coming in as we increase the intake of women into our medical schools, and I do not think that it would be right to require less training for women merely because they are women. No one argues that. We are trying to improve the standards of primary care, and we cannot do that unless we raise standards all round.
We shall meet the need to provide part-time training for doctors who are unable to work full time because of domestic commitments. That applies mainly, but not exclusively, to women—in accordance with a provision introduced by means of a Lords amendment—and we must ensure that that need is properly catered for. There is express provision in the Bill to safeguard that aspect. I give the Committee an assurance that we shall do our best in ongoing discussions on the detailed administrative arrangements to make sure that that provision is followed up.
I now turn to another of the points made by the hon. Member for Reading, South about costs. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum refers to extra costs of £1 million. It may help the Committee if I explain how that figure was arrived at. The bulk of expenditure on vocational training at the moment, under the current voluntary system, is the cost of trainees in general practice. In hospitals they do jobs and are part of the hospital service. They do not just hang around and watch other people working.
While in general practice, each trainee receives a salary from the trainer, who in turn is reimbursed by the family practitioner committee. That salary is related to that of the last hospital post that
842
he held. The trainer, who is usually a general practitioner, also receives a fee for carrying out the training, which is at present £1,300 per annum.
Voluntary vocational training has been increasing steadily. The cost in the Bill is therefore the difference between where we might have been without statutory provision—bcause of the expansion in voluntary training arrangements—and where we expect to be with it. The total cost of mandatory vocational training is likely to be about £8½ million. The £1 million mentioned in the Bill is merely the extra cost. We think by the time the Bill becomes law we will be spending up to £7½ million on the voluntary arrangements. Therefore, we are basically concerned about the extra cost.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the selection of people for general practice. The Medical Practices Committee will not select future GPs. For example, some doctors will apply to their regional postgraduate deans to go on organised training programmes. Others will apply for hospital posts in the usual way and subsequently themselves seek a general practitioner trainer to look after them in the training year.
I now turn to the points raised by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd). He asked about the make-up and constitutions of the bodies that will advise us under the terms of the regulations. He asked why they could not be embodied in a schedule. Perhaps I should say something about prescribed bodies. Those bodies will obviously be professional bodies and will include representatives of the medical profession from both the clinical and educational areas. We are expecting to make use of the existing bodies rather than to have to set up new bodies specifically for that purpose. Those that we have in mind are the Council for Postgraduate Medical Education, the regional postgraduate committees and the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice. The point that we are still considering with the profession—this is one of our difficulties—is which functions should be assigned on a regional basis and which should be on a central basis.
Let me deal with the appeals procedure, which is at the back of the hon. Gentleman's mind. The Bill gives power to

843
establish committees to hear appeals against refusals of certificates of prescribed experience or certificates of equivalent experience. These will be professional bodies set up after full consultation with the medical profession. Their composition will be determined by regulations, partly because we must still decide on the bodies that will issue these certificates, and partly to allow for change and development in the light of experience. We are embarking on something new here.
The hon. Member for Hereford also asked about public service manpower and increased training commitments under the Bill. We already have administrative arrangements for the organisation of vocational training on a voluntary basis. As many doctors—900 a year at present—are already doing this, we do not expect any increase in administrative staff to cope with the change from a voluntary to a statutory system. We hope that the existing administrative arrangements, especially in area health authorities and hospitals, will be able to cope with the problem—if, indeed, it will be a problem.
The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) asked about the deprived areas and finance for improvements in Scotland, and he welcomed the Bill. A general practitioner who seeks to become a trainer has first to satisfy the general practices sub-committee of the regional postgraduate committee that he can provide the necessary training facilities. Obviously, while we want to see an improvement in primary care, the kinds of improvements that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are not incorporated in the Bill as there are already sufficient approved trainers throughout the country to match the likely number of trainees.
Finally, let me deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey. I think that I have already dealt with some of her points about women doctors. The hon. Lady asked about women doctors under the existing training scheme and quoted a point that was raised in the debate in the House of Lords. Following a conference which the previous Secretary of State for Social Services held at Sunningdale last year, the Department is reviewing the arrangements for women doctors in consultation with the medical profession. In these days of no sex discrimination I should perhaps refer to
844
"doctors with domestic commitments". There may, of course, be some men in the same position.
Obviously, we shall want to take account of the new measure. I assure the hon. Lady that I have taken note of her points. The Medical Women's Federation is represented on the General Medical Services Committee. However, if there should be specific problems which women would rather bring forward through their own organisation, we shall not say that we shall not consult it. If it wishes to put points to us, we shall be willing to discuss them with that body.
The hon. Lady's final point dealt with the encouragement of general practitioners in general practice who are at present exempt under the terms of the Bill from a compulsory period of vocational training. She asked how we might encourage them to have closer contact with hospitals and be brought up to date. That is a wider problem. There must be thousands of general practitioners who are already in general practice. Their number will diminish over the years. However, in the next couple of decades there will be many general practitioners who are already in general practice, received vocational training. There are extensive arrangements for the ongoing education of existing general practitioners.
I now turn to service questions. The new hospital practitioner grade is intended to encourage doctors to pursue a career based both in general practice and hospitals. Progress has been made in establishing these posts, but I am afraid that it is rather slow. We shall have to do our best to improve matters.
I hope that I have dealt with all the points that were raised in the debate. I am grateful to the members of the Committee for their comments. I hope that in the further consultations we shall produce both regulations and administrative arrangements that will satisfy both hon. Members and the medical profession.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the National Health Service (Vocational Training) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
Mr. Deakins: May I, Sir Donald, on behalf of the Committee thank you for

845
the good-humoured way in which you have presided over our deliberations. It is pleasant for us to see you in charge. We are perhaps sorry that we have not given you a whole morning's work, but I am most grateful that we managed to finish in just over an hour.

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:

Kaberry, Sir Donald (Chairman)

Hatton, Mr.

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Hunt, Mr. David

Chalker, Mrs.

Lester, Mr. Jim

Crouch, Mr.

Lomas, Mr.

Crowther, Mr. Stan

Shepherd, Mr.

Cunningham, Mr. George

Thompson, Mr.

Deakins, Mr.

Vaughan, Dr.

Harper, Mr.

Dr. Vaughan: We join in that expression of appreciation of your chairmanship, Sir Donald.
The Chairman: Thank you. Nunc dimittis.
Committee rose at twenty-two minutes to Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Wheat
  Wheat
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Drug Offences
  Drug Offences
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Police (Murders)
  Police (Murders)
  Nationality Law
  Nationality Law
  Immigrants (Employment)
  Immigrants (Employment)
  Immigrants (Dependants)
  Immigrants (Dependants)
  Immigration Control
  Immigration Control
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Late Sittings
  Late Sittings
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department (Loss)
  Refreshment Department (Loss)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER STAFF (CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE)
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER STAFF (CAR MILEAGE ALLOWANCE)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (PUBLIC FINANCING)
  POLITICAL PARTIES (PUBLIC FINANCING)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions (Public Sector)
  Pensions (Public Sector)
  Government Hospitality
  Government Hospitality
  Pay Research Unit
  Pay Research Unit
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE CPRS (STUDY)
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE CPRS (STUDY)
DEFENCE
  RAF Boulmer
  RAF Boulmer
  Departmental Staff (Car Mileage Allowance)
  Departmental Staff (Car Mileage Allowance)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  Kenya
  Kenya
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Uniforms
  School Uniforms
  Walsall
  Walsall
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  O Level Examination
  O Level Examination
  Teachers (Birmingham)
  Teachers (Birmingham)
  The Arts
  The Arts
EMPLOYMENT
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Fylde
  Fylde
  Ayrshire
  Ayrshire
  Leek
  Leek
  Industrial Accidents (Stockport)
  Industrial Accidents (Stockport)
  Trade Unions and Employers' Federations
  Trade Unions and Employers' Federations
  Mileage Allowances
  Mileage Allowances
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Research
  Research
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Ashford
  Ashford
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  CROWN COURTS
  CROWN COURTS
ENERGY
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Nuclear Programme
  Nuclear Programme
  Gas Reserves
  Gas Reserves
  Conservation
  Conservation
ENVIRONMENT
  Rents
  Rents
  Hose-Pipes (Illegal Use)
  Hose-Pipes (Illegal Use)
  Fort Brockhurst, Gosport
  Fort Brockhurst, Gosport
  Olympic Games
  Olympic Games
  Departmental Staff (Efficiency Control)
  Departmental Staff (Efficiency Control)
  Canals
  Canals
  Substandard Housing
  Substandard Housing
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Houses (First-time Buyers)
  Houses (First-time Buyers)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  National Bus Corporation (Industrial Disputes)
  National Bus Corporation (Industrial Disputes)
  M55 (Blackpool)
  M55 (Blackpool)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Road Accidents (Stockport)
  Road Accidents (Stockport)
  Regional Assemblies
  Regional Assemblies
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Road Construction Programme
  Road Construction Programme
  Rate Relief (Holiday Lettings)
  Rate Relief (Holiday Lettings)
  National Mobile Homes Review Body (Report)
  National Mobile Homes Review Body (Report)
  Government Properties (London)
  Government Properties (London)
  World Wildlife Fund
  World Wildlife Fund
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Local Government Staff (Pay)
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Regional Aid Fund
  Regional Aid Fund
  Hillingdon (Caravan Sites)
  Hillingdon (Caravan Sites)
  M25 (Beaconsfield)
  M25 (Beaconsfield)
  Local Government Costs (National Insurance)
  Local Government Costs (National Insurance)
  Vehicle Testing
  Vehicle Testing
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
INDUSTRY
  Production Statistics (Goods and Services)
  Production Statistics (Goods and Services)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Employment (Manufacturing)
  Employment (Manufacturing)
  Lord Melchett
  Lord Melchett
  Small Firms Information Centres
  Small Firms Information Centres
  Small Finns Liaison Officers
  Small Finns Liaison Officers
  Small Firms Division
  Small Firms Division
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Post Office
  Post Office
  Dental Materials
  Dental Materials
TRADE
  Company Investigations (Reports)
  Company Investigations (Reports)
  European Community
  European Community
  Airports
  Airports
  Continental Shelf (Hydrography)
  Continental Shelf (Hydrography)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Developing Countries (Debts)
  Developing Countries (Debts)
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  Departmental Administration (Costs)
  Departmental Administration (Costs)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Electricity (Accidents)
  Electricity (Accidents)
SCOTLAND
  Advisory Bodies
  Advisory Bodies
  New Towns
  New Towns
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Local Government Costs (National Insurance)
  Local Government Costs (National Insurance)
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Queen's Silver Jubilee
  Queen's Silver Jubilee
  Employment (Ayrshire)
  Employment (Ayrshire)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
WALES
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Medical Staffs
  Medical Staffs
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Devolution
  Devolution
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Helsinki Agreement
  Helsinki Agreement
  New Zealand
  New Zealand
  International Economic Co-operation
  International Economic Co-operation
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Scotland (Separatism)
  Scotland (Separatism)
  East African Countries
  East African Countries
  Chile (Arms Sales)
  Chile (Arms Sales)
  USSR (Exit Visas)
  USSR (Exit Visas)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Nicosia
  Nicosia
  Ethiopia (British Subjects)
  Ethiopia (British Subjects)
  USSR
  USSR
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Central Treaty Organisation
  Namibia
  Namibia
  State Visits
  State Visits
  Ocean Island
  Ocean Island
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Southern Africa
  Southern Africa
  Nuclear Warfare
  Nuclear Warfare
  Continental Shelf
  Continental Shelf
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Mileage Allowances
  Mileage Allowances
  Passports
  Passports
  Passport Holders (East Africa)
  Passport Holders (East Africa)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Foreign Ministers (Meeting)
  Direct Elections
  Direct Elections
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Computers (Royal Ulster Constabulary)
  Computers (Royal Ulster Constabulary)
  Parades and Processions
  Parades and Processions
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Transfers)
  Prisoners (Solitary Confinement)
  Prisoners (Solitary Confinement)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Blind Persons' Tax Allowance
  Blind Persons' Tax Allowance
  Tax Reliefs
  Tax Reliefs
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Governor of the Bank of England
  Governor of the Bank of England
  Treasury Staff (Economics Training)
  Treasury Staff (Economics Training)
  Eurocurrency Loans (Public Bodies)
  Eurocurrency Loans (Public Bodies)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Finance Acts
  Finance Acts
  Income Tax (Widows)
  Income Tax (Widows)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  "Health Trends"
  "Health Trends"
  Mr. Patrick Keane
  Mr. Patrick Keane
  Supplementary Benefits (Aliens)
  Supplementary Benefits (Aliens)
  Redundant Hospitals (South-West Region)
  Redundant Hospitals (South-West Region)
  Doctor-Patient Ratios
  Doctor-Patient Ratios
  Radiographers
  Radiographers
  Dentist-Patient Ratios
  Dentist-Patient Ratios
  Hospital Costs and Services (West London)
  Hospital Costs and Services (West London)
  Hospital Beds and Patients (Ratios)
  Hospital Beds and Patients (Ratios)
  "Sound Sex Education"
  "Sound Sex Education"
  Health Centres (Building Costs)
  Health Centres (Building Costs)
  Child Allowances
  Child Allowances
  Medicinal Products (Self-Service Sales)
  Medicinal Products (Self-Service Sales)
  Nurses (Rochdale)
  Nurses (Rochdale)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Rochdale Infirmary
  Rochdale Infirmary
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne
  Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Derby):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: LEAVE OF ABSENCE
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, this may be an opportune moment, before the House proceeds to the principal business of the day, for me to acquaint your Lordships of the fact that, with the approval of the Counsellors of State, I have accepted an invitation to attend the annual conference of the American Bar Association to be held in Atlanta, Georgia, from 6th to 11th August. I have also accepted an invitation to attend the conference of the European Court to be held in Luxembourg on 27th and 28th September. I hope that your Lordships will agree to grant me leave of absence for 6th August and 27th and 28th September.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish the noble and learned Lord two bon voyages.

LAND RECLAMATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN WALES
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the high level of unemployment in Wales, the Secretary of State will direct the Welsh Development Agency to expand its land reclamation programme in concert with the current jobs Creation Programme.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Welsh Development Agency has already been authorised by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales to accelerate the substantial land reclamation programme announced last October; and on 1st April 1976 it announced a short-term supplementary
1340
programme of 28 schemes costing £2·7 million which would start this financial year. Where it has proved possible to combine land reclamation and environmental improvement schemes with projects being carried out as part of the Job Creation Programme, the Agency has co-operated fully and will continue to do so.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that helpful reply. Will he agree that there is a power under Section 7 of the Welsh Development Act for the Minister to use his powers under Section 7 of the Industry Act in fact to finance operations such as this, not merely by its own hand, as it were, but also through such agencies as the National Coal Board? Does he agree that the acreage of land falling into dereliction is at present in excess of that which is being reclaimed, and will he advise the Minister to use this means of accelerating the programme still further to create more jobs?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am aware of that power. It will be used by the Welsh Development Agency within the limits of the resources available.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, could my noble and learned friend say how much of this land will be used for food production and particularly for the provision of additional allotment gardens for the people?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the precise details of the use of the land reclaimed is not immediately at my finger tips, but I have little doubt that those two considerations so dear to the heart of my noble friend will be borne in mind.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is there not a risk that accelerating these schemes in Wales, rather than helping unemployment in Wales, will simply attract more workers from the Republic of Ireland?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that the process of land reclamation will involve more employment. I think there are competent Welshmen capable of reclaiming land.

COAL TIPS: SAFETY MEASURES
2.34 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the National Coal Board has yet reported on the security of all the tips in Wales designated in Part I of the Mines and Quarries Ate 1969, whether the report was made in a manner conforming with the recommendations of the Aberfan Tribunal and whether they can now state that all such tips are in a safe condition.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are three parts to this Question and the answer to each is, Yes.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his helpful Answer, may I congratulate him on its brevity and clarity? In considering the alterations to tips which are shown as necessary, if such there be, may I ask him whether he will bear in mind two points: one, the fact that in the past tragedy has struck as a result of heavy rainfall on the tips—and we are at the end of a long dry period which I would suspect makes tips unstable—and, two, that there is scope here for co-ordinating lesser works with schemes of reclamation and environmental improvement such as were discussed in the last Question, thereby further extending the employment offered?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the supplementary question, I can say that I have seen reports which indicate that water is taken to be the main factor. Generally, about three quarters of the reports are concerned with water, so that the people doing the work have that very much in mind. So far as the second part is concerned, we shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said, but we are always restricted by the limit on expenditure.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much of the fly dust from electricity generating stations is being used in the filling of these tips and whether this is providing a very safe
1342
subsoil for the future development of the surface ground at these particular tips?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have no information on that point. If my noble friend cares to put down a Question, I shall certainly get the information.

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
2.38 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that those foreign airlines which have agreed to the scheme of compensation for overbooking put forward by British airlines include Varig, Air France, Air-India, Scandinavia, South African Airways, Thai International, Air Malta, Alitalia, Ethiopian, KLM, Lufthansa and Air Canada; and why, therefore, British airlines are refusing to include in the scheme return flights resulting from an original booking made in the United Kingdom on British airlines.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority advise me that none of the airlines is committed under the present voluntary scheme to paying compensation in respect of flights beginning overseas. However, in the light of advice from the Airline Users' Committee, the Authority is discussing with the British airlines the possibility of the scope of the scheme being extended to flights to this country which are booked here and which start in such overseas countries as have no comparable provision for compensation under local laws.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while being grateful that some progress is being made, may I ask my noble friend, first, whether he would not agree that air travellers have little idea that the compensation scheme at present applies to only half of their tickets; and, secondly, whether it is likely that these

1343
discussions will be resolved, if resolved favourably, in time to benefit tourists this summer?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my noble friend should bear in mind that the scheme is of recent origin and, therefore, information about it will take some time to spread. However, I am sure that those concerned will bear my noble friend's point in mind and advise the public as fully as possible. As to the time which these discussions will take, I am sure that the Civil Aviation Authority and the airlines will want to resolve this as quickly as possible, having in mind the kind of considerations that my noble friend has raised here this afternoon.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as my noble friend is being so helpful, I wonder whether he would be kind enough to make inquiries as to how much information is being given to the public about the scheme?—because when this question was last raised he was good enough to say that he would look at that point.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I shall make those inquiries.

HEROIN AND TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS
2.40 p.m.
Lord KENNET: 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, where a person who unknowingly receives a dose of heroin at a hospital as treatment for a heart attack, feels better, discharges himself and subsequently has a motor accident, that person or the doctor who treated him is responsible.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, a hospital cannot prevent a patient from taking his own discharge provided he signs to the effect that he has been warned of the consequences of doing so and advised not to leave.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, could the noble Lord possibly answer my Question? In the eventuality described in the Question,
1344
who is responsible in the sight of God, man and the law for the accident which may result from such an occasion?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if a person has been advised that he ought not to leave the hospital but, nevertheless, decides to do so, the doctor then would have no responsibility for subsequent events.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is it not the fact that responsibility in the eyes of God is not for the Government; responsibility under the law is for the courts of law, and not for the Government; and responsibility of man is a matter of opinion?
Baroness SUM M ERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the person was guilty on two counts: he not only discharged himself against the advice of the hospital, but also ignored the advice of the hospital which was almost certainly given to him, to see his own doctor who would have been given the names of the drugs which the man had been prescribed by the hospital?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am most grateful, my Lords, to my noble friend.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that while heroin, like all powerful therapeutic substances, undoubtedly has its dangers, nevertheless it is still the drug of choice in a narrow range of conditions, and without it medicine would be deeply handicapped in dealing with certain cardiac and respiratory disorders? It does not do to be complacent about the dangers of drugs, but it does not help to carp excessively on some of the drawbacks and side effects.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, drugs apart, a man who discharges himself following a heart attack and takes to the wheel of a car, is a grave danger to the public and is far better without a licence?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we have to deal with the situation as to what happens when a person goes against the medical advice given to him and nevertheless decides to discharge himself.

1345
The only other comment I would want to make is this: it is unlikely that a patient, such as the one described in the Question, would not have had the effect of the drug explained to him even though perhaps the drug was not named.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that we are straying very far from the point? Would the Government consider introducing legislation to allow hospital doctors to detain patients for a few hours in cases where they have administered drugs which rob those patients of their judgment?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the detention of a patient against his will raises very serious difficulties. This is a matter which has been considered on more than one occasion. I cannot hold out any hope that the Government will be prepared to introduce such legislation.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend further agree that any patient who was foolhardy enough to discharge himself from hospital without medical approval is merely inviting whatever consequences may result?
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware, regarding Lord Kennet's supplementary question, that he is asking for the patient to be denied his rights of free will?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will now make a Statement on Uganda.

UGANDA: SEVERANCE OF DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS
2.44 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
1346
affairs has given to Questions in another place today. My Lords, the Answer is as follows:—
"I have now considered the future of our relations with Uganda.
"These relations have a long and troubled history. The events of recent weeks have again demonstrated that it is not possible for our High Commission effectively to discharge their normal duties. Two members of the High Commission have been expelled for no good or adequate reason.
"I have therefore decided that we should break diplomatic relations with Uganda. The Ugandan authorities are being so informed this afternoon in London and in Kampala.
"We have for the past two weeks been advising the British community in Uganda that they should seriously consider leaving. My best estimate is that all but some 200-plus have now left. Those who remain are mostly residents of long standing who well understand the risks which they run in staying in Uganda.
"I have asked the French Government to look after our affairs, and they have generously agreed to do so. I propose to leave a British Interests Section in the French Embassy to assist them in carrying out this task.
"The Government have done their utmost to help and advise our people in Uganda. Bearing in mind the interests of those who remain, I hope that the House will accept the need for some restraint in language.
"Mr. Speaker, I have taken this decision with deep regret. This is the first time that we have severed relations with a Commonwealth country. We have no quarrel with the people of Uganda and we look forward to the time when it may be possible to renew our traditionally close relationship."
My Lords, that is the end of the Answer.
Lord CARRTNGTON: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. In the circumstances Her Majesty's Government had no alternative but to take the course that they have taken. I agree that it is much wiser to say nothing further

1347
this afternoon, except that the whole House would like to thank, for doing their duty so well, those members of the British High Commission who have remained in Kampala over these last months in the most difficult circumstances.
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should merely like to say that I am sure the Government's decision is the right one. I should like to endorse exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I fully endorse and agree with what has been said on this matter, and I am sure everybody in the House will agree with what has been done. May I ask what kind of action can now be pursued in order to ascertain what has happened to the unfortunate Mrs. Bloch, so that at least her family may have some information about what has taken place?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if I may reply to my noble friend first, he will be aware, as the House will be aware, that we have pressed hard for satisfaction on this tragic affair and will continue to do so. May I say how much I appreciate the tone and content of the responses to this Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers. This consensus of approach to this very difficult situation can only help not only British residents still in Uganda but, hopefully, a revival of our traditionally close friendship with Uganda in the future.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while accepting the decision of the Government, may I ask whether this may not have great repercussions on the situation in the whole of East Africa? Will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to support the efforts which are now being made to being about a reconciliation between Uganda and Kenya, particularly by the Secretary of the O.A.U. and Dr. Ramgoolan, the Prime Minister of Mauritius, so that the danger of a conflict in the wider area of East Africa is lessened?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I think that one should perhaps express one's deep appreciation of the French Government, for taking over the task of ensuring the interests of British nationals within Uganda. Would the noble Lord agree that the French are probably the best qualified nation, apart from ourselves, to deal with Africans?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.51 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that this report be now agreed to. In moving this Motion I think I should draw your Lordships' attention to two matters in the Report. The first is the Committee's recommendation that male guests of Peers who wish to have seats below the Bar should continue to be required to wear jackets and ties. The Report makes it clear that the Committee endorsed a similar recommendation on the Administration Committee. Both these Committees discussed the matter for a considerable time and came to the decision which is now contained in this Report.
The second matter to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is the temporary appointment of a qualified nurse within the Palace of Westminster. The nurse is accommodated in the first aid room off the Lower Waiting Hall in the House of Commons area of the Palace. She is in attendance on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., and on Fridays between 10 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. The question of permanent nursing facilities in the Palace is one which is receiving further consideration. I cannot give your Lordships any more information at the moment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:
1. SUB-COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENT OFFICE
Lord Aberdare was added to the Sub-Committee on the Parliament Office.
2. WEARING OF TIES IN THE SEATS BELOW THE BAR
The Committee endorsed a recommendation from the Administration Sub-Committee that there should be no change in the custom whereby male guests seated below the Bar should wear jackets and ties. They consider that, since the seats below the Bar are on the Floor of the House, those seated there should observe the same standard of dress as members of the House. They noted, with approval, that national dress, and polo-necked sweaters worn under jackets are permitted and that no guest is ever excluded from the House by reason of his dress.
3. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of the appointment of Miss Patricia Margaret Smith as Legal Assistant from 3rd May 1976.
The Committee authorised the appropriate rates of pay for an additional Clerk in the Parliament Office and additional Attendant and temporary part-time Cataloguer posts in the Library.
4. DEPARTMENT OF THE GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of the resignation of Major D. M. Whyte, M.B.E., and of the appointment of Lt. Cmdr. D. E. Brock to the post of Staff Superintendent from 12th July 1976.
The Committee authorised the payment of salary of the post to Major Whyte until 31st July 1976.
5. OFFICIAL SHORTHAND WRITER
The Committee approved an increase in the fees payable to the Official Shorthand Writer.
6. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee authorised:—

(a) Increased charges under the agreement with Haynes Secretarial Services for the supply of typists for the reporting of Debates;

(b) The application to temporary reporters of revised attendance fees as set out in Guide Memorandum GM/63 dated 21st June 1976.

7. MEDICAL FACILITIES
The Committee were informed of the temporary appointment of a qualified nurse within the Palace of Westminster and authorised that a proportion of her salary should be met by the House of Lords.
8. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of the following Civil Service Code Memoranda:—

(a) CM/89 dated 12th December 1975—Subsistence allowances;

(b) CM/131 dated 25th March 1976—Supplement to pay

giving revised rates of pay and meal allowances to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
The Committee also approved, in principle, a supplement to pay for the Chairman and Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.
9. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards:—

(i) Short Service Gratuity to Major D. M. Whyte, M.B.E., Staff Superintendent, who resigns on 31st July 1976.

(ii) Pension and Lump Sum to Mr. C. E. Evans, M.B.E., Higher Executive Officer, who retires on 27th July 1976.

(iii) Ill-health retirement gratuity to Mr. P. J. Roper, Clerical Officer, who retired on 1st July 1976.

(iv) Death gratuity to Legal Personal Representative of F. W. Thurlow deceased. former Attendant, who died on 30th April 1976.

(v) Pension and Lump Sum to Mr. C. H. Graham, Attendant, who retired (ill-health) on 1st April 1976.

(vi) Pension and Lump Sum to Mrs. A. E, Brownsea, Cleaner, who retired on 6th June 1976.

(vii) Short Service Gratuity to Mrs. I. D. Bird, Cleaner, who retired on 14th March 1976.

(viii) Revised Preserved Pension and Lump Sum to Mrs. J. M. Wise, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 30th April 1975.

Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, as I raised this matter concerning the necessity for men visitors to wear ties when they sit below the Bar, may I say that I accept the view that those below the Bar who are guests of Peers, should he appropriately dressed. I reject entirely the view that a tie is now the test of being appropriately dressed. I made the suggestion that Peers should themselves have the responsibility, when inviting guests to this House, of ensuring that they are appropriately dressed and are responsible

1351
to the House for that. I regret very much that this Committee showed itself so utterly out of touch with the world and appropriate dress—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord BROCKWAY:—today to have reached that decision.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I make two observations on this report. The first is that in the Order Paper it is put down as "the Fourth Report from the Select Committee". This House has a number of Select Committees. Should the Order Paper not bear the words: "Select Committee of House of Lords Offices"?
Secondly, the area beyond the Bar is on the Floor of the House. The report goes on to say that polo-necked sweaters may be worn. Does that mean they may be worn in the House?—because such sweaters are made in a great variety of styles and they may take many different forms. Is the recommendation intended to apply to the Floor of the House itself or only to the area below the Bar?
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, in answer to the first point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I think he will find that the House of Lords Offices is referred to on the Order Paper, and this is the Report of the Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices. On the noble Earl's second point, the wearing of ties by your Lordships is a matter of convention and practice, and it is for your Lordships to decide whether or not to wear ties. But it was thought that this was one of the reasons why it is desirable that those below the Bar who were so adjacent to your Lordships should at least conform to a standard of dress which your Lordships consider it proper to wear.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the question I asked concerned polo-necked jumpers.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the limited number of hours
1352
for which the nurse is expected to attend, does this mean that Members of both Houses are not expected to, be ill after six o'clock?
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is a serious one and I can assure her that it is being considered.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships are aware, at this time during the Session I usually have to ask your Lordships to dispense with Private Business Standing Order No. 147, in order to enable certain Private Bills to pass through both Houses of Parliament before the Summer Recess. The purpose of suspending this Standing Order is to shorten the period between the Committee stage and Third Reading of a Bill by not requiring the Departments concerned to receive the amended Bill three clear days in advance. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 147 (Bill as amended in Committee to be deposited at Public Departments) be suspended until the House rises for the Summer Recess.)—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMON FISHERIES POLTCY: EEC REPORT
2.56 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET rose to move, that this House takes note of the Forty-ninth Report of this session of the European Communities Committee on the Common Fisheries Policy (S/30/76 and S/353/76; S/911/76 and R/2988/75 (inshore fishing proposals)). The noble Lord said, My Lords, I should like to start by saying what an honour it is to be allowed to introduce this Sub-Committee's report to the House and to thank the chairman of the Sub-Committee, my noble friend

1353
Lord Raglan, for allowing me to have that honour, especially as I am not even a member of the Committee which he chairs with such ability and flair.
It is also a pleasant occasion for me because, for the first time in I do not know how long, I have the unfamiliar sensation that things are going right. It is almost as though the Government, and the other Governments involved, have read the report of our Sub-Committee and paid attention to it in reaching the decisions which they did yesterday. I am fortified in the belief that this may be so by my inability last night to get a copy of the printed version of it from the Printed Paper Office. Therefore I must apologise to your Lordships for using a typed version, but I hope I shall be able to make sense, in spite of any changes there may be in paragraph numbering.
Theoretically, to present this matter to your Lordships I should say, first, what the Commission proposed, then what your Sub-Committee proposed, then what the Council of Ministers did about it yesterday, and then what might be done about it in the future. But that would take all afternoon; so I propose to cut matters short and to discuss very briefly what the Sub-Committee found wrong with the Commission's original proposals and to compare that, also very briefly, with the decisions taken by the Council of Ministers yesterday, and to look forward from there. Before beginning, I should like to emphasise once more the extraordinary speed at which these things are now going. It is rare indeed for the Council of Ministers of the European Community to decide on a matter before one of your Lordships' Sub-Committees has got its teeth into it. Maybe we were late; maybe they were early: but at any rate things are now moving and, even better, they are moving in the right direction.
As to general observations regarding what the Sub-Committee said in its report, we found (as did the council of Ministers) that the world is moving rapidly towards the general extension of Exclusive Economic Zones by all nations in the world to 200 miles, and that the liberty of action of Member States of the European Community has been quite specifically limited by the passage of a
1354
law through the French Parliament a week or two ago by which the French annexed under full national sovereignty any waters they wished to 200 miles, or beyond where their Continental Shelf went further. This is enabling legislation.
We then considered the situation that left us in and we thought, first of all, it could not but be that this country should do the same. At the time we were drawing up our report, this country was proposing to extend its fisheries protection zone—which is another, smaller matter—to 200 nautical miles. We proposed in our report that we should go further than that and claim a full Exclusive Economic Zone out to 200 miles or to the median line required between this country and the next, whatever it might be. This proposal is far from being a nationalistic one. To claim such a zone would not preclude the creation of a Community fisheries protection régime, or indeed a Community régime of any other kind for any other purpose, within the waters of that zone, or over them, or under them or under the seabed itself. We tended to the view that the creation of such a national zone was a prerequisite of the creation, valid in law, of any Community system of management for the resources of that zone.
In coming to this conclusion, we were very much influenced by the experience of Canada, the country best known to us, where they had actually checked what foreign fishing vessels were doing about the quotas they were allowed under the relevant fishing agreement, which in the case of Canada is the North-West Atlantic Fisheries Commission. The Canadians, in their putative EEZ—and they were one of the first countries to get an EEZ—boarded 300 fishing vessels in six months and found that among those the vessels of three nations, Spain, Portugal and the Soviet Union, were grossly overfishing, were flouting their quotas, and the only way this could be put right was by the taking of the powers which the Canadian Government subsequently took. Now that they have those powers, the Canadians believe that it will take them five to 10 years to replenish the fish stocks which have been run down by the overfishing that was taking place illegally but unchecked at that time.
Nor should we be complacent about the difficulties which face us on this side of

1355
the Atlantic. The North-East Atlantic, as your Lordships will know, includes the North Sea for fisheries purposes at the moment. The scientists of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission—the one to which we belong—are on record as having said that there should now be a complete halt to the fishing of certain species until the stocks come up again. Their advice has been rejected and fishing continues in these species. It may therefore be assumed that the stocks will go down yet further, and that in time we may face a situation—maybe we already do—where it will be five or 10 years before the stocks are brought up again to where they were, and brought up to the level of the maximum sustainable yield.
I want to draw your Lordships' attention specially to a point which may appear difficult or even eccentric in our report, and that is paragraphs 30 and 31—I hope I have it right—headed, "Vesting of EEZ resources in the Crown". This is the place where we say quite simply that the fish in our own EEZ ought to be vested in the Crown, exactly as the oil and coal under the seabed are so vested. Coal under the seabed is born nationalised in the public sector. When found or exploited it is automatically in the public sector, just as if it was in Yorkshire or Lancashire. The oil is Crown property and the exploitation of it is then leased to the oil companies. But fish at the moment are anybody's property; they swim about, and how logical that seems. But we in our Committee do not believe that this will be a possible permanent condition.
The resources of the seabed, as those of your Lordships who are cognoscente will know, include not only oil and gas, but also lobsters and other creatures which walk about the sea bottom, but do not swim or take little leaps into the water above. Such creatures are the national property of the nation whose Continental Shelf is at stake, and when they cross the median line they become the national property of the next nation. We do not believe it is possible to maintain a distinction between a bottom-walking creature and a water-swimming creature, and we therefore propose that there should be legislation, or at least enabling legislation, which w ill vest the resources of the water column, as it is technically known, in
1356
the Crown, in exactly the same way as the resources on the seabed, namely lobsters, and under the seabed, namely oil and gas, are at present vested. This will then give us indubitable legal power to enter into agreements with our partners in the Common Market countries for whatever Community régime we may agree to set up.
At present, there is a strong current of legal opinion, notwithstanding the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in a related matter, that any Community fisheries régime which was set up would be illegal since the fish are nobody's property, and it is explicitly against the Treaty of Rome for the Community to own property in anybody's sovereign territory or waters; and those will by then be sovereign waters, once we extend our national EEZs. Your Lordships will, of course, be familiar with the analogy one might draw of the pheasant. You rear it. It is undoubtedly yours. You can let anybody you like shoot it, and prevent anybody else from shooting it. It then flies onto somebody else's land and it undoubtedly becomes his and he can prevent anybody he likes shooting it, or can shoot it himself or do whatever he thinks fit. It is not intrinsically absurd to claim sovereign rights of ownership over fish swimming freely in the sea.
As to the new taking of the 200-mile zones in themselves, we are insistent in our report that a Community 200-mile EEZ will not be enough, because the North Sea is not entirely surrounded by Community countries. I should like to draw the attention of the House, and indeed to invite the comment of the noble Lord the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate, to a speech by Mr. Jens Evensen, the Norwegian Minister of Fisheries, who is not only that, but is also chairman of the Evensen group at the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, which can be briefly defined as the group of sensible developed countries which have got together to work out sensible policies.
Mr. Evensen, speaking only two or three days ago, is reported in the Press to have said that,
"… it was inevitable that international trawler fleets would be 'kicked-out' of the West Atlantic, and would then search for other grounds. Norway for one, he said, was determined that these grounds should not be in the North-East Atlantic".

1357
He was speaking there, of course, principally of Russian fleets.
"Mr. Evensen pointed out that for more than a year Norway had been trying to negotiate reciprocal fishing pacts with the EEC, but it had been impossible to get any response. Britain, West Germany and France could not negotiate bilaterally, yet the Brussels Commission could not negotiate either.
"Norway had negotiated with Russia, Poland and East Germany but time was passing fast, Mr. Evensen said. It would be peculiar' he added 'if we were prevented from reaching agreement with our allies'."
I hope that yesterday's decisions in the Council of Ministers will make any such sentiments a matter of history, and that the Community and its Member States, singly if necessary, are now in a position to talk constructively and positively to Norway about the great question: what to do at the edges of the Community's exclusive economic zone.
In our report we lay as much emphasis as we can, also, on the importance of considering the Community seas—for us the North Sea and the Channel; for others the Mediterranean—as marine unities, maritime unities, as a whole and not singling out fisheries policy for settlement in complete isolation from policy and enforcement towards everything else. That way confusion lies, that way overlap lies and that way waste lies. We think that it is necessary to take fishery expertise vice versa into account in the question of pipeline routing and maintenance, because you cannot fish off a pipeline.
I know that in this country the Department of Energy have gone no further than to say that they view with a more favourable eye oil company proposals for putting pipelines on the seabed, where the company has consulted fishing interests. In my opinion, for a national arrangement that is far from good enough. The Government themselves should consult the fishing interests and take the decisions, bearing in mind not only oil interests but navigation interests also about where the pipelines should go. If that is so on the national level, then of course it is so on the international level and on the Community level as well.
The same applies to the question of pollution regulations. We have to have international and Community agreement on the maximum levels to be set for the compensation to be paid by the oil
1358
companies when there is a spill from a pipeline or, indeed, from a ship. I believe that we are still at odds with Norway on this, in that we are claiming a 20 million dollar ceiling per incident. The Norwegians, to my mind much more practically, are claiming a 60 million dollar ceiling. I wonder whether there is yet a Community position on this and, if not, whether we can propose and get one?
Looking still wider, is it possible for the Government to tell us anything yet about the future of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission itself? Will it continue after the institution of the Community régime in the North Sea, given that, catch-wise, the North Sea represents so much of its area? Can the noble Lord also, when he replies, tell us whether it is true that Cuba, of all places, is asking to join the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission? They are wanting to take herring and mackerel from the North Sea and cod from the White Sea. If that is so, it is obviously a mere extension of the Soviet fishing capability. We know that Yugoslavia has been ordering fishing boats from Poland for use in the North Sea. Has Yugoslavia demanded membership of the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission? What is happening in this whole confused business?
Lastly, looking widest of all, can the Government say anything about their attitude in the European Community, as a Community Power, towards the International Seabed Authority? I know that yesterday the Council of Ministers touched upon that question. What is their attitude towards the proposal in the Labour Party programme, which is also a proposal by the International Parliamentary Conference on the Environment, of which I have the honour to be chairman, that the International Seabed Authority should as rapidly as possible be extended into an International Maritime Authority, and that the same principles by which it at present proposes to order the affairs of the seabed should be extended once more upward through the water column so as to cover the water and, indeed, the air above it?
I will leave aside, because I believe other members of the Committee will be coming to it, what we have to say about the social impact of the proposed Community

1359
Fisheries Policy on traditional fishermen—the small communities and so on. I will say only this. I find that the Commission's proposals show the usual sectorality—the usual lack of breadth of insight into the matter. They are perfectly sensible fishery proposals but there seems to have been no social input; nobody has considered the social impact and nobody has even considered the energy impact This is somewhat characteristic of the Commission in Brussels which tends to consider matters singly. This is the theme song that I was singing to your Lordships only last week, so I shall not return to it today.
Lastly, I want to consider what the Council of Ministers concluded yesterday. The noble Lord who winds up will correct me if I have it wrong and I hope that he will tell us more, but it may be useful to get it on the record at the beginning of the debate because it has not hit the Press in very much detail. The Council of Ministers passed two documents: a general decision of the Council and, secondly, a declaration of the Council on the European Community 200-mile limit.
The general decision of the Council created a Community policy for use in the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. We must all be extremely glad that this has proved to be possible; it will be a landmark in the development of Community foreign policy. It is good that there is such a policy and, as I said before, it is even better that it is pointing in the right direction. The elements of this policy are, I understand, that there should be a 200-mile Community Exclusive Economic Exploitation Zone, as defined in the present documents of the United Nations Conference, and that the extension of the Zones of Community members and of the Community should include the full Continental Shelf; that is, that it should go beyond 200 miles where the Continental Shelf does.
The Commission took no decision on the regulation of the exploitation of the resources of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 miles. I think that it is wise to wait until this question has been thought about. The Council of Ministers decided that in their view the International Seabed Authority should have an opera
1360
tional arm amd not simply be a licensing body. It is an extremely important political decision that it should have some power to enforce its judgments and to ensure that its licences are observed.
The Council noted the need for machinery to prevent the emergence of monopoly or dominant positions in exploiting the seabed. This is somewhat vague phraseology but I think that it will prove to be extremely useful. They declared that the Convention, which we hope will come out of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, should contain a provision for the compulsory settlement of disputes—none of your voluntary, nonbinding settlements. This is very good. They showed a favourable disposition towards the representation of the Community as such on the International Seabed Authority. This is very good also. Lastly, and here I am not so sure that it is so good, there is some hazy wording about colonial EEZs—that is, EEZs accruing to residual colonial territories—becoming in some way part of the Community EEZ or part of the EEZ of the home country. I do not understand this. If it means what it sounds like, I consider that it is rather dangerous; and when he replies, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain it.
The second document passed yesterday by the Council of Ministers was a declaration of their own 200-mile limit. So far they had been laying down their policy in the United Nations and saying what they wanted for the world. Then they took certain actions which are within their own power to take as regards the West European Community. They took all these actions without prejudice to the method of the delimitation of maritime zones between Member States. To me this sounds very wise because there is a lot of argument to go on there, not only around the Channel Islands.
The Council of Ministers adopt the principle of concerted action, according to which the Member States would be led—I am translating from the French here as it is pretty much "Community-ese" and it is rather vague, but your Lordships will see that it is pointing very much in the right direction—to extend the limits of their fishery protection zones to 200 miles, fisheries within these limits being

1361
regulated by the provisions of the Community Fisheries Policy. That seems to me to be as far as any sensible Council of Ministers could go at the moment. They say that this is to be done by 1st October of this year; their foot is still very strongly on the accelerator. The Government have already announced their intention to pass enabling legislation to this end, and I hope that they can manage it by 1st October, for this will be a step in the right direction. Can the Government say that they will continue in this direction further towards making it a European Community Zone of maritime regulation and towards shifting Community policy at the United Nations level into support of an international maritime authority, and not solely on an International Seabed Authority, as at present? My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Forty-ninth Report of this session of the European. Communities Committee on the Common Fisheries Policy (S/30/76 and S/353/76; S/911/76 and R/2988/75 (inshore fishing proposals)). —(Lord Kennet.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the Select Committee for this valuable and timely report and also to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having introduced it with such clarity. I think we should also express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who is due to speak later in the debate, because he has been chairman of Sub-Committee D which has been considering this subject and it is very much as a result of his energy that the accelerated procedure has been followed and we have the opportunity of discussing these matters today. The timing of this debate is felicitous because the subjects are due to have important decisions taken upon them in the near future. Many of them are before the EEC and are still to be decided during the coming weeks. There is also the renewed session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which is due to start in New York on Monday and to continue until the middle of September. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has described, the British Government are now engaged in discussions within the EEC about the whole question of the
1362
future of the régime for fishing industries in the light of the changes which are to take place throughout the world.
As the noble Lord mentioned, the basis of these changes is the comparatively new concept of the 200-mile economic zone which is not yet in force but which has been agreed in principle by virtually all the nations in the world. That economic zone would embrace not only fisheries but also oil and gas in the seabed, the question of control of pollution and of traffic in narrow straits or congested waters, and also the matter of defence and the policing of installations and shipping in the zones.
Today we are concerned with the subject of fisheries. I believe that is right because the problem of fisheries is the most urgent of the problems which are before the United Nations conference and before us in Western Europe. The main effect of a 200-mile economic zone upon our own fishing industry will be that our middle and distant water vessels will have to fish near home in future. Most of the fish they have caught in the past have been off the shores of other countries; they will have to come and fish in home waters. There can of course be special agreements with Norway or other countries to allow some fishing within their zone. They could be reciprocal agreements, but we cannot expect to be able to catch fish in anything like the same quantities as we have before in those areas. It is important that we, within the EEC, should establish a 200-mile economic zone and the fishing régime within it at the same time as the other maritime countries in the world extend their economic zones to 200 miles.
There is also another point which affects us within the EEC. In 1970, before we joined and before we even started our negotiations, the Six—as they then were—agreed upon a Common Fisheries Policy. That simply boiled down to extinguishing the 12-mile limit within the EEC, that is between the members as they then were. The 12-mile limit was then recognised by most of the world as the fishing limit, and that is still the present position. But between the Six it was extinguished. However, that did not apply to us when we joined two years later because we were able to negotiate the continuation of virtually the

1363
situation as it was—the 12-mile limit with special rights up to six miles until 1983, and I shall remind your Lordships about that in a moment. That Common Fisheries Policy of the EEC will no longer be appropriate or applicable in the new world of 200-mile economic zones, and in the coming weeks vital decisions will have to be taken for our fishing industry, the first of which must be the decision within the EEC about what should be the British exclusive fishing band.
We must recognise that a dramatic change is about to take place in the world fisheries régime. In a few months' time the world's fishing fleets will be having to change radically to a completely new pattern of fishing areas. Whether the agreement in principle already reached at the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea on a 200-mile economic zone has been embodied in a convention or not, it is clear that the principal maritime nations will assuredly have arranged to move together to a system of 200-mile zones—zones controlled by the coastal States. So we have to be ready for that, whether or not a convention has been completed.
The wide difference between the present I 2-mile limit and the new 200-mile fishing limit will transform the international fishing scene. Countries such as Britain which have traditionally caught much of their fish off the shores of other nations will in future have to concentrate on home waters. I believe that the United Kingdom must be among the nations making this change together. For this reason I welcomed the Government's reply to my Question a few days ago, on 8th July, given by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, stating that they had already started to prepare the necessary domestic legislation to extend to a 200-mile economic zone. Other countries have done or are doing this, including the United States of America, Canada, Norway and France.
As I mentioned, before we joined the EEC the Six had already agreed on a policy of no fishing limits where the members were concerned. This was not suitable for Britain and when we joined the EEC we succeeded in obtaining a standstill agreement until 1983. This retained virtually the status quo on fishing limits and provided a long breathing space while the new concept of a wide
1364
economic zone, already then in prospect, was being worked out. Anyone who suggests that we should have extended our fishing limit beyond 12 miles then, in 1972, is exhibiting ignorance of the fishing industry. I might add that it is not surprising in the case of some SNP exhibitionists—the Scottish National Party—who a year or two ago did not know one end of a fishing boat from the other. Such action, claiming more than 12 miles for the fishing limit then would have led to immediate retaliation, preventing our vessels, Scottish and English, from fishing up to 12 miles from the shores of Norway, the Faroes and elsewhere. We should have lost far more than we gained if we had then tried to go beyond the world accepted limit of 12 miles.
But now, when the fishing nations are about to change together to the completely new system, so retaining reciprocity, we can and should consider our position differently. We shall benefit from the exclusion of the countries which are not members of the EEC, such as the Soviet Union, but it is crucial that the British Government should, in the negotiations on which they have embarked, obtain a wide enough exclusive fishing zone. This is needed in order to preserve our own fish supplies, taking into account the new kinds of fish which we are going to have to catch. There are not going to be enough cod in future for all the consumers in Britain who have been used to it before.
I believe that the blue whiting and other fish will have to come on the market, and new methods will be developed to catch this new kind of fish. This requirement is not related simply to our inshore fleet. Most of our distant and middle water vessels will in future have to fish in home waters. About 60 per cent. of the EEC Economic Zone will be British and conservation requires that a wide coastal band should be reserved for British fishermen. The Government's position, as stated publicly, is that they have proposed within the EEC a British reserve band of between 12 miles and 50 miles. I have said, as have others, that the emphasis should be on the 50 miles rather than the 12 miles.
It appears that a map has been seen by the fishermen's leaders. Its validity is not clear, and the Minister may be able to say something about this. But what is

1365
worrying is that, apparently, this map has long stretches of the British coast line where 12 miles is the band which the British Government are contemplating. For example, apparently there is a long stretch on the West Coast. This is where fishing for hitherto less known fish may well have to be developed in the future, That is where the blue whiting will have to be caught, in deeper water, and beyond 12 miles. So I would ask the Government, in negotiatiog on this band, not just to take into account the fishing grounds which we already know, but also to take into account these areas which are going to be more important in future, where fish which have not been seen in quantity on the fishmongers' slabs will in future have to be caught.
I agree with the Select Committee's conclusion in paragraph 40 that the EEC Commission's proposal that the band should simply be 12 miles for Britain is not enough. That proposal was put out some months ago, and the Select Committee accept that it is now out of date. But it marked a significant change of policy. The fact that the EEC Commission no longer accepted the Common Fisheries Policy of fishing up to each other's beaches, and accepted that there had to be a band (although it was too narrow where Britain was concerned) at 12 miles was in itself a significant change which indeed we should welcome.
It has been said that the inshore boats do not need more than 12 miles, or that perhaps there are some places where they may need 20 miles. But this brings in the question of the whole definition of the inshore fleet. Of course, the boats which only go out for the day, such as the small shellfish boats, may well not need more than 12 miles. But when we are talking about the inshore fleet in Britain, we are covering a whole range of fishing vessels, some of which go out for four or five days, or even more if necessary, who fish far out in the North Sea, who go out and fish off the coast of Norway, and come back. So far as Britain is concerned, the definition is usually connected with the length of the boat, and not with the kind of fish caught or the number of days the boat usually stays at sea. In other countries, I suspect that the term "inshore fleet" applies to the small boats which simply go out for a few hours, and which are perhaps the mainstay of some small,
1366
isolated community. In our negotiations we must make it clear that we are not considering only our inshore fleet, but the middle and distant water fleets which will be having to come back and fish in our own waters. That is why we require 50 miles over a large part of our coastline.
Paragraph 14 of the Report of the Select Committee says:
"The Commission has proposed the introduction of an exclusive zone in recognition of the needs of small local communities which often depend partly on inshore waters for their livelihood. This does not, of course, take in all the fishing grounds of the so-called inshore boats which fish out of Scottish ports".
That makes my point. I agree with the Select Committee that the proposal of the Commission, although a significant change of policy, is now out of date, and cannot be accepted by the British Government.
Of course, there is the difference where Britain is concerned, that on the whole the inshore fleet has consisted of those who own their boats or own shares in the boats, whereas the middle and distant water fleets have been owned by companies and the crews and the fishermen have been employees of the companies. In the past there has been a conflict of interest. Besides the different form of employment which I have described, there has been a conflict of interest, which has been that the boats fishing far afield have naturally wanted to fish up to 12 miles, and even beyond if possible, to the coasts of other countries, whereas our inshore fleets have been desperately trying to get the limits extended so as to keep foreign boats away from our own shores. That conflict of interest has now come to an, end and in other ways the distant water boats and the inshore boats are finding that their interests are coinciding. Your Lordships will have seen some of the advertisements which have appeared in the national Press in the last few days, and which have been put out by the combined fishing organisations of the whole country. I have one here which took up a whole page in a daily Scottish newspaper.
It says:
"We have got the fish. We have got the men to catch them. We have got the ships. Give us the fishing grounds and we will supply the British consumer with plentiful, varied and competitively priced food from around our shores. But we must have as a minimum a 50-mile exclusive limit all around our coasts."

1367
That makes quite clear what the fishing industry thinks the Government should be pressing for. I think it underlines that this is a vital moment in the history of the British fishing industry.
The British Trawlers Federation and the Scottish Trawlers Federation are considering combining. Previously they have been separate. Through their organisations, which have been various associations, the inshore men have come together and for the first time this year held meetings with the trawler federations. This also emphasises that the interests of the fishing industry have come together, and that all parts of the industry are now speaking with the same voice, making representations to the Government, and placing these developments in the national Press to make sure the public understands their views.
In the light of these developments, let us examine the situation in the EEC. The Financial Times of today reported that some agreement had been reached yesterday in the Council of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave us more particulars about this but, like him, I hope that at the end of this debate the Minister will be able to tell us what happened yesterday. There is an opportunity for him to give us the latest news. But the attitudes of our partners in the EEC are not the same as ours. It may be asked whether, for example, Germany adopts the same view towards a 200-mile economic zone as we do in Britain, and the answer is, "No".
At the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, a group has been formed calling itself the Landlocked and Geographically Disadvantaged States. One could quite understand the landlocked States—the Chairman of this group is Austrian. There are other States from Central Africa and elsewhere and they are all members of the Conference, but being landlocked they are in a special position. But I do not know how many of your Lordships would know that among the 50 or so nations in the group of geographically disadvantaged States are West Germany, Belgium and Holland. Some of us consider that, from an industrial and economic point of view, these States have many geographical advantages. They are very close to what is called the "Golden Triangle", if not part of it.
1368
Certainly their access to the seas of the world has not been impeded, judging by the success of the ports of Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp; but, because their economic zone, their coastal area under the new arrangements, will be small compared with their neighbours', they say that they are geographically disadvantaged.
I have made some inquiries as to how one joins this club. I had the opportunity of asking the chairman when he was here the other day. Apparently anyone can join, and the only countries blackballed are the ones you would expect, Israel by the Arabs and Iran by the Gulf States. But it shows that the partners in the EEC do not necessarily look at these matters in the same way as we do. It is important that we should get agreement on our own economic zone in the EEC, and we should also, so far as possible, adopt common policies in our negotiations with other countries. We shall be able to bargain with the Russians and the Poles, who have been fishing, particularly the Russians, with factory ships in great quantities in what will be the 200-mile zone of the EEC.
The fishing industry is neither the largest nor the most important of Britain's industries. But this time, 1976 and 1977 is a very important period of decision for that industry. The decisions that will be taken will govern its size and its prosperity for many years ahead. I hope that, where the EEC is concerned, we can impress on the Government that they must aim to achieve as wide a reserved band for the British fishing fleets as is possible, and that the emphasis should be on the 50 miles and not on the 12 miles. Then, as regards other countries, our Government should be discussing with the principal maritime nations of the world outside the EEC the whole question of the move to 200-mile economic zones, and keeping in touch with them. My guess is that this move will take place early next year, and we must be with the other countries and moving at the same time.
Then we come to the United Nations Conference about to resume on Monday. The American Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, has said that he is going to lead the American delegation. The Americans have made it clear how important they regard this Conference

1369
and this session. Of course, they are engaged in seabed mining and other matters as well, but they have passed domestic legislation and are all ready for the 200-mile economic zone in order to make sure that their fishing industry is not left behind. I should like to conclude with some words about conservation. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, drew attention to paragraph 30 of the Select Committee's report and the proposal there that fish resources should be vested in the Crown. He referred to coal and oil as being substances which are being treated in much the same way. This is an interesting suggestion, but the difficulty about fish, which has always existed, is that they move about. Coal and oil stay; they have to be found, but they do not move about. So you cannot guarantee that the fish are going to be in a certain area, even though there are fishing grounds which become well known. The other point is that what happens in one area of the sea can very much affect the fish stocks in another. If one country is over-fishing in an area where certain fish breed or are to be found in large quantities, this can disturb the balance of the whole stocks of that species of fish. So, while considering that proposal, I must also remind your Lordships that it is not an easy concept to vest fish resources, which cannot be quantified and which move about, in that way.
I think all of us would agree that one of the reasons why we are having to consider this new world scheme is that there has been over fishing by the world's fishing fleets, and unless this is stopped soon we shall find ourselves without this source of protein. We already know that we are going to get less cod in this country, unless we buy it from other countries. The herring has disappeared from many of the traditional grounds where it used to be caught. With the new system, the responsibility for conservation will rest with the coastal States, and I believe that this is likely to be more effective. That is the basis of it; the coastal State will be responsible. The conservation measures are more likely to be severe and also to be carried out.
As the Select Committee's Report states, the system of quotas has fallen into
1370
disrepute. British fishermen certainly are very suspicious of whether quotas that have been set by the International Commissions are being observed by the countries concerned. I am attracted by the proposal in paragraph 29 of the report that instead there should be a system of "effort limitation" which the coastal States would impose within their economic zones. This would do away with the need for inspection of vessels and would be much easier to police and control.
The fishing industry is sometimes thought to be a specialist subject, but it affects food supplies and the balance of payments. It could concern every person in this country. If the Government fail in the negotiations ahead, it will be felt by the housewife and the consumer, because they will immediately see the results if the tragedy were to happen that our inshore and other vessels had to be decimated because there was little left for the British fleets to catch. In the coming weeks Ministers will be taking part in far-reaching negotiations for the new world schemes for fisheries and their effects upon our British industry. They must recognise that this chance is unlikely to return during this century and that they should obtain sensible arrangements, fair to all, and conserving fish stocks. These will need hard bargaining by the British Government, and Ministers will be pressed, and I hope also encouraged, by this Bench to achieve them.
3.48 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I hope not to detain your Lordships for long because the report is there for all to read and indeed Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Kennet have said much that I would have said if I had been making the first speech. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one paragraph, or one sentence, in the report, where we say in paragraph 28 in black print:
"This would not preclude the existence, within such an area, of coastal areas reserved for the coastal state alone".
I think the whole history of the negotiations to date shows that it requires a country to be rather chauvinistic, rather selfish, rather parochial in defending its interests. We have had the Law of the Sea Conference going on for some years now, and really progress has been made

1371
only by the acceptance of unilateral action by the States themselves, starting with Denmark, Iceland, and going on to Canada, the States and France, who have unilaterally said that they are extending their limits in various ways including fishing, to 200 miles.
The British Government, as Lord Campbell said, has now resolved the conflict between the two fleets in Britain, the deep water fleet and the coastal fleet. The reason it has been resolved, of course, is that the Government have given way to pressure by the Icelanders, reserving the cod fishing waters round Iceland to themselves, and have accepted too low a quota to keep the fleets in employment. The fishing industry has now come round to seeing that their only hope is if they can reserve an area around Britain.
Lord Kennet stressed the co-operation in the EEC, the hope of agreement, the progress being made—and rightly so—and there is a vast area for this, not only within the EEC but certainly in the North Atlantic between the EEC countries and Norway, and indeed Iceland. There are big areas there where conservation will have to be applied, where quotas will have to work, with restricted fishing vessels and all the other devices, to try and preserve the stocks of fish in these areas.
I think it is up to us. In the Committee most of us certainly took a practical view of this. Nothing has worked so far, and agreements about the whale have not stopped it from being brought near to extinction. We have certainly got no herring to speak of in the North Sea, and the cod grounds are getting depleted up to date. Our own fishermen will tell you that whenever a French vessel, or foreign vessel, puts o into a Scottish port for some reason or other and they manage to get aboard, they always find that the net sizes are entirely illegal and agreements are not being kept.
Although the Canadians boarded 300 vessels during their check-up on fishing round their shores, I do not believe that really in that enormous area they could properly control it without enormous expense. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we have a 50-mile limit round our coasts. We can obviously negotiate within these limits with other countries, and we can go tit-for-tat, but within a
1372
50-mile limit it is possible to adopt proper conservation measures. They are British boats going out from British ports and coming into British ports, and you can check up on what they are doing. But if you have no control over factory ships, or over net sizes, except by boarding, then you are going to need an enormous police force to control the fishing fleet.
Therefore, it is only wise and right and proper that we, in Britain, at least until the international measures and the EEC measures are worked out and seen to be working, should have a zone which is under our sole control. It is very interesting that in the evidence taken on fish farming I asked the expert from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if 50 miles would supply us with fish by hunting methods much more cheaply than subsidising or promoting fish farming. His answer was that at this stage, and as far as he could foresee, yes. Then I asked him about the position at 50 miles or at 100 miles, if I could be more particular, and the answer was that he thought that most of the important fisheries—and this was a very "by and large" answer—were in a narrower belt than 100 miles. In any event, it was quite obvious from that that our fishery experts thought we could replace the fish, and supply the fish that Britain needs, by taking care of a 50-mile limit round our coasts. Although it seems very parochial for one who has long supported the EEC, and with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn sitting close beside me, I think it is a wise measure and one that the Government should follow through with all possible vigour, because it is a case of hard bargaining and horse trading.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already spoken of the EEC policy produced before we joined the EEC and while Norway was proposing to join the EEC, and there is little doubt in the mind of a cynical horse trader like myself that this policy was produced in the hope that Britain would buy it when she came in. But of course we were wise enough to negotiate a space. Therefore, I commend our report to your Lordships. I am sorry to harp on about our own fishing limits, but I think that until we see the international policies working it will be wise for the Government to lay great stress on a 50-mile exclusive limit around our coast.
3.55 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet and other speakers have covered the subject so admirably that I intervene only rather briefly in the debate in order to give the background of how and why our report was drawn up, and to add a few views of my own. The Commission put forward their proposals for the restructuring of the inshore fishing industry about last Christmas time, and then it was decided that it would be a useful exercise if the House of Lords and the House of Commons Scrutiny Committees could investigate these proposals together. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, formed a concurrent Committee with the House of Commons. Incidentally, this was the first time that such a thing has been done. We sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Peter Mills. It was not a joint committee. Being "concurrent" meant that either party was free to act upon the evidence taken as it saw fit, and this is the reason that in due course your Sub-Committee were enabled to draw up this report separately.
As well as the oral evidence printed at the back of the report, the Committee of course received written evidence from as many bodies as we could conveniently find. When we examined the witnesses in early March it became apparent that the Commission's proposals, whatever we thought of them, whether we thought them practicable or wise or not, could not sensibly be discussed, let alone implemented, unless they were considered in the context of fisheries limits, about which there appeared to me to be a considerable confusion, with different bodies suggesting different limits for this or that purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has already referred to some of these suggested limits.
As the Law of the Sea Conference was about to be held in New York, and it seemed that something positive with respect to limits might come out of that, we thought that it would be best to put off further consideration of the Commission's proposals until the position on the fishing limits became clearer, perhaps by the autumn. Therefore, the concurrent Committee produced a very short
1374
interim report and we went into cold storage, which is where we lie at the moment.
However, it became clear that things were moving on. In particular we became aware of a spread of the idea not only of the Fisheries Protection Zone but of the Exclusive Economic Zone which, as my noble friend Lord Kennet mentioned earlier, has already been adopted in principle by the French, and on which we firmly recommend that this country, and all members of the Community should, and indeed must, follow suit. I understand very well the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the landlocked countries, but the fact that there are landlocked countries disadvantaged by their geographical situation should not, I feel, prevent the adoption of a full 200-mile EEZ by the countries of the Community. We are, after all, talking of an area which we hope in time will be an area of common management.
The Sub-Committee believe that these developments, such as the FPZ and the EEZ, and how they might affect our fishing industry, should be brought to the attention of your Lordships as a matter of general and fairly urgent debate. Urgent because we think very strongly that Parliament, the Government, and the Community really must get their minds clearer about what sort of objectives we should pursue. In drawing up this report we have taken evidence which was not originally put to the concurrent Committee, and we have been greatly helped by the special knowledge on these matters of my noble friend Lord Kennet, who has been able to direct our attention to documents and reports which otherwise we might have had difficulty in finding.
I regret to say that inevitably the discussion on the details of the Commission's inshore fishing proposals has not formed as important a part of our report as one might have wished. However, one cannot discuss inshore fishing without first, for example, having a definition of what "inshore" means. The Commission appear to think that it relates to the length of a boat and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, we learnt that quite small boats, smaller than the kind which the Commission would call inshore boats, travel from the

1375
East coast ports to beyond Norway, and that can hardly be called "inshore".
Their proposals also refer to a class of fisherman called "Artizanale", which we think we know the meaning of but for which there is no clear equivalent in English and no exact meaning in this country. But whether the fishermen should be inshore or Artizanale, it is clear that no fisherman can pursue his occupation if he does not have any fish to catch, and perhaps the most important consideration of this matter must be that in the interests of conservation alone, the days are gone when any fisherman can fish anywhere he likes with what gear he likes and catch however much he likes. If we as a Community are to institute a régime, it must be capable of enforcement and to be enforceable it must be held to be right and fair by the great majority of fishermen.
The major reason which has made it necessary for the Community to have a Common Fishing Policy has undoubtedly been the development of technology. The huge floating fishing machines that are now built are able to scoop out of the sea vast quantities of fish and frequently they do so without heed to quality or type because they are interested only in making fish meal; or perhaps the nets catch a quantity of fish of a type or grade which does not happen to be suitable for the time being, so that tons of dead and dying fish are tipped back into the sea. This kind of exploitation cannot be allowed to continue, because fish are becoming increasingly scarce and difficult to find. This technological efficiency also obviously impinges on the livelihood of what can best be described as local fishermen. For example, there are about 3,000 small fishermen in the area covered by the Southwest Fishermen's Association. We learnt that for about £500,000 one ship could be fitted out to catch as much fish in a year as would be caught by about 1,000 of these small fishermen. Furthermore, I was not impressed to learn that such a ship could land saleable fish at only a very slightly lower price than could be landed by the ordinary fisherman and that this lower price was not a significant component of the final retail price. For example, we learnt that mackerel landed at Falmouth for about 3p per pound would be selling in the shops for about 30p per pound.
1376
I am pointing out that the improved technology does not necessarily mean that we get cheaper fish in the shops. However, the use of this technology poses a real threat to the livelihood—this may be called an emotional view—of the stalwart and harmless coastal fishermen and the local communities which depend on their activities in areas where there is often little other employment. Not only do I think that these fishermen and their communities should have their livelihood protected from the aggressive, careless and thoughtless activities of these high-powered vessels, but that they should to some extent be protected from incursions by other small fishermen from a distance, be they of their own or another nationality. In other words, coastal fishermen should he persuaded to stick to their own bit of coast, except where it can be said that they have established historic rights of fishing, so long as that has not meant over-fishing.
As I see it, there will have to be established a number of coastal zones, and in this sense I take up a point made by the noble Lord Lord Mackie of Benshie, in that in my view the parochiality should be regional and not national; they should be established within the 200-mile EEZs. These will have to be policed; there will have to be a licensing system within these coastal zones, and the zones should be agreed as a matter of common management within the Community, though of course for the time being the only means of fishery protection will be the navies of the component's Member States.
I have made a somewhat longer speech than I had intended, and of necessity I have repeated certain points that other noble Lords have made, but perhaps they are none the worse for that. I believe that we will have to reconvene the concurrent Committee in the autumn to consider the inshore fishing proposals further, in which case we will be reporting again and no doubt your Lordships will need to debate the matter again. I thank noble Lords for their kind remarks about the Sub-Committee, but I must say that its work would not be possible without their efforts and suggestions. I very much hope that the Government will be acting on the Select Committee's suggestions and I am looking forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has to say.
4.8 p.m.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I intervene very briefly only because I represented for 34 years the constituency in this country which caught more herring than any other. I can therefore assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that I know one end of a fishing boat from the other and have been to sea with them. Before the war we were still exporting over 1 million barrels of cured herrings to Europe and Russia every year, and that prevailed all the time between the two wars. I remember that on the only occasion I met Mr. Khruschev he was kind enough to say to me, "Your salt herrings are no good without vodka." I replied, "You give us the vodka, and we will give you the herrings" and in due course a large order for herrings came from Moscow. Alas, we could not fulfil it because the herring had begun to disappear, and now for all practical purposes they have disappeared altogether from the North Sea. The great summer fishing off Buchan, and the great autumn fishing off Yarmouth and Lowestoft, both of which I used to visit every year, have gone, almost completely disappeared, as have the herring.
What is the reason for this? The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, may enlighten us on this. It may be some natural cause, like the movement of plankton, but I do not think so. I believe that there is practically no doubt that the cause is the gross over-fishing for industrial purposes by modern technological methods of immature fish. In this perhaps the worst offenders have been the Danes, because the amount of small fish they have caught in the last few years has been astronomical. While we are, slowly but I think surely, moving in the right direction, we must bear in mind as a slight warning that until quite recently, just before we were accepted as a Member of the EEC, the Six passed a resolution which would have entitled their fishing craft to fish right up to our beaches, and that goes for French and Belgian trawlers. That would have resulted in the total ruin of our inshore fishing industry. To begin with may I say that, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, we did not get in our campaign against it quite the enthusiastic support from the Conservative Government, which was in power at the time, that we expected
1378
I took a very active part—perhaps my last effort in this connection—in the campaign against this EEC Resolution, even to the point of saying in this House (to the fury of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown) that, if this went through, I should have to withdraw my support from the European Movement. Anyway, the Government came round. We won. I went on television, and to Scotland, to Cornwall, to Devon; I went to meet the fishermen in the Pool of London when they came up to protest. We won a victory and it was a great victory. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, when he said that at that moment of time 12 miles was right and anything else would have been no good. We won a victory and, for the time being, all went well. The industry was saved.
Since then, we have had not bad inshore white fishing, although the herring have gone. But I say that it is only for the time being. We now have to move a step further. I most strongly support the noble Lords—and I believe that all of them have said this—who have insisted that we must go for the 50-mile limit. I believe that it is absolutely essential.
There are other difficulties ahead. I believe that technological developments will in future make it increasingly difficult to differentiate between what we have hitherto called the inshore fishing industry and the middle or deep water industry because, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, the 200-mile zone will drive many of our deep water fishermen back to our own waters, and they will not be able to fish as they used to. At the same time, however, I supported Iceland in her action because, on the fundamental issue, she was right. The only hope for the future is conservation. It is absolutely vital and it is essential that we should all act together.
I believe that it will be difficult to enforce quotas and to see that every country abides by any decisions that may be taken with regard to quotas. I would suggest, as a possibility, and I should like the noble Lord to consider this, that it might be advisable, by agreement, to post inspectors from the EEC countries to different ports. The Belgians and the French should come to us, and we should go to Denmark, Holland and Belgium, and have an inspector just to supervise

1379
that quotas are more or less adhered to. We cannot ask for more than that. The inspectors might ensure that any quotas that might be decided upon were more or less enforced. I feel that this is very important. I should also like to see—again by international agreement at Brussels—certain zones between the 50 and the 200-mile limit in which fishing would be prohibited altogether for certain periods of the year. This would allow the breeding grounds to be re-established.
Finally, I would just say that I am a little apprehensive about oil. The port of Peterhead in what used to be my constituency is very gravely threatened at present not only by the pipelines themselves, but by all the ramifications and attractions of the oil industry with its higher wages which are gradually taking the younger fishermen away from their natural calling. I should be very sad to see that, and I hope that the noble Lord will look into this aspect of the question. I have put down a question about Peterhead for the end of September, so I hope that by that time there might be an answer.
Oil is a difficulty, and I sometimes wonder how much happiness it has really brought to the North of Scotland. I was up there the other day and I wondered whether the people were not happier when they were poor and I was their Member than they are today when some of them—but only some—are rich, and a great many more are afflicted by violent rises in costs and prices. We do not want to see the fishing industry of this country, which is a great industry, destroyed. The only way to get it back is to nurse it and that, I believe, is what the EEC is gradually coming round to realise.
4.15 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, it is the greatest joy to listen once again to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, who reproduced all his youthful pungency for our benefit today. Hearing him hold forth just now reminded me of the speeches that I used sometimes to hear him give during General Elections in East Aberdeenshire, when he was able to sway round to his point of view people who started by feeling most antagonistic towards him.
1380
The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, reiterated what many other speakers have been saying about conservation and its importance. I rather question whether, from the papers it has published, the EEC is giving more than lip-service to the conservation point. It comes in, but it is not unduly emphasised. For ourselves also, I wonder whether, when we speak of conservation, we really understand all that conservation implies. Conservation is not just a matter of the size of the net or of the quota, which is a very bad idea. The quota system is not the beginnings of conservation. Nor is it the number of boats. Or rather, it is that; it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has said, having a close season; it is those things that can be achieved or not achieved by regulation, but there is still more to conservation.
I submit that it is something to which we should apply our minds more seriously than we have done up to now. There is disease control, which could be very important indeed. At the moment, certain shellfish suffer from diseases and there are regulations which need to be made to prevent the spread of those diseases. How long will it be before the sea fish also fall heir to diseases which become of economic importance?
Then there is the control of poisonous wastes. A few years ago in this House we had a Bill concerning poisonous wastes going into the sea, but that seems now to be forgotten. It is a primary matter for consideration when dealing with conservation of fish. Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, mentioned, there is hydrocarbon pollution from the oil rigs and pipes and also—a subject which is dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder——there is the problem of dredging for aggregate. Such dredging in the North Sea and other places has become a matter of no little importance. It causes the destruction of the spawning grounds of certain fish—those which lay their eggs at the bottom—and it also upsets the food on which the shellfish and whitefish live. It also upsets the levels of the seabed and makes it difficult for the trawlers to come after.
These are additional grounds to those which have already been adduced in the debate today for conservation, and I submit that the execution of complete

1381
and proper conservation policy must be done by one authority. This cannot be shared out with different authorities trying to carry out this one task of fish conservation in the sea. Certainly the Commission itself cannot do it. I suggest that each nation must be made responsible for the conservation of fish in its own 200-mile zone or area which is inevitably coming to us. That includes making what it believes to be the essential regulations and the policing of them. Unless we have that there will not be proper conservation. The only proper control is on the national basis, working in close co-operation with the adjacent nations, and they would naturally work together and have a common policy.
But the primary control of what is to be the national area must be with the nation concerned. That can be done perhaps by limiting the number of boats, but the catches must be inspected. Ideally every catch would be landed at a home port of the nation in relation to which the boat had been fishing, but that is probably impracticable. But there is the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for inspectors at the ports where the fish would be landed, where they would come off, perhaps, the British EEZ. British inspectors there would probably not take long in getting on to things that were going wrong.
I question whether any other country in the EEC, or indeed in the world, has done more for marine fishery research than has the United Kingdom. We have been, and are being, exceptionally well served by the Government research stations which have been established for different aspects of this matter, and I submit that we already have a caucus of knowledge which enables us to provide the scientific knowledge which is the basis of having any proper and effective conservation.
4.24 p.m.
Lord HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing this debate. I wish to take up one subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. In all the years that I have been associated with this industry, conservation was the one predominant feature of every conference, and as a result of this we do not appear to have got very
1382
far. The proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, about inspectors is not a bad idea. I remember that when we got agreement among the nations of the world, including Soviet Russia, that we would be allowed to land inspectors on boats belonging to other countries while they were fishing, so that we might then be able to report those who were committing offences, we made a tremendous step forward. Yet, despite all that, we still have not found a solution to the problem. So, quite obviously, it has to be something much greater than we have yet planned or even anticipated.
One question in which I was interested was that of herring stocks at the moment, and that is why I am not going to assume that these decisions were made by the Council of Ministers yesterday. I have been reading recently about the return of herring stocks to Scotland. I do not know whether this is true, but if it is, it is good news. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm or deny the reports in the Press—
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I should like to tell him that there was a brief reappearance, but in a very small area, and now they have gone again.
Lord HOY: This can happen, my Lords, and all I am saying is that one ought not to be misled by newspaper reports. I think that the question of fixing areas will cause some difficulty and I should like to spend a moment or two on it. I thought that we had a portent of this when my noble friend Lord Raglan said that we might reach the stage when we would have to ask fishermen from one part of Britain not to fish in the waters of another part of Britain. If we are to get to that stage we really shall be in difficulty, and I do not think he is exaggerating. I remember serving with the noble Lord on the Committee upstairs and I recall a witness from the south-west of England appearing before the Committee. He said to the Committee:
"If only we could keep those Scottish 'Bs' out of our water"—
and then, remembering where he was, he substituted "chaps" for "Bs". I preferred it in its original form. He was expressing a desire to retain that particular part of the water for his own people.

1383
If this is to arise in an internal manner, how then is one to solve the outer problem? Sometimes we are not helped by political commentators, who apparently can find solutions to this problem very much easier than they can find solutions to their own personal problems. Indeed, some people find solutions after they are outside, and they seem to have a perspective very much greater than when inside.
So what we must do is face up to the realities of the situation. If we are to do that we must know whether a decision was made by the Council of Ministers yesterday. But before doing that we must remember that we still have to reach a settlement with Iceland because, if my memory serves me correctly, the present agreement runs out by the 1st December. There must be a new agreement between ourselves and Iceland. There is also the position of Norway, which is not inside the EEC. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that; indeed, we are entitled to expect him to do so. Unless we get decisions in this respect we might be in considerable difficulty.
Sometimes the Government, all Governments of this country, are not helped in the negotiations with other countries when we have here people who are willing to give away fishing rights which we have at present, in Iceland or elsewhere, without thinking of the consequences. So I should be grateful if we can have some information, as we are entitled to have, with regard to Norway and Iceland.
My Lords, if these decisions are to be reached, and even if the Community actually makes a decision, our first priority must be to get that decision, for a very simple reason—and I merely repeat what I said upstairs in Committee. There is not very much use in fixing a programme for the distant, the middle and the inshore fleets unless you know what you must have. Until that is settled, then you cannot know what in fact is going to be available for the fishing fleet in its totality; and, just as you have got to come back from distant waters, on which both Grimsby and Hull, and Lowestoft as well, depend, they are then going to participate in the fishing which is going to be available to us. So until you have got that matter settled you are not going to know what part they are going to play.
1384
Secondly, in this respect, it will be only when we have reached this decision with regard to the waters and what part is to be played by the three sections—the distant, middle and inshore fleets—that we can make up our minds and make our decisions as to what we are going to do. We must remember this, and all of us must accept the responsibility. This must be done, and it is going to be rather costly. It has got to be paid for, and, to a considerable extent, it can only be paid for by the taxpayer of this country. If you are saying to the whole of the fleet that they must have a considerable conversion to meet the new situation, then you cannot say, "And you must do it at your own cost". This would be a piece of nonsense, and we have got to face up to it; but until we get that decision from the Council of Ministers, then we cannot even go ahead with this. This we have got to get if in fact we are going to do the job.
This is going to be extremely difficult, and I know that the job of our negotiators is going to be difficult. It is going to be difficult because, as has been said, we are working under an agreement that was made even before we started to negotiate for going into Europe. The decision was then made. That is true; and I do not regard it, as does Lord Boothby, as a great victory. I supported our going into Europe, and campaigned for it, but what I am bound to say is that what we did was to put down a marker. We put down a marker and said to our colleagues in Europe, "This industry is extremely important to Great Britain". It is perhaps of much greater importance to our country than to any of our EEC partners. What we have always got to remember in this context is this, that there are many parts of our country today where this is practically the sole livelihood. Without the fishing industry they would cease to exist; so it is terribly important from our point of view that we guarantee this work.
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House any longer, so may I go on simply to say that there are three things to which I should like to have answers. First of all, I should like to know just how far our negotiations with Iceland and Norway have gone. These are two important countries. As to Iceland, despite our disputes with them on two occasions we have had a very much greater, longer and

1385
warmer friendship with them than with any other country in Europe; and I hope that in the course of negotiations this will be shown. In the case of Norway we have always had this friendship. There has sometimes been a little difficulty over fishing for industrial purposes, but outside of that there has been a friendship that could not have been surpassed. So I think we have got to know this if we want to know what the future is going to be.
Secondly, may I sum up by saying what I think we have got to know from the Minister about the 200-mile limit. We should obviously like to know, if he is able to tell us, what bands are going to be available inside our own control and for our own industry. We have this rumour of something from 12 to 50 miles. There are those who say that we have got to have 50 miles all round. All I say is that it is awfully important, whatever else may be the finding, that we have the 50 miles in the important places. Given that, we might be able to do a little negotiation elsewhere; but please remember that this will have to be done by negotiation and not by unilateral action on our part. This is what we have got to remember. I repeat, finally, that the urgency of this matter cannot be overstressed. The whole of the fishing industry cannot plan its future, rebuild or do anything until these decisions are reached. I am certain that the Government and my noble friend are just as much aware of it as we are, but on these occasions it is not a bad thing to remind them that we are thinking along these lines.
4.35 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, if one speaks last in a debate of this kind there is always a danger that what one is going to say has been said before, and to some extent that applies this afternoon because my remarks will be directed mainly to the inshore fishing industry and its proposed restructure by the Commission. This has already been touched on by some speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, but I will try not to be repetitive. It is stated in our report that the inshore fishing industry accounts for one-third of the total fish production by volume in the Community and for
1386
40 per cent. by value, and provides employment for three-quarters of all Community fishermen. I have seen figures which suggest that, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the proportion of total production is a good deal higher than that. It may even go to 70 per cent. My Lords, these figures speak for themselves. Put another way, it means that the majority of our fish are being caught by people in small boats who sleep in their beds and go out when the weather is suitable. Because of the cod war and the forthcoming adoption of the 200-mile EEZ, attention tends to be focused on the deep-sea trawlers which are going to lose their traditional fishing grounds. One must naturally have great sympathy with the fishermen concerned, but, in order to provide them with alternative employment, let us not fall into the trap of destroying that other part of the industry which plays such a vital role in our national life.
There are two dangers. In the first place, the Commission are proposing that the inshore fleet should be run down by the payment of incentives to fishermen to leave the industry. I believe they are quite wrong in this approach, for the reasons stated in paragraph 38 of our report: just as I believe they are equally wrong, for similar reasons, in their desire to restructure the agricultural industry by persuading the small farmer to leave the land and to migrate to the cities. Do we want ever bigger and more sprawling cities? And will the fishermen who are going to be moved to them be any happier? Of course they will not. They love the sea, and they were bred to it; and in my experience people who earn their living from the sea (or from the land, for that matter) lead much happier and more rewarding lives than those who work in the cities.
It seems to be fundamental to the Commission's thinking that both the fishing and the agricultural industries should become more capital-intensive and less labour-intensive. In my view, this is the reverse of what is required, and I hope it will be resisted by the Government. If aid is to be given, let it be given to enable the inshore fishermen to replace their boats, rather than to drive them out of the industry.
The second danger lies in the likelihood that, with the 200-mile limit, our distant

1387
water vessels will try to make good their loss by fishing inshore and by catching in an afternoon, with their much more efficient gear, what is caught by the inshore men in a week or more. This is not a matter for the Community; it is a matter for ourselves, because the rivalry for the inshore grounds will take place largely within our own exclusive zone within the 200-mile limit whatever the size of that zone is finally agreed to be.
It is because of this increasing competition for the inshore grounds that, I believe, the Government should be formulating now a policy of how our own exclusive zone is to be managed. As the Commission make clear, one of the most important functions of the management within the Community—and this has been made clear by successive speakers this afternoon—is the conservation of fish stocks; and the management of our own zone must be given equal priority in this respect, otherwise we shall see the mackerel and other inshore fish go the same way as Lord Boothby's herrings. I would mention, in passing, that no one is better qualified to conserve the fish stocks than the inshore fishermen whose livelihood depends on their survival and who work generally not for a wage but for a share in the catch.
The disadvantages of quotas as a means of management which are spelt out in paragraph 29 apply equally to their allocation within our own industry. In the last fisheries debate on 19th May, I suggested that it might be possible to manage the fishing within our own zone by allowing vessels of a certain size only to fish within given distances from the shore. There would be, in effect, a series of bans, and only the smaller boats would be allowed to fish close inshore. This would preclude the purse-seiners which the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was talking about and the other large boats from scooping the fish from the traditional inshore grounds. It would be relatively easy to police. Our recommendation in paragraph 29 is very similar to my proposal and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he comes to reply will be able to say something about this especially in relation to the coastal areas.
My Lords, before I sit down, I should like to add one further point. I do so as
1388
one who believes in the Commission fisheries policy and who believes in closer integration with our European partners. We, in this country, have certain natural resources. We have coal, for example, and we now have oil under the North Sea; although it will last only for a matter of decades. Our partners in the Community have other resources which we have not. They are not disadvantaged; they merely have other advantages. Some of them possess large forests and a much larger acreage of cultivatable land than we have. They have hydro-electric power from the Alps, an abundance of wine and other produce which can be grown in their more southerly climate.
One of the things that we have got are the fish which swim round our coast. By all means, let us share these fish within the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone with them under the Common Fisheries Policy. But our partners must realise that our coastal areas are vital to us both in terms of employment and of fish production. If we cannot have a 50-mile exclusive zone, it must be very close to 50 miles, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, 50 miles in the areas which are vital to us such as the areas where the blue whiting are going to be fished. Nothing else will be acceptable.
4.45 p.m.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, may I take a minute or two to say a word about fishing, a subject in which, at least some noble Lords know, I have had some experience. May I make three quick points to the Government? In the days when I was fairly close to the fishing industry, the biggest single factor which caused a lack of confidence was that the fishermen felt, rightly or wrongly, that we, as the British Government, always allowed other countries to get away with extending their fishery zones, making new rules and regulations and that we, the British Government, had a different standard and behaved in a much more gentlemanly fashion. I do not want to enter into any controversy with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, about either Iceland or Norway. We have been enormously good friends with both on every occasion except when fishing was the topic of discussion. We really have always let both the Norwegians and the Icelanders lead the field in getting special concessions for

1389
their fishermen. I hope that whatever the Government decide to do on limits, they will at least make a bold bid for something that really sticks and that the fishermen can believe. My second point concerns conservation. Again, we have completely double standards on this. If you talk to our fishermen they will tell you all round the coast—although it will vary according to where you are—that the Danes are allowed to fish off Aberdeen and do things that we are not allowed to do; the Irish fishermen are allowed to fish in the Clyde and do things that we are not allowed to do; that our inspectors are very strict on our people; but that, whatever the international agreements, it is very much more difficult to get on to other people's vessels to make certain that the mesh size is right and that fishing is proper.
Lastly, I am torn in two directions by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, which is that inshore fishermen should be allowed some sort of exclusive right into their own local water. All the evidence that I have had in my part of Scotland has been that as soon as this is attempted you get the whole quality of the fishing industry deteriorating. You get the steadily lazier, more idle, more stupid people claiming more and more exclusive rights to a piece of fishing in order that they can make their livelihood, perhaps sleeping in their bed at nights, but sleeping in it, as well, for a long time after the sun is up.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, if I conveyed that meaning, I did not mean to. I meant that the regions should be protected and that coastal fishermen of that region should have a prime right to fish in that area; that they should be protected from encroachment and over-fishing by people who came into the area from outside; but that we would be managing the fisheries under common management and, as we say in the report, those fishermen from either Britain or neighbouring nations who have established historic fishing rights in that area should be allowed to continue with their fishing so long as that fishing was not contributing to overfishing.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if I misinterpreted the noble Lord, I apologise. It is the difficulty of knowing what people
1390
mean when they talk about regions. I am, in my own mind, certain that the distinction which has been valid enough in the past between inshore and middle water and between middle water and long distance is something which is water very well over the dam. If we are to succeed in creating a new type of fishery organisation with new limits, we must really re-think the whole of this. I hope that we shall do it wisely and sensibly; that we shall not try to create differences but to create unanimity of purpose among all fishermen to preserve stocks and to catch them sensibly so that both the housewife and the fishermen get a good deal out of it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for introducing this very important debate. Speaking for myself and, I am sure, for all who have listened to the speeches, it must be one of the debates where the speeches have been uniformly of a very high standard indeed. Every speech has revealed knowledge and a rationality of argument in an area which is extremely complex and which is, as we were reminded in a powerful contribution by my noble friend Lord Hoy, of extreme urgency for this country. There are of course four documents before the House relating to very different aspects of this problem. If my noble friend Lord Kennet will forgive me for not following him in the second half of the two-pronged point he made, I will not discuss this evening the question of the larger maritime policy which the EEC must in due course adopt; we are this evening dealing with the sufficiently difficult and important question of fishing limits.
The four documents, which I do not need to identify to the House, together with the very useful report of the House of Lords Select Committee, serve as a very good basis for an informed discussion on this matter. I hope to pick up some of the points made in the report as I go along and to refer to one or two points specifically made by noble Lords. The fishing industry, and our distant water fleet in particular, faces a time of change as a result of the now irreversible trend towards 200-mile fishery limits. What is, I think,

1391
a new and hopeful factor is that the inevitability of the extension of fisheries limits is now accepted in the Community.
We have heard the history of the arrangements agreed within the Community of the Six and then subsequently; but today we are dealing with a situation where the Community accepts the irreversibility of the 200-mile limit. This is a point which the Government have been emphasising since at least April 1975 when we sought agreement from the Community in the Agriculture Council that the Common Fisheries Policy should be reviewed to take account of the new circumstances. We thought—and we were joined by both Opposition Parties at that time and since—that, as the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference was about to begin, something like this was inevitable and therefore we, as a major fishing country, and the Community should address our attention to it at once. So we have taken the lead on this to secure in our own interests and that of the Community a positive, definitive policy, not only on the larger question which my noble friend raised but specifically on the question of fisheries limits.
At the European Council this month—and only then—all Member States agreed to invite the Council to consider a declaration that they were ready to extend their fishery limits as soon as was necessary. We, like all Member States, retain the hope that this extension can be on the basis of agreement at the next session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference which will start next Monday, 2nd August. But the Member States now all acknowledge that circumstances may not allow them to wait so long. Some of our best friends and allies have anticipated the likely decisions of UNLOSC in this matter. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that we and our partners in the Community should hold ourselves ready to act similarly. We hope very much that we can act as a result of an international decision arising from the Law of the Sea Conference, but we are bound to be prepared to act in anticipation of it.
The actions or declared intentions of other North Atlantic States are already increasing pressure on the fishery resources in what will be the extended fishery limits of Member States; and the recent meeting of the North East Atlantic
1392
Fisheries Commission in Lisbon demonstrated clearly that extended fishery limits are now a necessary assumption of international fisheries negotiations. I was asked about the results of the Foreign Affairs Council and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Kennet gave a very full account of what had been decided. The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 22nd July the terms of a declaration which commits the Community to decide by the beginning of October the procedures to be followed for an extension of fishery limits.
I have in my hand the official text which I received fairly recently. I will not read it, but if any noble Lord or noble Baroness wishes to look at it at the end of this debate I will retain it so they may do so. Suffice it to say that there is now an acceptance of the 200-mile limit decision to proceed if possible in accordance with the Law of the Sea Conference, but equally a readiness to act in anticipation of that decision, and certainly an agreement on the terms of a declaration which commits the Community to decide by the beginning of October the procedures to be followed. That has an important relation, as my noble friend Lord Hoy would agree, to the question of the continuation of a workable arrangement with Iceland and of course with Norway.
This is an important step. It means that the Community must now come to grips with the problems outlined in the Commission's Working Papers—one of the four that we have been looking at, S/30/76—and build on the ideas presented in the Commission's communication to the Council, which is the subject of a third Paper that we have been looking at. I do not need to comment in detail on the first of these documents. As the explanatory memorandum makes clear, the Paper recognises the need for the Community to plan for the contingency of 200-mile economic zones, and describes not unfairly the crucial nature of the problem for the United Kingdom.
We are, as the Select Committee's report also makes clear, uniquely dependent upon fishing in third country waters. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, and others emphasised this. Of all Member States, we are the most dependent in terms of catch, both in tonnage and in value, in waters off third countries. At the same

1393
time, the potential fishery zone off the United Kingdom is the richest in the Community, contributing, on the Commission's own calculations, something between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the fish in what will be Community waters in the North East Atlantic region. This is the size of the British interest in an equitable and workable arrangement. The importance of it need not be emphasised. The urgency to secure via the Community something which is acceptable to us in terms of those facts is certainly acceptable to every part of the House.
The second Paper takes us a little way towards solving the problem. We share the Commission's belief that conservation and the rebuilding of fish stocks are quite fundamental; and among the speeches to which we listened—quite outstanding in this as in other arenas, as we would expect—was that contributed by my noble friend Lord Boothby. Conservation lies at the very heart of the future of the industry, and we are glad to note that the Commission are seized of this fundamental fact. We agree, too, that any régime must include a combination of coastal belts and quotas: the mix is a matter of negotiation rather than of argument. The important thing is that we are not tied down exclusively to a geographical or a numerate assessment of what is right and fair: the two measurements are used.
Perhaps at this point I should say that I am not too sure that I would go along with the comment in the Select Committee's report that the proposals in the second Paper have been outdated by subsequent developments. It was in anticipation of progress in UN LOSC towards a system of Exclusive Economic Zones that the Commission produced them. We are dealing at present not with economic zones but solely with fishery jurisdiction. The difference is not relevant in this context, and the Common Fisheries Policy is explicit in saying that its principles—and notably that of equal access—apply to all waters within the sovereignty or jurisdiction of Member States even though the actual decision to extend such jurisdiction to 200 miles remains a matter for the individual country. We shall have to take action, as will other Member States in regard to this.
1394
In approaching the problem the British Government have found themselves, as it were, between Scylla and Charybdis—a classical reference which is perhaps more than usually apposite when one deals with this class of question. My noble friend Lord Hoy brought this out clearly when he referred, in a very balanced speech, not only to the urgency and importance to us of this question, but also to the fact that because of the Treaty of Accession, of our membership of the Community, our room for manoeuvre in negotiation is necessarily restricted. I hope it is not unduly restricted; but it is just as well that we should enjoin upon our own negotiators, and indeed those of Member States, to remember that, as a country, we have taken over a substantially settled policy and it is by a process of negotiation based on good will that we have got as far as we have got, and by means of which we hope to get further in future. So in looking at the various points made about the extent of the coastal belt, I would remind your Lordships that we are operating on a basis of negotiation which is not open ended.
The treaty of Accession contains provisions until 1982, exempting coastal waters from many of the provisions of the Common Fisheries Policy, and we are not in any doubt about the application of the policy to the waters under the jurisdiction of Member States. While we recognise that a fisheries policy containing adequate coatal belts will be the only basis on which it would be acceptable to us and to our fishing industry, we also recognise that in seeking changes we must take account of what might be agreed within the Community, because it is only with the agreement of the Community that we can get changes.
Our position was set out in the Foreign Affairs Council by my right honourable friend Mr. Hattersley on 4th May. I should have liked to see a reference to his statement in the Select Committee's report: it is really essential to our discussions this afternoon. In that statement he made it clear that what we are seeking is a coastal belt of variable width, of a minimum width of 12 miles stretching to 50 miles in places and taking in the fishing grounds of greatest importance to our industry. I think it was my noble friend who, in referring to this variable

1395
system, very rightly emphasised that the maximal point should be in those areas of most importance to us and to our fishing industry. Certainly that will be our object. Since 4th May, when my right honourable friend made that statement, the matter has been raised in the European Council and there have been bilateral discussions with Member States and with the Commission. I would not wish to go into details of the negotiation, but I want to say that no one should be in any doubt about the importance which the Government attach to this issue or about the strength and determination which our negotiators will apply to the discussions: as they have done in the past. so in the future.
I should like to say a little more about conservation and enforcement. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and others, made quite a point over these matters, and quite rightly. They are fundamental and will undoubtedly involve the highest degree of co-operation between the Community and Member States. There is a great deal of detailed work to be done here. There was in this House on 15th July a very useful debate about the policing of any British economic zones, and I need say no more about tht anow. The report of the Select Committee contains some very valuable suggestions, and I can assure the House that these will be taken fully into account.
The powers which the Government will take in legislation to extend British fisheries limits will be sufficient to ensure that conservation measures can be properly enforced within our waters. Whether we need to go as far as vesting the fisheries resources in the Crown, I am not so sure. I am not disputing the principle of this: it is the necessity for it. Let us have a good look at it and see whether this is the way in which we can safeguard the position most effectively. However, I would wholeheartedly agree that the actual policing of conservation measures within an economic zone, or extended fisheries jurisdiction, will need to be the responsibility of the Member States concerned. This is not to reject the suggestion made that from time to time there might be a system of inspection based on an exchange of nationals between one port and another. I would not rule that out at all; indeed, I personally find it an attractive suggestion.
1396
There will no doubt be a variety of measures required in the interests of conservation, such as restrictions on mesh sizes, closed areas and so forth. I do not have a legible note as to which of your Lordships made the point that there might be a closed season between the 50-mile limit and the 200-mile limit. I see that the candidate for authorship is the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. There could very well be closed areas—indeed, I imagine that there would be—in the whole composite system of conservation. Effort limitation measures may, as suggested by the Committee, feature among them, but at this stage I would only wish your Lordships to bear in mind the complexity of the issue. I can assure the House that the fisheries Departments are studying this whole area most carefully and, as a former Minister, my noble friend Lord Hoy will be more aware than most of us of the expertise which the fisheries Departments can bring to bear in a study of these matters.
May I now turn to the question of negotiations with third countries? This brings me conveniently to the instrument bringing into force Protocol 6 of the EEC/Iceland Agreement. Part of the Commission's proposals is that, with the extension of limits and the application of the Common Fisheries Policy to such waters, the Community should conduct negotiations on fishery matters with third countries. In one way, that lets us out. In another way, we want to make quite sure that we have negotiated with the Community a firm base upon which it will conduct these very essential negotiations on our, and their, behalf with third countries, with whom for so many years we have had such close connections, business and otherwise.
It is explicit in the agreement with Iceland that the successor arrangement should be with the Community. Where reciprocal rights are concerned, this is a practical and sensible arrangement which conforms with Community practice. It will also allow the negotiating weight of the Community to be brought to bear. We shall be substituting the weight of the Community for the force of our frigates, and it is a substitution that everyone here will welcome. We are pressing very hard for the Community to produce the draft mandates for the negotiation with Iceland and Norway, which is the third point that my noble

1397
friend raised. Negotiations with Iceland will need to take place very soon after the summer break, if there is not to be a hiatus following the expiry of the present arrangement on 1st December.
I have said that we are looking hopefully to the meeting in October, and the urgency is there because the Icelandic agreement expires on 1st December. There is therefore not much need to convince our own negotiators, and I see no need to convince those of the Community as a whole, that time is now of the essence, especially in regard to successor agreements with third countries. Whether the new agreement is a transitional arrangement or a full agreement with the Community, is not quite the point. What we want is a smooth transition and assurance for the future. It may well be that a full agreement is not immediately available; it may well be available. But at least there will not be the uncertainty and the opportunity, or the temptation for political argument and disturbance of our relations, which, unfortunately, in the past have hindered agreements between us and our very old friends in Iceland.
I have little doubt that there will be some tough bargaining between the Commission and Iceland. Protocol 6 of the EEC/Iceland Agreement is a strong card in the hand of the Community. At this moment, I must resist the temptation to say any more, because this is now a matter of negotiation. I agree that negotiations with Norway will also need to follow soon, and the Community will need to turn its attention to other countries also. We have seen our distant water catch eroded, as the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, pointed out, by quite a number of other countries. The negotiations will be complex. They will not be common form in relation to every one of the so-called third countries. They will be difficult, and the Community will need to protect its interests, and consequently ours, by taking a firm line with the countries with little or no fish to offer the Community in reciprocal arrangements. That is a matter of fact, not a threat. It is one of the facts of life that some of these countries have very little reciprocity, in the sense that Iceland and Norway are able to offer us.
1398
May I now turn briefly to the Commission's proposals for the restructuring of the inshore fishing industry, contained in the relevant document on which the Ministry of Agriculture provided an explanatory memorandum, which I understand remains valid. As your Lordships will know, this proposal was considered by Sub-Committee A and it is also referred to in the recent report by the Select Committee. The Committees were critical of this proposal, believing it inappropriate to consider inshore fisheries on their own. The Government have considerable sympathy with this viewpoint; indeed, it conforms very closely with our views.
I think that everything I have said this evening points to the virtual certainty that, in the rapidly changing circumstances, all Community fleets will face the need for major structural changes over the next months and years, not simply the British fleet. As my noble friend most presciently reminded us, this may well need financial action involving the participation and contribution of the taxpayer as a whole. It is not quite enough to demand this and that for any industry, however important. At the end of the day, this kind of restructuring must, as my noble friend showed, depend upon adequate finance, which in these circumstances can come only from the public purse, and that means the taxpayer. There is, of course, much preparatory work which can usefully be put in hand and the United Kingdom would seek to make a constructive contribution to it; that is, to the Community's study of this part of the problem.
The more logical course, in our view, would be to await the time when a more objective assessment of the scale and nature of future fishing opportunities can be reached, and for the Commission then to produce comprehensive proposals for action relating to Community fleets as a whole. I think that that would be acceptable to us all, except that we are entitled to put in a caveat that the specific needs of the British fishing fleet may well be somewhat different, in fairly important directions, from those of countires which have rather less experience of fishing as a major industry figuring largely in their economies. This is a matter for argument and negotiation within the Community.
The subject I have dealt with this evening is virtually inexhaustible in scope. We

1399
have seen the way in which the international framework is changing and how this is accepted world wide, certainly by the Community. It is going to have profound effects on the way in which our own fisheries are organised. The Government are in the closest consultation with the industry and the other interests which are affected. They will be negotiating strongly in Brussels to ensure that the Common Fisheries Policy is adapted in ways which meet our interests and also to ensure that in the negotiation of reciprocal arrangements with third countries the Community guards our interests.
But there are many uncertainties. I am fully aware of the unease which is felt in many quarters. A period of change is never a comfortable time, but, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said in another place on 20th June, the Government are determined to ensure that our fisheries resources and the industries exploiting them continue to make a major contribution to the British economy. I am confident that this determination will not falter.
I think I have dealt with the outstanding points which were emphasised during the debate. If I have left out anything which noble Lords feel I might have dealt with in this winding up speech, perhaps they will do me the honour of bringing it to me bilaterally rather than multilaterally so that we can follow it up. This is not a debate of confrontation; rather it is a meeting of minds and of accepted interests. We stand on the basis that, whatever are the views of the various Members of this House and, indeed, of the general public about membership for Britain of the European Community, the fact is that by a large and decisive majority we are members.
Part of the terms of membership is acceptance of certain arrangements which the Community had come to before we joined. There were very substantial and clear arrangements relating to fisheries that had been agreed by the Community before we joined. At the time of the argument last year it was said on both sides of the argument that once we had reaffirmed our decision to remain within the Community there would be every opportunity to negotiate for the adaptation of existing arrangements of this kind.
1400
The country accepted that assumption. Perhaps this is outstandingly a test of whether in fact adaptation is possible.
We are faced here with a British national interest of quite outstanding importance. We have made this clear and we continue to make it clear to our friends and partners in the Community. We believe that they understand our position and will respond to what we propose to them on that basis. If, as I hope and expect, the Community respond to our arguments on this matter, it will be the fact of agreement on this point which will be among those forces which will effectively promote the future cohesion of the Community and certainly the efficacy of the British contribution to its future.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him whether he will bring to the attention of the requisite authorities the question of trawling for prawns? It may seem a small matter, but it is an important one for the local inshore fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland. If you trawl for prawns, for every prawn you catch you probably destroy three or four more. Prawns, like the rabbit, although it may seem an absurd comparison, live in burrows, and when the trawl comes over the seabed it suffocates a great number of prawns in their burrows. Therefore, the correct method of catching prawns is in pots. There is now quite a large trade in prawn, from the West Coast of Scotland to France and Spain. The problem is that if trawling is allowed to go on it will deplete very considerably the prawn stocks. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to consider that point of view. I think that trawling for prawns ought to be made illegal.
5.24 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend for his full and conscientious reply to what, in my opinion and that of other noble Lords, has been a most interesting debate. May I make one point of detail about the proposal in the report that we should vest fish in the Crown, as there may be some misunderstanding about it. The Sub-Committee did not mean that fish, once vested in the Crown, should remain vested in the Crown when they swim

1401
across the median line into somebody else's waters. There is no analogy with the proposal under discussion in UNCLOS IV—anagenous species of fish—particularly the salmon, which, according to some, simply because they are spawned in Danish rivers, should remain Danish even if they fetch up off the coast of Canada. No such analogy was intended. Fish are British up to the median line; once they swim across it they stop being British fish. This is simply for clarification.
Regarding pheasants, geese might have been a better analogy. We all know what happens if we try to shoot the goose, which is a migratory species, when, for instance, it lands upon the saltings of the noble Earl. Everybody who has spoken has been in favour of effort limitation and against quotas. Also, everybody who has spoken has been against the very heavy capitalisation of the industry. Even if it were only for those two majority opinions, this debate would have been sufficient.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for what he has just said. May I also thank the noble Viscount for his intervention on prawns which diverted me and added to my knowledge of the fishing industry. I will most certainly draw his erudition to the close attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On the point about the Crown vesting, I take my noble friend's point. It is a question of whether this is necessary. I do not believe that there is any argument of principle for or against what is the best instrument in order to assert a position, possibly an intermediate position, between now and finalisation of the discussions in the Community. However, we shall watch what happens on the median line in the fish world and perhaps that will help us to decide whether or not fish should be vested in the Crown.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MARINE FISH FARMING: EEC REPORT
5.29 p.m.
Lord VERNON Lord VERNON rose to move, that this House takes note of the Thirty-eighth
1402
Report of this session of the European Communities Committee on Marine Fish Farming (R/2988/75, remaining sections). The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I must confess to feeling something of an imposter. In the first place, I took the chair at the meetings of our Sub-Committee which dealt with fish farming only in the temporary absence of our chairman, Lord Raglan, who had a short and very well earned break. Secondly, I feel that to some extent I have stolen the clothes of my noble friend Lady Emmet, because fish farming is so very much her subject. Indeed, I think it was my noble friend Lady Emmet who first stimulated my interest in this subject. I found that the more we went into it and the more that we examined witnesses, the more fascinated I became by it. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, will not be speaking. I understand she feels that she has spoken rather a lot on this subject but I am sure the whole House would agree that she has not spoken enough.
I must make it clear at the outset that our report does not cover the whole spectrum of fish farming but only marine fish farming as it is affected by the proposed Brussels Directive—a Directive which deals with the inshore fisheries as a whole and which has already been referred to in the previous debate this afternoon. The two subjects, marine fish farming and inshore fishing, are of course closely inter-linked and some people may wonder why we are having separate debates. I think the answer is that we felt the common fisheries policy in the context of the anticipated 200-mile limit is such an important and urgent issue that fish farming might be swamped if it was covered in the same debate. As an industry which has been neglected for far too long fish farming does not deserve to be swamped; on the contrary, it deserves the closest scrutiny and continuing support, as I shall attempt to demonstrate.
It is proposed under the Commission's Directive that grants will be available for the rearing of fish, crustaceans and molluscs, subject to certain provisos. One of the most important of the provisos is that the recipient should qualify for a grant from its own national Government. At present the majority of the fish farming

1403
industry—that is the industry outside the purview of the Highlands and Islands Development Board—is not eligible for grants because it is not classified as agricultural. This is an anomaly which we believe should be changed, and we hope will be changed under legislation at present before Parliament.
Another proviso is that the fish must be reared in what is termed in the Preamble to the Directive, "salt or brackish water". The Committee feel strongly that no such condition should be imposed. Salmon and trout can both be reared in salt and fresh water, or in a combination of the two, and it would seem absurd to make such a distinction. Eels are another species of fish which are beginning to be exploited commercially and which move freely between salt and fresh water. They breed in one and they mature in the other. The Committee believe that it would be more satisfactory if all fish farmers, including freshwater fish farmers, were eligible for grant.
The other specific point in our report which I should like to emphasise is the need to establish reserved areas, referred to in paragraph 16. In some ways I think this is one of the most important aspects of our report. I understand the Minister has set his face against reserved areas on the grounds that they would interfere with the traditional right of free fishing in the waters of England and Wales. I hope very much that he can be persuaded to change his mind. I am the last person to wish to interfere with traditional freedoms unless it is necessary, but in this case the Committee believe it to be essential. The number of sites suitable for marine fish farming, especially those with access to the warmer water generated by power stations, is severely limited. We all know that the pressures on the coastal sites from industry, from private development and from those concerned with recreation, are increasing all the time. The Committee believe that unless early action is taken to reserve the sites—and we are talking in terms of relatively small areas of a few hundred hectares—they may be lost for ever and the future of a potentially exciting and valuable industry will be jeopardised.
My Lords, I speak about a "valuable and exciting industry"; perhaps I should be a little more specific. The Com
1404
mittee are not starry-eyed. We know that farmed fish can never be produced in sufficient quantities to replace Icelandic cod and other wild species as a major element in the nation's diet. Such replacement will have to come from the blue whiting or other new sources. There are enormous technical problems still to be solved and we have been careful not to make predictions of farm fish production, although we do quote the views of the White Fish Authority on the possible production of sole and turbot. Moreover, Mr. Howard, from Marine Harvest Limited, a subsidiary of the Unilever Company, who gave evidence before us, gave us some interesting figures on possible salmon production. Of course, the charge is often levelled by sceptics that these are all luxury fish and their production will not help to feed the mass of the population, but I would remind the House that 30 years ago chicken was a luxury food. The position is very different today.
Only by concentrating on the more expensive fish is the producer able to recoup his costs in the early stages of a project. If successful he can then turn his attention either to producing that same expensive fish more cheaply, and so making it available to a mass market, or to farming a cheaper species of fish. Even if it transpires in the end that luxury fish only can be produced, there will still be a significant gain to our balance of payments, as will be seen from the figures in paragraph 22 of the report. These figures take no account of salmon production. If, in addition to the fresh market, salmon can be farmed to supply the market for tinned salmon at competitive prices the reduction in our imports, mainly of Canadian tinned salmon, would be significant.
Successive Governments have invested considerable sums of money—in the region of a million pounds a year—in fish farming research. All credit to them for doing so, but a critical stage has now been reached. We are beginning to move from the phase of pure research into that of commercial production. Farmed salmon are already on the market and farmed sole and farmed turbot should not be far behind. The risks taken by the companies who have invested money in these projects are substantial. It is now more than ever necessary that

1405
Government assistance and backing should be given. It would be a tragedy if it was not forthcoming. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-eighth Report of this session of the European Communities Committee on Marine Fish Farming (R/2988/75, remaining sections).—(Lord Vernon.)
5.40 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, having spoken in the debate which has just taken place, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for long now in this debate, while I recognise the importance of the subject. We are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Vernon for having introduced this subject and the report so concisely and clearly. He tells us he has stepped into someone else's shoes, and we congratulate him doubly for having performed this service so well for us. I should also like from this Bench to thank the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee for having investigated this somewhat erudite subject so closely. They have given us a distillation of the results of their examination, and their recommendations.
This is a new industry, and I believe it is one whose growth should be encouraged in this country. At the same time, we must recognise that the marine side of fish farming cannot develop overnight into a major source of food for us. There are technical problems, as my noble friend Lord Vernon has just pointed out. This is brought home in the report itself. But what this type of fish farming can do is to make an important additional contribution to our sources of food, and an additional contribution to the fish hunted and caught by traditional methods, but in order to do this efficiently, clearly suitable conditions are required.
My noble friend mentioned the warm sea water at power stations. I believe this is the first kind of area which should be examined. When the expected new nuclear generators are coming into our system, and when sites are being sought, as well as looking for all the conditions necessary from the point of view of safety and other matters connected with
1406
nuclear generators at the early stages we should also see whether the warm water produced as a result of the necessary cooling processes might be used for marine fish farming. My own limited knowledge of the nuclear generating subject is that these new power stations will have to be sited on the coasts and usually in areas which are not populated. These are also suitable areas for fish farming, so one hopes it will be possible to bring the two together. That does not exclude the other types of power stations and the opportunities there may be there for using the warm water from the cooling processes.
The breeding and husbanding of fish will be necessary in order to provide the supplies we need in this country, in addition to the hunting processes. I do not think my noble friend need worry about the fact that the types of fish being produced now by marine fish farms are somewhat expensive. I think that is bound to be so at the beginning. At the moment I think salmon and rainbow trout are being produced by commercial fish farms and, as the report indicates, sole and turbot should be sold commercially fairly soon.
In 1969—about seven years ago—I spent a day looking at a marine fish farm, which at that time was fairly new, on the West coast of Scotland. This farm went in mainly for salmon in cages in a sea loch, and has been very successful. But the salmon were concentrated and having to be fed, so it was an operation. Something else done, which was then a minor breakthrough, was that they had just succeeded in introducing rainbow trout to salt water, thereby making the rainbow trout do what salmon do, which is to go down to the sea; because once the rainbow trout took to salt water they immediately grew to about 10 lbs. or more. Naturally, this was a small breakthrough. I do not know whether it is still a commercial secret of the company concerned, but that is the kind of thing that can be done in fish farming. I was a little too late in giving them some advice, however, because only the week before I arrived, although their ponds containing these large, appetising rainbow trout were guarded by wire netting, none the less in the dead of night the whole lot were taken by raiders who came in with wire cutters. I do not think the people there had realised that the temptation was too great for some

1407
of the poachers we know of in Scotland, who came and took the lot in the middle of the night. So I advised them then to improve their wiring, and if necessary to introduce radar and other devices. Since then they have not had the same trouble.
One of the major problems in fish farming is that where you have a concentration of fish, you run the risk of disease. In my area of Scotland there are a number of fresh water fish farms and I know only too well from their experience that their great worry is disease. Once disease arrives, the whole stock could be wiped out. This is illustrated by the fact that it is now difficult to find insurance companies which will give cover to freshwater fish farms at reasonable premiums. This is a very high risk operation, and the greatest care is needed in order to ward off infection. Do not let any of us think that this is an industry which can be easily embarked upon.
I agree with what my noble friend said, and with what the report outlines, that it is not appropriate to consider marine fish farming in isolation from fresh water fish farming. Both form a single industry. They have similar operations and are confronted with similar problems. So I come to the question of rating. At the moment, both marine and fresh water fish farms are assessable to local authority rates. Rates are levied, and these are different from those applicable to agriculture. One of the ways in which we in Britain could encourage fish farming would be if we were to put it on the same basis as agriculture, ordinary farming, where rating is concerned. We cannot afford to ignore the contribution which the expanding fish farming industry can make to the economy of our country, and our sources of food. I hope the Government will encourage fish farming in this country. I think that the report of the Select Committee is helpful in this direction.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, in the absence of other speakers, may I say I am not really primed on this—it is many years since the subject was debated in the House and, when it was, I took part in the debate. I came to listen today, hoping we should hear something about the question of rating of the buildings concerned in fish farming in comparison with the rating of ordinary agriculture. When
1408
the noble Lord replies, I wonder if he would be able—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will give way, that was the point I myself raised at the end of my speech.
5.48 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, for giving us the opportunity to debate this extremely interesting subject, one which I agree with him has great potential, certainly for trout, but also for other species when we get through the experimental stage. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord and the Select Committee on the very clear and extremely interesting report, together with the supporting evidence, which I think makes fascinating reading.
Therefore, we have had another debate on this subject following on the one we had recently during the Committee stage of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Perhaps I can say at the outset, in answer to the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Ferrier, that the question of rating is one of the subjects which the Department will be discussing with the industry. But, of course, the first step, as your Lordships will remember, is that this House passed an Amendment to equate aquaculture and agriculture. The next step is that this will be considered by another place. Depending upon the decision of Parliament we shall then know where we can go, and as soon as that has been arrived at we can enter into full discussions with the industry.
My Lords, it is worth while recalling the reason why this draft Regulation has been put forward. Essentially it is
"to promote the rational development of inshore fishing with the basic objective of securing better balance between catching capacity, exploitable fish stocks, and demand".
With this aim in mind, the draft proposes that grants should be made available from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund towards the cost of projects for the reorganisation of inshore fishing fleets, the modernisation of shore installations and the development and rearing of fish and shellfish and crustaceans. The only point which I should like to underline here is that, of course, as both

1409
noble Lords have said, the Regulation is related only to marine fish farming. I agree that it might have been better if it had considered freshwater farming as well as sea water, but this is the report that we are considering today. On the other hand, I am sure that the European Committee will bear very much in mind what has been said, and no doubt our colleagues in the Community will as well. For that reason, the subject which is of concern to the House today must necessarily be more limited in its scope than when we last discussed this during the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the authorities that are looking into this matter at the moment are aware that in Europe fish farming inland is considered agriculture; therefore, they would probably make a distinction between brackish and marine, because the other is already covered? With us it is not.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I know that is so; but the report merely refers to marine fish farming and the fish described in it are all fin fish which are reared in the sea.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, that is because other fish are already covered by agriculture.
Lord STRABOLGI: Well, my Lords, if the noble Baroness will bear with me I shall come to these different points later.
I was going to say that it is not clear from the terms of the Regulation whether it would include salmon and sea trout rearing within its ambit. For practical purposes I think we should, at least at this stage, consider that it does. This would have the effect that we are discussing those aspects of fish farming which are at a more advanced stage than those concerned with species such as turbot and sole. Of course, there is a small but important shellfish rearing industry in this country which is largely devoted to oyster production. In fact, our oysters have been famous since Roman times, and they are, I think, the finest in the world, just as our whisky, as I am sure Lord Campbell would agree,
1410
is also the finest in the world. The only thing is that you cannot enjoy the two together.
My Lords; the Government endorse the aim of adapting the means of production to the exploitation potential of the reared stocks. To the extent that grant aid is made available from Community funds for this purpose, we should of course welcome the proposal, and we do. However, I think that we must address ourselves to the situation as it exists and is likely to exist for the next few years. The real issue is the extent of the likely potential of the industry—and in relation to marine fish farming it is still only a potential—and the resultant employment possibilities. I think it is worth stressing that the Regulation is primarily designed to deal with structural problems arising from the situation which exists in the Community's inshore fishing industry.
The criteria suggested appear to be strict and there would be quite heavy commitments laid upon both the country concerned and the would-be fish farmer to play a substantial role in the financing of any ventures. I think that this is right. Any branch of fish farming involves considerable investment expenditure at some risk. In the Government's view, it is important to secure that the interested parties have a substantial stake in the success of any enterprise. Clearly once grant aid became available above a certain point the incentive to invest to the greatest advantage would diminish rapidly.
It is at this point that we should pause to consider the likely situation. The draft Regulation postulates a situation under which the inshore fishing industry will contract. There would be resulting unemployment or redeployment of resources. It is implied that marine fish farming would be one of the activities to assist in overcoming this problem. Well, my Lords, it might. But with the best will in the world the Government cannot see this activity playing more than a very minor role in such redeployment. This would certainly be true in this country, whatever might be the effects elsewhere where different circumstances obtain.
Nevertheless, I do underline that the Government for their part will play a

1411
constructive role in the discussions on the draft. We shall continue to undertake the background work in the development of marine fish farming. Assistance available from other sources will, of course, be very welcome. But it is essential, I should stress, to be realistic as to the scope of the possibilities likely to arise in the foreseeable future. Clearly, even on a fairly small scale, the problems of providing employment opportunities for those leaving the catching side of the industry in the highly specialised and capital-intensive fish farming sectors are formidable.
The report draws attention to the problems arising on pollution, and this is, of course, an extremely important subject. It is one to which the Government have addressed themselves with vigour over recent years. Large resources have been deployed to combat the problems, and as many of your Lordships will be aware, with no small degree of success. I confirm that the United Kingdom will continue to play a leading part in the arrangements which have to be made with our EEC colleagues and others in the development of further measures. Perhaps it would be appropriate if I reminded the House of the part we already play in the work of the Oslo and Paris Commissions and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which are some of the bodies most intimately concerned with the work of monitoring and control of pollution.
During the debates on fish farming there have been considerable discussions on the legal implications and the administrative structure in this country for dealing with the subject. Once again I wish to stress that responsibilitiy for it falls, rightly in the Government's view, and in my own view, upon the Fisheries Departments in England and Scotland. I think there should be no doubt about this matter. I think that fish farming, as the debate has shown and indeed the Regulation itself illustrates, is closely related to other fishery matters. This activity benefits from the close relationship which its treatment obtains by being considered in relation to these matters. On the narrower issue which is mentioned in the report, we should obviously have to consider the effects of the proposals, if they were adopted, upon United Kingdom law. There is no doubt that
1412
supplementary legislation would be required to bring the proposals into effect. This is precisely the sort of issue which we should like to examine in detail with fish farming and other interests in the forthcoming continuation of past discussions.
The report suggests, first, that fish farming can be seen as part of the problem of restructuring of the inshore fisheries industry; and, secondly, that the Ministry was suprised at this proposition because of, "its traditional uncertain treatment of fish farming under different heads". On the latter point, I have already said that the problems which need consideration are best dealt with in the fisheries context, because that is where the administrative and scientific expertise lies. On the other hand, this does not prevent fish farming being treated in its varied forms as a discrete subject. On occasions this is necessary because of the considerable number of issues arising outside what one might term the pure fish farming context.
On the major issue, the prospect of any real impact being made upon unemployment of inshore fishermen by their diversion to fish farming seems likely to be slight on any objective judgment. Secondly, the Government are entitled to ask, as they will, in the forthcoming discussions what spin-off benefits are in mind for the inshore industry. That was a term which was of course used in the report. We note the suggestion in the report that they have in mind 6,000 tons of farmed fish—presumably marine species. In itself this is a tiny figure. But where is this production going to come from? There are no species of marine fin fish produced commercially—and I stress the word "commercially"—at the present time although some companies have development programmes for turbot.
The Government have made an appraisal of the likely production of sole, turbot, halibut and plaice for the next decade. Such an estimate is of course beset with uncertainties. But in estimating the likely production we take reassurance from the fact that the fish farming interests themselves have been consulted. The conclusion from this process was that something less than 3,000 tons of marine fin fish might be produced by the end of the next decade. These

1413
figures are of course speculative, but they at least provide us with an idea of the order of magnitude. They are the figures which those engaged in the business believe to be both technically feasible and commercially viable.
All the evidence is that the main constraints to growth were considered to be technical rather than commercial. The figures take no account of the future market for these species. I readily agree with the noble Lord, and of course with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, that once we can get over the technical difficulties there are enormous market potentialities for this, but we are constrained by the technical difficulties. In addition to what one might call traditional marine species, there is of course the prospect of farmed supplies of Atlantic salmon becoming available, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said. Of course, this is the other type of fish, with the rainbow trout, with which I think we have more or less solved the technical problems. The problems with the trout were solved some years ago; they are in production. The estimate for production at the end of the next decade for the traditional marine species on the same basis as that which I have described above is also perhaps 3,000 tons.
The report indicates that the stage has now been reached when the production of marine fish can be exploited commercially and significantly expanded. As the figures I have quoted show, this is not strictly true. There remain, as I said, major problems of development to be overcome, particularly in relation to turbot and sole. I stress this. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, was very cautious in what he said about turbot and sole, and that is borne out in the report. I think the evidence given was very qualified, but with hope for the future. The Government's view is that turbot is nearer to success than sole. Work is, however, being continued in the Ministry's laboratories and elsewhere on the feeding problems of sole, but I must say that considerable difficulties still remain to be overcome.
I would at this point like to say that the industry's view on the broad question of development is that Government research and development should leave them to
1414
identify the problems so that research can be concentrated on specific areas. The conclusion drawn by industry was that future growth would be a slow process with a limited number of farms participating and producing very small quantities over the next few years. I should say that all the scientific evidence at this stage is that halibut culture is a very long way away.
The Committee showed in its report considerable interest in ensuring that sites of possible interest to fish farmers should be pre-empted even for very long periods ahead and with no certainty of their being used. This was mentioned earlier in the debate. I am sure that this is one of those suggestions to which everybody would probably subscribe in the abstract. But when one gets down to the concrete issues, I find it difficult to believe that we should seriously suggest that legislation should be put forward pre-empting sites of possible interest to fish farmers (even if we knew which these were) to the exclusion of many other interests which, in the meantime, might wish to utilise our crowded shoreline. I suggest that this would be planning blight with a vengeance! It should also not be forgotten, if I may remind noble Lords, that in England and Wales there exists the public right of fishing. The Government could certainly not agree to any interference in this without the most serious consequences.
Then there is the question of the use of heated water from power stations, which has been mentioned here as well as in the report. This has obvious advantages in the promotion of fish growth, but it should not be overlooked that power stations are designed to provide power for the national grid. Fish farming to them is a minor activity in this context, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that in this context this must be so. If there has to be a change in operating procedures for power supply, or for other reasons, this would take place notwithstanding any effects upon fish farming activities. It would be quite possible for all fish farming efforts to be lost overnight because operational procedures required it. In these circumstances, it would be quite wrong to rely upon warm water sites as something upon which fish farmers can necessarily depend as a permanent service. This is something

1415
which of course can be examined, but all I suggest at this stage is that we should not think that it is going to be the solution to our difficulties.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, the Minister is very kind to let me interrupt once more. This question of the use of nuclear warm water has been studied and it has been used most successfully in Germany, regardless of such apprehensions as the noble Lord mentioned just now.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I agree; but all I say at this moment is that it is not a service on which you can rely in any permanent way. For example, the warm water effluent is a by-product which happens to be useful for another purpose. The operating conditions of a station can alter suddenly; for example, where there was a failure or where chemicals such as chloride had to be introduced into the water to inhibit barnacles or some other growth which would affect the efficient working of the station. Such changes can have, and have had, a dramatic effect on farmed fish, bringing any of this work to an end. As I say, I have not by any means a closed mind on this. I just want to stress some of the difficulties when using a by-product from a service which is of such enormous national interest.
There have of course been considerable discussions over the past months about the ways in which existing legislation might require change. We shall be discussing these matters further with the fish farming interests with a view to establishing the best way to proceed. The same point arises in relation to the control of pollution, on which I have commented, and of course over the prevention of disease.
I hope that these remarks will have assisted your Lordships in appreciating the considerations which weigh with the Government, but I should like to stress that we are concerned to ensure that the fish farming industry continues to maintain the excellent progress shown in the past decade. For example 10 years ago there were some 20 fish farms; today there are some 400, which I think is an excellent example of growth. Through our joint efforts I am sure that we shall be able to secure that these activities will play their part in providing supplies of
1416
farmed fish for British and foreign consumers. The Government wish the industry well and will continue to devote their efforts to assisting it in the most practical way to the national advantage.
6.12 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House because I know that a lot of further business remains to be transacted. I regret that there were so few speakers, but I understand that a plane left for Scotland at a time which coincided with the debate and that several noble Lords who had put their names down to speak wished to catch it. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his remarks. As for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I could probably go on arguing with him until the cows come home, but I will not attempt to do so. The attitude of the Ministry towards fish farming is somewhat ambiguous. They say that they welcome it and they give money towards research, but I think that at the same time many of the noble Lord's remarks were somewhat discouraging to the fish farming industry. At any rate, that was my impression.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, I did not wish in any way to be discouraging. I simply said that except for rainbow trout and salmon, where there has been a breakthrough, all other fish are in the experimental stage. That is why the Government are giving £1 million for development. But any commercial fish farming on a large-scale must come after the experimental and scientific breakthrough.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I quite appreciate what the noble Lord said. Equally, some of the figures given to us and the forecasts and hopes of the White Fish Authority, which after all is a Government agency, are slightly different from what was given to us by Lord Strabolgi, but I do not want to pursue that now. I should like to take up just one point with him; that is, the question of reserved areas, on which he poured a certain amount of cold water, if that is the right term to use. What we are asking for is elementary planning. Areas are reserved for all sorts of purposes in this country—for example, where building is not allowed to take place—but the

1417
areas in question are tiny and I feel that the Government should take a slightly more encouraging line on this issue.
My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the witnesses who came to give evidence to us in our Committee. They travelled very long distances to do so and often at very great inconvenience to themselves. I wish also to thank our Clerk who, in the midst of his other very heavy duties in a European connection, found time to give the Committee the greatest assistance and assistance to me in particular.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON AND STEEL (AMENDMENT) BILL
6.17 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Strang in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Lord CARR of HADLEY Lord CARR of HADLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 2 insert the following new clause:
Duty of Corporation to provide information
". In section (14) (General financial duties of the Corporation) at the end there shall be inserted—
"(8) Notwithstanding anything specified heretofore it shall be incumbent on the Corporation to provide such information as the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of laying before Parliament a Green Paper which shall be considered before any order is made under subsection (3A) of section 36 of this Act. Such information shall include (but shall not be restricted to)—

(a) an indication of the alternative financial arrangement considered for future investment schemes (including the possibility of joint ventures);

1418

(b) a projected Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account and Funds Flow forecast for each of the succeeding five years; and

(c) an outline of the Corporation's intentions with regard to existing and future debt repayment.""

The noble Lord said: To explain the purpose of this proposed new clause I will briefly recapitulate the background. The overwhelmingly main purpose of the Bill is of course to increase the borrowing powers of the British Steel Corporation by £2,000 million, doubling it from its present £2,000 million to a prospective £4,000 million, a huge increase. In the Second Reading debate last week, I expressed the view on behalf of the Opposition that we felt that before Parliament was asked to approve such further huge provisions of public money—or potentially of public money—the Steel Corporation should be asked to give a somewhat fuller prospectus about its affairs: about the ways in which it proposes to use and raise the money, the return on it and the debt repayment and all such matters.
I expressed rather strong dissatisfaction on behalf of the Opposition that we did not feel that we had got a prospectus of the necessary rigour and detail. I went on to say, however, that in view of the time factor and the urgency of the need of the BSC, we would not wish to hold up the authorisation of the first tranche of this money—that is, raising the borrowing limit from £2 billion to £3 billion—in order to demand any further information about that, and that although we did not like it we were prepared, in view of the urgency, to allow that to go through.
I went on to point out that the second tranche—the second £1 billion—which raises the borrowing powers from £3 billion to £4 billion was not of anything like the same urgency. Indeed, we hope there is every indication that it will not be needed for 18 months, or at any rate for a year or for some considerable period. Therefore, we in the Opposition felt very strongly that we could and should demand a more detailed and more rigorous prospectus from the BSC before the Secretary of State came to Parliament—which in this case means another place only, not this House as well—to obtain an Affirmative Resolution for this second half of the extra borrowing powers which the Bill seeks to provide.
I said on Second Reading that we would be moving an Amendment to that effect, and that is what the new clause does. I think its terms are obvious and I need not explain them at length; essentially, what we are saying is, first, that it should be incumbent on the Corporation to provide the Secretary of State with such information as he may require and, secondly, that it should be incumbent upon the Secretary of State to lay before another place a Green Paper incorporating this information given to him by the Corporation, so that Parliament would have a chance to see the prospectus before it had to approve, or otherwise, the further extension of the borrowing powers from £3 billion to £4 billion.
Essentially, what we are saying in the new clause, apart from the procedure I have just outlined, is that the Steel Corporation should have to provide the Secretary of State with such information as he thinks necessary for this purpose. We then go on to say that, for Parliament's benefit, we believe that information should include the subjects which we list in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the new clause. In paragraph (a) we say we believe that Parliament should be given some indication of the alternative financial arrangements considered for future investment schemes, including the possibility of joint ventures; so that Parliament knows the Corporation's thinking on that. Secondly, we say that Parliament should have the benefit of knowing what the Corporation has said in terms of the projected balance sheet, profit and loss account and the cash flow forecast for each of the succeeding five years. Thirdly, we say that the Corporation should provide, and the Secretary of State should pass on to Parliament, an outline of its intentions with regard to existing and future debt repayment.
We believe that those three paragraphs lay down what Parliament ought to regard as the minimum requirements before it is asked to vote a huge sum of money of this kind. As I say, we really believe that such requirements ought to apply to the whole of the extra £2 billion; but we are prepared to accept, as I said a few moments ago, that we should not demand it in relation to the first tranche, because of the urgency. However, having dealt with the point of urgency, we believe that it is important that Parliament
1420
should have that information before being asked to approve the second tranche. I believe that that sufficiently explains the purpose of the new clause and I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, for the constructive way in which he has moved the new clause and for his recognition of the urgency of the need for the initial tranche of money which is to go to the British Steel Corporation and which we dealt with at some length on Second Reading. May I say straight away that I have great sympathy with the objectives which the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with the new clause? I do not believe that there is any point of principle between us on this. I am advised that the clause has some technical deficiencies and it does, of course, overlap with provisions already in the Iron and Steel Act 1975.
Under Section 5(3) of that Act, the Corporation is required to supply the Secretary of State with such returns, accounts and other information with respect to their property and activities, and the property and activities of the publicly-owned companies, as he may from time to time require. This general power enables the Secretary of State to require information of the type specified in the Amendment, including any forecasts which BSC has available, and to submit it to Parliament. In practice, the Government's relationship with BSC is conducted on a voluntary basis, and it has not so far proved necessary to use the powers provided by Section 5(3) of the Iron and Steel Act 1975. I am myself sure that our relationship with BSC, if it is to be satisfactory, should continue to be on a voluntary basis, so I must say that it is my belief that any Government would be reluctant to resort to compulsion by requiring certain information from BSC, as is envisaged in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr.
I recognise that there has been some dissatisfaction expressed in another place and in your Lordships' House with the amount of information provided for the passage of the present Bill. The only thing that limits the information which can be made available is the need to preserve commercial confidentiality. It is not that there are no forecasts being given to the

1421
Government by BSC, nor that the Government lack powers to require information. As I said at the Second Reading, I believe that noble Lords who are familiar with the accounts, reports and prospectuses of private sector companies will know that the extent to which they cover forecasts of the future is strictly limited. Few, if any, private sector companies would make publicly available a four-year forecast of their sources and applications of funds, as BSC has for the debates in another place, copies of which I have sent to the noble Lord, Lord Carr and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who spoke on Second Reading. The Corporation, as a responsible public body, is in the vanguard over disclosure, but there are limits to how far the Corporation can reveal information of a type not disclosed by its competitors without being put at a serious disadvantage.
So far as reporting the past is concerned, I believe that the Corporation's annual report and accounts compare very favourably with the degree of disclosure by private sector firms in their annual reports. Inevitably, the present Bill had to be brought forward before the Corporation published its report and accounts for 1975–1976, since a Bill in the next Session of Parliament could not meet BSC's financial requirements, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, recognises. The Corporation has however made available its draft unaudited accounts, copies of which I have also sent to the two noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate.
The proposed new clause does nothing to increase the amount of information which can be made available within the limits of commercial confidentiality. By seeking to lay down in advance the information which will be provided, it may, I suggest, introduce an undesirable element of rigidity. A requirement to publish profit figures for each of the five succeeding years could, in particular, be highly onerous. The profit made in any particular year depends on the timing of the economic cycle, which is extremely difficult to predict in advance and is liable to major fluctuation, since it depends on the difference between two very large quantities, the Corporation's revenue on the one hand and its costs on the other. I suspect that the Corporation might say
1422
that it would depend to a large degree on the extent to which particular Governments interfere in the Corporation's policies, but that is the Corporation's point of view. Firms in the private sector show some reluctance to forecast profits for even one year ahead, let alone five.
However, as I said at the outset, I do not believe that there is any point of principle between the noble Lord and myself and I am anxious to be as helpful as I can. Indeed, it is the Government's policy to make as much information as possible available to Parliament on the nationalised industries and in other respects. I can tell the noble Lord that the Corporation has given an assurance that it will provide information for the passage of any order for which the present Bill provides, and that this information will be not less than the information provided for consideration of the present Bill. The proposed new clause would be likely to require BSC to disclose commercially confidential information: in view of the Corporation's voluntary undertaking, on which I should be happy to enlarge if the noble Lord wishes, I very much hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Viscount LONG: I have one or two points which I should like to bring up. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Carr, but I am sure that he will fully understand that, when enormous sums of money are to be borrowed, we on this side of the Committee must try to see how we can govern the situation. I feel that the noble Lord is really protecting the Corporation a little too much. Surely any company that has a balance sheet should be able to produce it, and I am sure that in cases of those who borrow money from Parliament, Parliament must be allowed to see what the conditions are.
The Amendment of my noble friend is asking only that, before the Secretary of State lays an order, we know what is happening. I am wondering whether in this case the noble Lord is hiding something from us. He is saying that it would be dangerous to divulge too much. What

1423
is wrong with divulging that the Corporation has made a profit? There is also the question as to whether or not moneys are being spent in the wrong direction of investment. Cannot the noble Lord give us more information, because I feel that at this stage we are rather lacking in it?
Lord MELCHETT: I am certainly happy to give noble Lords opposite as much information as I possibly can, and I can assure the noble Viscount that there is certainly nothing on our side that we wish to hide. Indeed, if a nationalised industry is making a profit the noble Viscount can be assured that I will be the first to let him know about it.
My honourable friend the Minister of State in the Department of Industry has discussed with the British Steel Corporation the views presented in another place on this matter, because as I said earlier this disquiet was expressed when the Bill was before another place, in the same way as it has been in your Lordships' House. As a result of those discussions the Corporation has undertaken to provide the Secretary of State with a document containing such information as he may request for the purpose of Parliament's consideration of any order to increase the Corporation's borrowing limit under the provisions of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.
As I have said already, subject to the need to preserve commercial confidence where applicable, the information would include—and this is probably the point on which the noble Viscount is pressing me—the following items. First, information on the Corporation's investment plans and the expected trends in production and sales. Secondly, broad cash flow projections on BSC's sources and applications of funds. Thirdly, indications of sources of finance projected under the proposed increase in the borrowing limit, including planned borrowings from Community institutions and other overseas sources. Fourthly, an outline of the Corporation's intentions with regard to existing and future debt repayment, which I think is a matter particularly referred to in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. Lastly, information on the trends in the Corporation's financial results and capital employed so as to bring up to date the information in
1424
the latest annual accounts or half yearly statement of results.
I would stress that point because the Corporation is already committed to providing a great deal of information both in its annual accounts and in its half yearly statements, but should it be necessary to bring that information up to date the Corporation has undertaken to do so. I hope that with that very full assurance of the Corporation's future intentions the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: I wish to thank the noble Lord because he has gone a long way to meet us. Speaking for myself, and I hope for my noble friends, we are not so concerned about getting something written in, in forms which I know can be awkward, as we are to have an assurance, specifically firm and detailed in its nature, to satisfy us that when another place has to consider the Affirmative Resolution it has the kind of information we are asking for. tried to listen carefully to the noble Lord and I felt that he had largely met our point.
I should like to ask him one question which perhaps he can answer quite quickly. It reverts to his first speech on this clause. He said that the British Steel Corporation had made a lot of information available, and I think that may be true. But from what I have read of proceedings in another place and from comments I have heard, I think that there was some feeling in another place that this information had to be asked for. One of the things we are seeking now is to be sure that the information is made available to another place before Members there get into the debates. This is particularly important in the case of an Affirmative Resolution because that will not involve a Bill with a Second Reading, a Committee stage and so forth, but only a single debate.
Of course I accept the point about commercial confidence. But if the noble Lord can assure us that the information, in the form which he has described—which I agree covers very largely what we are asking for in the Amendment—will be available in another place before they embark on their debate, so that there is reasonable time for another place to absorb the information, then I think I shall be able to please the noble Lord and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: Of course the information would be made available in reasonable time for debate, as the noble Lord has said, and this is particularly important in the case of an Affirmative Resolution as opposed to a Bill. In the case of this Bill, for instance, I understand that information was made available at the Committee stage in another place and at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and that gave Members of another place and Members of your Lordships' House time to consider it. In the case of an Affirmative Resolution the position would be different, and I can give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: I believe that the Committee has justified the time spent on this matter. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and to the Government, for the undertaking, in view of which I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.36 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY Lord CARR of HADLEY moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Limit on sums borrowed in a currency other than sterling
" . In section 16(3), at the end, there shall be inserted the words—
"Provided any such sums borrowed in a currency other than sterling which are covered by Treasury Exchange Rate Guarantee shall not at any time amount to more than half the total borrowing of the Corporation." "
The noble Lord said: This is another matter which I mentioned on Second Reading. In addition to the other, more specific matters about flow of funds and so forth, we were concerned about the extent to which the Corporation used its powers to borrow overseas in foreign currency terms. This is why we tabled this new clause. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that I heard correctly when, in the undertaking he just gave us, he said that among the information available would be the information about the Corporation's intentions regarding the extent to which it was proposing to make use of overseas borrowing. If the noble Lord can confirm that I heard correctly about that, I might be able on this Amendment to take similar action
1426
to that which I took on the last Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: I am delighted that we are making such good progress and I hope that it is an omen for the next Bill which the Department of Industry will be bringing before your Lordships—but perhaps it is not. I dealt at Second Reading with the importance of the Corporation's ability to borrow overseas, and again I do not think there is any difference between the noble Lord and me on that point. I should like to stress that no secret is being made of the extent of the Corporation's foreign currency borrowings. They are reported in the BSC's annual accounts. The Corporation has provided projections of its foreign borrowings for the debate on this Bill in another place and in your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carr, is quite right in saying that in the undertaking I gave when we were debating the previous Amendment I said that the Corporation has agreed to provide information on planned overseas borrowings again, when in due course a statutory order is brought forward, under the provisions in the present Bill, to increase the borrowing limit above the level initially set. With Parliament informed in this way, I do not believe that there can be any advantage in placing restrictions in advance on the Government's ability to offer exchange rate cover for reasons of national economic policy. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the Amendment, as he said he might.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that. In view of what he said, I must assure him that the very rapid progress we are making this evening is largely due to his forthcoming response to our requests. If he were to remain as forthcoming when we get to the next legislation which he spoke about, after our holiday, then we might make equally rapid progress. But I should say to him that we shall come back greatly invigorated from our holidays, so that if he is not equally forthcoming then I am afraid we may not make such quick progress. However, sufficient unto the day is the good thereof, and in view of what the noble Lord has said I am delighted to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment: Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended, pursuant to the Resolution, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT) (No. 2) BILL
6.42 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, be now read a second time. There were two episodes at the end of last week that cheered me immensely. One concerned the Headingley cricket match. As the cameras kept moving to and fro one could see a notice saying: "This area is reserved for disabled persons". The other concerned the town of Scarborough. A swimming exhibition had been arranged, the proceeds from which were to go towards helping the local disabled people, and in this exhibition a legless man was to swim around the harbour in close proximity to the castle. What pleased me was that there was such an expression of compassion and generosity that £250 was raised for the local disabled people.
My Lords, this Bill is one from another place which was promoted by Mr. James Callaghan—not the Prime Minister, may I say, but the Member of Parliament for Middleton and Prestwich. It is also pleasing to note that this very important measure was supported by a number of Members of all Parties. My information is that the All-Party Disablement Group within the precincts of Westminster are supporting this Bill and are giving their blessing to it. During its stages in another place, there was no opposition at all, so far as I can gather, to the contents of the Bill and to what it proposes to do; but there was a major concern, as one sees from reading the report of the Committee stage in another place, expressed by the Members of all Parties who took part in those proceedings. Every one of them, without exception, expressed their
1428
major concern that this Bill should reach the Statute Book, and it is my hope that they will not be disappointed. I have again read the debate in your Lordships' House on the Private Member's Bill of 1970, and there is no mistaking the fact that in that debate there was ample evidence that your Lordships' interest in the welfare of the disabled is really overwhelming; and, on that occasion, that interest came from all quarters of the House during all the proceedings.
My Lords, in moving this Second Reading—and I want to do it very briefly—I must confess that I have some nostalgic feelings, for in my maiden speech in another place, which is quite a few years ago now, I made mention of an innovation that there had, been in the interests of disabled miners and their welfare. In Mansfield, a spacious hall and grounds had been purchased by the Miners' Welfare Commission. The coal owners—this was before vesting date in 1947—and the unions co-operated, and, under the guidance and supervision of a very eminent orthopaedic surgeon, remedial treatment and occupational therapy was undertaken, as a result of which men whose limbs had been broken by accident in the mines, even paraplegic cases, had their working capacity restored, if not wholly at any rate in some degree, enabling them to resume employment. The centre, which is a residential one and has been all those 40 years, continues its good work, and I know from my own personal know ledge that during that period it had done an extremely good job in the interests of disabled miners. The only change that there has been in recent years is that, whereas at the time of its inception it was exclusively for injured miners, it now caters for others who are in need of such treatment.
Now, my Lords, I come to the Bill. It is a short, simple, understandable, one-clause Bill, but I do not think that, because of its brevity, your Lordships will regard it as unimportant. The purpose of it is to add a new clause to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I am sure your Lordships will recall that in Section 4 of that Act it was provided that, in the building of premises to which the public was to be admitted, provision was to be made to meet the needs of the disabled so far as the circumstances were reasonable and practical

1429
—and here I should like to make an observation. I hope that at some time in the future, in our drafting of Bills and in our promotion of legislation, we might get away from these particular words. I recall from the passage of the Mines and Quarries Bill 1954 through another place that the number of times these words appeared in that Bill was legion.
Section 4 of the Act, which I have mentioned, was to meet the needs of the disabled as regards means of access, parking facilities and sanitary convenience. Section 8 of what is now the 1970 Act makes a similar provision in respect of educational establishments; that is, schools, colleges and universities. This Bill in Clause 2 requires the same facilities to be made for the disabled where a person is undertaking the provision of premises for employment purposes. This Bill as drafted applies to premises set out in Clause 2.
The Promoter of the Bill during the Committee stage in another place stated that it was his intention to cover as many places of employment as possible. The Under-Secretary undertook during those proceedings to look again at this point. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Jacques, who I understand is in charge of this Bill, whether he has any further information on that particular point. The Bill provides that at places of employment there shall be access to and within the premises; adequate circulation, both vertical and horizontal; that doors and passages be of adequate width and height; that ramps or lifts be provided for any change of level; that there be adequate parking facilities for disabled employees and sufficient lavatory accommodation for those confined to a wheelchair. That is, substantially, the language that is used in Section 4 and Section 8 of the 1970 Act.
I do not know whether this is generally known, but there is a serious problem of unemployment among the disabled. My information is that in April this year 13.6 per cent. of disabled people signed the register as unemployed. If my mathematics are correct, that is a global total of 76,000. In making that statement, I am not saying or even suggesting that it is the lack of facilities in places of employment that is responsible for this state of
1430
affairs: but it may well be. It is not outside the bounds of possibility that a number of these disabled people find it more difficult to get work because of lack of facilities. I have heard suggested in some places the fear that chances of promotion of disabled people in employment are missed for the reason that there are no adequate facilities to accommodate them.
In moving this Second Reading I recognise that it might be some time before the provisions of this small, modest Bill can have an influence on places of work. But I now take an opportunity of welcoming—and this may be a great help—the scheme announced last December by the Manpower Services Commission to make capital grants for employers to modify their premises or to instal special or modified equipment in the interests of the disabled. I think that the only question, in addition to the one I have already posed to the Minister, is this. Has he any further information on this proposal that was made by the Manpower Services Commission?
My Lords, in conclusion may I say that many of us may feel that this Bill is too modest. Your Lordships may feel that it is not fully adequate to meet the situation with which the disabled are confronted. Nevertheless, I suggest that even if this be so—and I believe that it is—it is a step in the right direction. I ask your Lordships to support this modest, small Bill for two main reasons. First, because it will lend support to the campaign to create an environment in which disabled people are no longer second-class citizens; and secondly, because it will enable them to play their full part in society along with their able-bodied colleagues. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Taylor of Mansfield.)
6.56 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, for introducing this Bill so ably and to congratulate him for having the good sense to be content with a modest forward step. This is the ideal prescription for any successful Private Member's Bill. Many have failed through not attending to that principle. I should like to wish him every success with this particular measure.

1431
It is true that there is widespread all-Party support in Parliament, as in the country at large, for the disabled. But that cannot, and does not, override all other considerations. I well recall speaking from this Box in 1970, dealing with the main Bill at the end of that Parliament and coming to an understanding with the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, then Minister of State to the Department of Health and Social Security, that we would set aside our political differences and do our best to get the main Bill on the Statute Book before the Dissolution. To achieve this, the main need was to persuade the "mobile" Benches and their supporters, if I may so describe them, to restrain themselves from trying to pack any more into what was already a somewhat overloaded and ill-digested Bill. As it was, I am afraid that they very nearly lost the Bill altogether; but it did, in fact, scrape through.
I am quite ready to admit that this small amending Bill makes good one of the matters that were omitted in 1970 and which we might have got first time if we had had time to consider it properly. Therefore, I am glad to welcome the Bill as making good an omission of six years ago. But I must go on to say that I am enabled to do that because it has in it what are, for me, the blessed saving words, "reasonable and practicable". I know that the mobile Benches and their supporters do not like that phrase. They regard it as the let-out and the loophole which everyone who is disposed so to do will use as an excuse to neglect their duties towards the disabled. I do not share that view. I regard it as an essential feature to allow authorities, employers, industrialists and everybody else concerned with this measure to exercise their discretion to allow some degree of flexibility in coming to a proper balanced judgment in the light of local conditions, particular cases, other priorities and so on.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield (I think that he and not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is in charge of the Bill), that if he successfully resists any attempts to modify—at any rate for the time being—that doctrine of reasonable and practicable, he will certainly be able to count on my support in this useful amending Bill. I hope that we shall be successful in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book before the end of this Session.
7.1 p.m.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I should like briefly to give a welcome to this Bill because I have nothing to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, said in introducing it and what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. I hope it receives support from all Parties. I join the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, in inquiring from where the proposed grant is likely to come, otherwise the words "reasonable" and "practicable", which must be there at present, will remain there for a very long time and do a good deal of damage to people's intentions to try to improve things for their employees, not because they do not want to do it but because they cannot afford to do it. It is a costly exercise to change the interior of ancient buildings, particularly when offices, et cetera, may be on the third, fourth or fifth floor.
I was encouraged by the reply of the Government to an Amendment proposed the other day to another Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. There it seemed that the Government were taking an interest in saying that when new houses are built in new towns some provision is made for the wheelchair patient. In the past there has been a good deal of difficulty in some of the new and modern hotels where doors appear to have been built upon a standard pattern which does not admit a wheelchair into a bedroom. That is something which we hope will be changed. It is important that all hotels should have some rooms where a wheelchair can enter. There should be some accommodation in the new towns for people in wheelchairs. My Lords, I do not propose to say any more except to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, on introducing this Bill. I trust it will reach the Statute Book in record time.
7.4 p.m.
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, for introducing this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, I had some small part in the access clauses on the original Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. As with the access provisions in the original Bill, there are no provisions for the enforcement of this new Bill, and I

1433
should like to ask the Minister who is to reply what are the reasons which prevent planning permission being made conditional, where reasonable and practicable, on suitable access for the disabled.
I should like to commend my own North Yorkshire County —Council for providing two nice parking spaces with a little sign indicating that they are for disabled people. There is a ramp and a lift, but there is still an awkward flight of stairs with no handrail up to the Council Chamber. The steps are made of marble and are a little slippery. Perhaps the most helpful course that the disabled, and those who want to help the disabled, can take is to identify the places where there seems to be a special need. My information might be a little out of date, but the last time I asked at Kings Cross Station, there was no lavatory in the main platform area to which somebody in a wheelchair could get access. Being rather keen on natural history, I visit from time to time the Natural History Musuem at South Kensington. A year ago there was no lift there that a wheelchair could get into and therefore upstairs floors were pretty well out of bounds for the disabled.
Although I class myself as a railway enthusiast I have not yet visited the new railway musuem at York, though I have received some unfavourable comment from the point of view of access for the disabled. This is a fairly new building which has been opened to the public. If this unfavourable comment is true then it is disappointing. I should like to share in welcoming this Bill.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who introduced it in his usual compassionate and understanding way. I declare an interest as chairman of a sub-committee of Lord Snowden's Working Party on the integration of the disabled. My particular sub-committee has been concerned with buildings and housing. The report of the Working Party, we hope, is almost complete, and I am afraid that my sub-committee will be recommending far tougher legislation for the provision of access than is included
1434
in this Bill. I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if my welcome includes my reservations.
This Bill is a No. 2 Bill because the Government objected to the original one presented by Mr. Jim Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan was in consultation with members of my sub-committee. The original Bill reflected the advice they had given him. The evidence we received indicates—this has been emphasised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby—that since Section 4 and Section 8 of the principal Act are non-mandatory and non-enforceable, they have little effect on public buildings and negligible effect on private developments.
All the experts to whom I have spoken agree that if adequate facilities are included at the planning stage, they need not incur as much expense, and certainly conversion costs will be far less. It therefore seems logical that any enforcement should occur at this stage. Therefore the sub-committee will recommend that a local authority should withhold planning consent if adequate facilities for disabled people are not included in the plans.
I believe this recommendation formed part of Mr. Callaghan's original Bill, but the Department of the Environment seemed opposed to it and forced him to withdraw it. I will not go now into their reasons, which seemed unconvincing on paper. Your Lordships will appreciate that in supporting this present Bill I must place the strongest possible obligation on the Government to ensure that this is not just another homily on the Statute Book. Government Ministers have said that the right way to seek enforcement of adequate provision for disabled people in buildings is through building regulations. Thanks to Section 61 of the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974—when it is brought into effect—the Department now has the necessary power.
In Committee in another place it appeared that Mr. Jim Callaghan quoted extensively from a letter from the Minister of State for Housing and Construction to Mr. George Wilson, the chairman of the Central Council for the Disabled. I will not at this late stage repeat the letter. Its burden was that they were willing to use building regulations to prevent our

1435
efforts over this Bill being totally wasted, but only when they could get around to it. I should like to ask the Minister a question which arises from the letter. Can he say when Section 61 of the Health and Safety at Work Act will be put into effect?
The Minister of State also asserted that the preparation and enforcement of building regulations would be a burden on existing staff, and therefore could not be given very high priority. So far as the preparation of regulations goes, I hope your Lordships will agree that this is not a very good excuse. I am absolutely certain, from my work with the Central Council for the Disabled and other groups, that the Minister would receive eager assistance from the voluntary organisations in order to bring this about. I am absolutely convinced that the enforcement of the regulations would not be an impossible burden on the backs of local authorities.
Having said that, I am in full support of this Bill. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that one must go slowly; but I could not miss the opportunity to enter this caveat, of which the Government are well apprised, when the report of the sub-committee comes out.
7.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first of all, I should like to congratulate the right honourable Member of another place, Mr. Callaghan, on having got his Bill through the other place without amendment. I would also congratulate my noble friend Lord Taylor on his most appropriate Second Reading speech. I believe he will get the Bill through this House equally expeditiously.
We are very sympathetic to the aims of the Bill, and hope that it will pass through all its stages very quickly. We want to see it on the Statute Book. Nevertheless, we are not convinced that access and other facilities are a major stumbling block in the employment of the disabled. They are a stumbling block in some cases, but we have found by experience that we can often overcome that difficulty by way of persuasion. However, we feel the Bill can do only good. It will encourage employers to provide facilities, and we believe it will have public opinion behind it. We hope also it will be a moral force.
1436
There are a number of questions to which I feel I ought to reply. First, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Taylor for having given me notice of the questions he was going to ask. He referred to the definition of "premises". I should first point out that the Bill as it stands will cover premises which are covered by the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. The total number of premises that will be covered is approximately a million. The Government undertook to give the sponsors of the Bill further advice about the coverage of the Bill: they have done so. It is possible that some places of employment are excluded through the use in the Bill of the definitions in the Factories Act and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. But at this stage it seems more practicable not to amend the Bill, but to get it through the House as quickly as possible so that it need not be reconsidered by the Commons.
So far as grants are concerned, the Manpower Services Commission has been asked to introduce a scheme of grants for employers who modify or instal special equipment or facilities in order to employ disabled people. The scheme is still under discussion with the Manpower Services Commission. I come to the question of enforcement, and would point out that this amending Bill is in keeping with the parent Act. In the parent Act there is no provision for enforcement, and I think it is appropriate that this Bill should be in keeping with the parent Act. Planning is concerned with land use. It would be quite wrong in principle, and outside the scope of the present legislation, to attempt to use the development control system to implement the provisions of other legislation. We are, therefore, entirely opposed to trying to use the land-use legislation for this particular purpose. It is a form of tacking.
There are other possibilities, however. There will be powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to make regulations when Part III comes into force. The Government are considering whether or not these powers could be used for the purposes, if need be, but they do not want to act hastily. They want to have time to consider whether it is appropriate for those powers to be used for that purpose. If they conclude that such a procedure

1437
would be appropriate, they believe that powers could be used, if need be, to enforce this legislation. I am unable to say at this moment when Part III of the 1974 Act will come into operation, but I would expect it to be comparatively soon.
With those few words, my Lords, I think I have covered the points which have been raised. I hope that this House will pass the Bill quickly and without amendment. Only in that way shall we ensure that it in fact gets a place on the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS BILL
7.17 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As one who has always been concerned at the weight of legislation which we have to deal with in both Houses at this time of the year, I feel it is my responsibility to explain to your Lordships why yet another Bill is brought before you for consideration and, I hope, acceptance.
Sadly enough, domestic violence is not a new thing. The Victorian and Edwardian novels give us a very graphic picture of the brutal husband and father; but if we can believe the records of that time, the type of people who behaved in this way seemed to be more limited. Sadly, today it extends over all classes in society and all too often a man who appears a normal, reasonable person outside his own home is a very different individual within the confines of his own domain. If any of your Lordships could bear to read some of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Violence, they would understand exactly what I mean.
Working, as I do, in a women's organisation, I have met all kinds of women's problems; and this has been one of them. There are some very sad and disturbing cases and some women have been ill-treated over long periods of years. While
1438
one may well ask why they do not leave their husbands, the next question would be: where would they go? It is only recently that certain enlightened and compassionate people have attempted to set up centres where they can at least find some kind of refuge. I am very touched this evening because I have received messages of good wishes from so many of these centres in London—a cry from the heart, my Lords.
Your Lordships may well ask why it is necessary to have a Bill covering these unfortunates. Can they not get redress already under the existing law? At present, if a woman is beaten or assaulted by her husband, she must first start divorce or separation proceedings, or bring a charge, before she can get an injunction against him. I hasten to say that of course this Bill is not meant to protect only women, but I have not so far heard of a case of a battered husband. If they exist, they have not come forward.
At the time of probably having been beaten, assaulted and thrown out of the house, bruised and frightened, the last thing a woman wants to do is start the complications of a divorce or separation proceedings. So Clause 1 gives her the right to obtain an injunction on a straightforward application. It gives the county court wider powers to grant matrimonial injunctions, enabling the spouse or co-habitee to obtain an injunction restraining the other from using violence against him or her, or against a child living in the house, or to exclude the other from the whole or part of their home, without having to join the application for an injunction, as was previously the case, to an action for damages for assault or a petition for matrimonial relief.
Clause 2 provides that where a judge issues an injunction ordering a spouse, or a cohabitee, not to behave violently towards the other, or to a child living with the other, or to vacate or stay away from the dwellinghouse, he may attach to the injunction a power of arrest. Any constable who has reasonable cause to suspect that the respondent has disobeyed the order by using violence against the other party, or by entering the house or the prohibited area, may then arrest the respondent and take him or her before a judge to be dealt with. A person arrested

1439
in this way must be released if he cannot be brought before a judge within 24 hours.
Clause 2 seemed to cause the most discussion in another place, and it was suggested that it would add to the work of the police. I have the greatest admiration and respect for our police force and I should be the last to want to add to their already heavy load of duties. But I suggest, quite seriously, that this clause should simplify the situation when a policeman has been called to the scene of an assault on a woman. As it was explained by the Minister in the other place, under this clause the police station would probably be one near the home of the victim and the policeman would know whether an injunction had already been granted.
Clause 3 gives the court power to order a spouse, who is the sole owner or tenant of a house, to vacate it upon the application of the other spouse in appropriate circumstances. This was one of the "slip-ups", to use layman's language, in the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 and puts right a fairly simple situation. Clause 4 applies where the legal interest in the matrimonial home is jointly owned by the husband and the wife. It enables a court in such circumstances to make the same kind of order—namely, one restricting one party's occupation of the home— as it can make under the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967, when one party owns the legal interest and the other does not.
The last clause limits the application of the Bill to England and Wales, because Scottish law has to be dealt with separately. Perhaps it is too much to hope that there are no people in Scotland in need of the law; I suspect that there probably are some such people. The Select Committee made about 28 recommendations, and obviously this Bill is exactly as it was described in another place; that is, "a tiny scratch on the surface". The same Member said that it was not inadequacies in the law that caused social evils, and I am sure we all agree that that is true. But it seems equally important to have laws which protect the victims of social evils while seeking to change the conditions which create them. On behalf of the many suffering women, may I ask for your Lordships' support and acceptance of this Bill? My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips).
7.25 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is a sad fact that the famous question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is no longer a matter for jesting, but points to a situation where greater help from the legal process is called for. This Bill seeks to provide that greater help, and I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Phillips on her skill in presenting it to your Lordships. It is a short Bill but it is full of legal technicalities which she has explained with admirable clarity and, if I may say so, brevity, and I shall try to follow at least in the latter regard, even if I cannot accomplish the former.
I hasten to say at once that the Government wish the Bill well, and I invite your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. I think it is useful to set the Bill in context against the background of the existing law and I should like, as Lord Chancellor, to dispel any impression that the victims of domestic violence cannot get redress speedily under the law as it is at present. They can, but the procedure is not as simple and straightforward as it ought to be, and this Bill will seek, through Clause 1 in particular, to remove some of the procedural difficulties.
Once a complaint of domestic violence has been made to a court which has jurisdiction to deal with it, matters proceed very swiftly and protection in the form of an injunction can be quickly provided. A judge can always be reached in an emergency to deal with urgent matters such as domestic violence at any hour of the day or night, so that he may grant an injunction or make such other order as may be necessary. Here, as in habeas corpus proceedings, judges make themselves available. I remember on one occasion, at about 11.30 at night, knocking at the door of a judge in Hampstead to obtain the necessary authority to proceed. It very rarely takes more than three hours from the time when the applicant arrives at the court office to the granting of an injunction, even when the application is made out of office hours.
This Bill will not alter these arrangements or the speed at which an application is dealt with, but Clause 1 will simplify the process of application, as my noble friend said. In addition, it will relieve a

1441
wife of the need to make up her mind to start actual divorce proceedings, when she may not be in a condition to make a considered, rational judgment about divorce. And in the cases where the parties are not married, a woman will not have to bring an action for damages which she may not really want.
It might be suggested—it has not been suggested by my noble friend—that to extend the Bill to cover the cases of men and women who are not married, but are living together as husband and wife in the same household, in some way devalues the institution of marriage. I do not believe this is so. Those of your Lordships who have read the Select Committee's Report will know of the horrifying acts of violence which occur within the home, as my noble friend has said. This situation may arise whenever people are living together, whether or not they are married. Strengthening the law to deal with violence in these cases does not, in my view, debase marriage at all. It accords with the human needs of the situation as it may exist in fact, and there is a need for women in such relationships to be protected.
The Bill also protects the children. Alas! they, too, are often violently assaulted, and to protect them is the least we can do. Incidentally, as my noble friend Lady Phillips pointed out, the Bill also protects the battered husband, though happily he is a rare bird. Such cases do occur from time to time, as I have seen in the courts; but essentially I am afraid that it is the violence of the male that is really at the root of the trouble.
It may be useful if I illustrate the size of the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal. A recent survey of matrimonial injunctions showed that 252 such applications were made in one month. Practically all of them involved physical violence to the person, and the very large majority related to couples who were still married. From this sample we can reasonably expect that about 3,000 of these emergency applications are made each year. The Select Committee said that the evidence they had indicated that perhaps 5,000 wives are assaulted each year, out of a figure of 680,000 married women. By no means every one of these women will seek an emergency injunction, so there is
1442
some correspondence between the figures of the Select Committee and those of my own Department. When one considers that many of these thousands of cases involve quite serious assaults, then I think there can be little doubt that there is a problem which needs to be dealt with.
Clause 1 refers to the county courts. It does not refer to the High Court, because it is unnecessary that it should do so. The jurisdiction of the county courts is an entirely statutory one, so that if it is to be extended, as in this Bill, legislation is needed. The position is different in the High Court, where although jurisdiction exists to grant an injunction in the absence of a claim for any other relief, the practice of the High Court has been only to grant matrimonial injunctions when they are ancillary to other matrimonial proceedings. This practice can be altered by an amendment to the Rules of Court, and I can assure my noble friend that I intend soon to invite the Supreme Court Rule Committee to consider such an amendment.
Turning now to Clause 2 of the Bill, I should like to explain to your Lordships why the Government support a provision which admittedly will impose a further duty upon the police. In most cases a court injunction is obeyed; but if it is not, the court must act to enforce its orders. The breach of the court's order must, of course, be reported back to the court. This means that a woman who has been subjected to a violent attack must go back to the court and make an application for her husband to be brought before the court to show cause why he should not be punished, usually by imprisonment, for breach of the court's orders. In the most obvious and flagrant cases the court may be prepared to make an order for committal in the husband's absence. But the courts are reluctant to make such a drastic order in a summary fashion; it is usually necessary to serve the husband with a summons to appear in court. Until an order for committal is made, a violent husband will remain at large and his wife will be at risk of further attack by him. By conferring a power of arrest on the police on reasonable suspicion that there has been a breach of an injunction of the kind the Bill contemplates, the clause breaks new ground, but I believe that it will make both enforcement and protection more effective.

1443
The Select Committee heard a great deal of evidence on the attitude of the police to domestic violence. It is a difficult decision for a policeman to make when he is required to draw the line between a criminal offence or a civil matter concerning a husband and his wife, when a dispute occurs in the matrimonial home. I cannot claim that this clause will make the job of a policeman easy, but it may well make it easier than it is now. He will have a power of arrest which has been given to him by a judge for a specific event and he will be relieved of the difficult decision which he would have to make of his own judgment were he to make an arrest under the criminal law. The clause will involve the police in matters of civil law to a greater extent than before, but given the difficult situation with which the clause deals, the Government are satisfied that such a provision is appropriate.
As my noble friend has explained, Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt the noble and learned Lord at this point as he is passing to a new clause. He will not be following me; unusually I shall be following him. First, can the noble and learned Lord assure the House that the police authorities have been consulted in regard to Clause 2, and secondly, that if the police authorities have been consulted, they have given at least some kind of acquiescence to this clause which, as the noble and learned Lord himself has said, breaks new ground?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the answer to the noble Lord's question is that the police have been consulted. The provision to which I have been referring is not opposed either by the Police Federation or by the Association of Police Superintendents, provided that it is drawn in terms which give to the police constable a clear discretion as to whether or not he may arrest a person and as to the situation which must exist before the power of arrest arises. On the other hand—and I must say this frankly—the Association of Chief Police Officers is not convinced that a change in the law on these lines is essential. However, the Association accepts that the extra burden
1444
on the police is not likely to be large and it is sympathetic to the desire which lies behind the Bill to protect women and children who are subjected to violence. That is the best information I can give to the noble Earl. It is reasonably reassuring that we shall have police support for what the Bill intends.
I was about to turn to Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has already explained, are concerned with rights of occupation in the matrimonial home. They make changes to the scheme of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967. These changes, however, are in accord with the broad approach of reform in the field of matrimonial powers, which is to enable the court to do broadly what is right between the parties to a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, looking at the Bill as a whole, I believe that it makes worthwhile proposals for the sad matter of the protection of the victims of domestic violence. I believe that the proposals enable the courts more easily and more effectively to do justice between the parties to disputes involving the matrimonial home and violence within the home itself and, as I have said, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him a question? I am not quite clear about one thing that he said, which was that as the law stands at present there is cover but that this Bill is a great help towards improving it. Does the present law cover the cohabitee as well as the normal matrimonial home?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am not sure that it does, and I should like to have notice of that question. Any violence by one person against another can be brought to the attention of the criminal courts. To that extent everybody is protected, I suppose. I think, however, that it may well be that the Bill goes a little further in its provisions in respect of spouses living together than the law provides for at the moment. However, I take notice of the question, and perhaps I may either write to the noble Lord or refer to it at a later stage. I am sorry that at the moment I cannot give an answer with absolute confidence.
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, on the way in which she has introduced the Bill. If my welcome for the Bill is only lukewarm, that is not in any way meant to detract from anything that the noble Baroness has said—nor, indeed, from the cause which she espouses. All noble Lords who have had anything to do with the question of unhappy spouses or cohabitees—if we must use that inelegant expression—are appalled at the inhumanity which man frequently shows to woman. For two unhappy years during the earlier part of my career at the Bar I was in divorce chambers and I used to spend every Saturday afternoon, for a modest fee, sorting out the domestic difficulties of people who came before various magistrates' courts alleging that they had been shown violence by each other. A distressing and an extremely difficult task it was, and therefore everybody will be in sympathy with the objects behind this Bill.
Whether in fact—as the noble Baroness was quick to say when she justified her Bill at the beginning of her speech— this is a justification for adding a further load to our already strained Statute Book I think is a matter for debate, or at least for some consideration. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was quick to point out, in fact any remedy which this Bill seeks to produce is already available in one form or another, although obtaining it may not necessarily be very easy. Perhaps in my ignorance 1 might answer my noble friend Lord de Clifford: if somebody beats his mistress she can sue him in court for battery and obtain an injunction, but I do not suppose she would be well advised to try because it would be a slow, tedious and extremely expensive process.
So when one is faced with this Bill one has to ask oneself, looking first at Clause 1, is there justification for it? Can a battered wife—and I use that term because it is the most convenient— already obtain a remedy without this new form of legislation? She can of course go to the magistrates' court and see the probation officer or a solicitor and take out a summons. Frequently, because of the congestion in magistrates' courts,
1446
it takes a long time to be heard. It is not always a very satisfactory remedy even if she manages to take out her summons. In my experience the courts try—at least in the case of wives—to dissuade them from going to law, and certainly so far as the criminal law is concerned it is not really a very satisfactory method of trying to stop such conduct in the future.
As has already been pointed out, if the parties are married the woman can try to obtain either a divorce or a separation order, the latter on the ground of persistent cruelty. Again I suppose it is conceivable that, although she wishes her husband to desist from ill-treating her, she still wishes to live with him, and in that case of course it would not be suitable to apply for a separation order. So one is driven to the conclusion that so far as Clause 1 is concerned there is room for this sort of remedy.
I am going into this in a little detail, my Lords, and I suppose I should justify why I am doing it on Second Reading. It is really for two reasons. First, our programme for the rest of this Session is already, apparently, appallingly overcrowded. If I may give vent to my worries and apprehensions now, it may mean that we shall not have to have a Committee stage, which I am sure would cause some sort of rejoicing in the heart of the Chief Whip. More than that, anybody who has looked at the Hansard reports of another place will have seen that this Bill unfortunately obtained only the most cursory consideration in another place.
There was there a Second Reading debate which ended in unseemly wrangling on points of procedure. A number of points were put which to my mind were never satisfactorily answered. The eventual Second Reading took place on the nod. There was a Committee stage which lasted one morning and it was attended by eight or nine Members of the other place. There was nobody on the Front Bench of the Opposition, which may or may not have been a good thing but it is a fact, and the unfortunate Law Officer, or assistant thereto, having made a mistake as to the jurisdiction of the High Court thereafter seemed to be more or less silent; at any rate he did not play a tremendous part in the further progress

1447
of the Bill. There was no Report stage and no debate on Third Reading. So the Bill comes to us, in my view, ill-considered.
If I may say so, one of the difficulties or traps which the noble and learned Lord fell into was to consider the circumstances in which this sort of relief would be sought. Everybody has supposed that this is what I might describe, if it is not falling into undue levity, as a sort of four ale bar situation. One of the parties, presumably the wife, is assaulted by a drunken, or at any rate a very angry, consort and then the question arises as to what is to be done about him. As was said in the other place, and as was related to us by the noble and learned Lord, there was then a gnat deal of talk about getting judges either out of bed or away from their firesides and obtaining some sort of immediate relief. I really wonder whether in those circumstances this would ever happen. I find it very difficult to visualise a woman assaulted, running out of the house—and it was graphically described, I think, by the Promoter of the Bill in the other place. Her first sentence was to the effect that at about that time on the Friday afternoon thousands of women were dreading the thought of Friday night. One is tempted to interpose that a good many more—hundreds of thousands, one hopes—are looking forward to it and to the weekend. But still, that is what the Promoter of the Bill said.
Is it really conceived that these unfortunate ladies are going to be able to find out the address of their nearest county court judge, obtain the services of somebody who is going to help them and in those circumstances obtain this sort of injunction? I think the answer must be, No. Certainly so far as Clause 1 is concerned, it will be obtained in normal court hours in the ordinary course of court business. Of course, I do not except from that a vacation court; it may well be that there will be a vacation court, but I cannot conceive that this will happen at what I might call late at night.
If that is so, one then has to go on to the question, what about Clause 2? As I have said, I am prepared to concede that there is a case for obtaining an injunction in certain circumstances, as laid down in Clause 1. Clause 2 which deals with attachment—if that is the right word; that is to say, an arrest in the case
1448
of a breach—I find much more worrying for a number of reasons. First, it should be remembered that if a woman obtains this sort of injunction it is a weapon which will be held over the head of her man. "The judge told you not to molest me and I will go back to him if you do", will be the cry that will ring out on Friday nights. May I say that personally I am very glad that this Bill does not extend to Scotland where I now sit as a sheriff, and I hope that my Friday nights will remain undisturbed. Assuming, therefore, that it is proper that the good lady should have this weapon, what happens if there is a further molestation or breach of the provision of paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 2? Apparently the police are going to be informed, so I assume that in every police station there will be a register of wives with injunctions and every officer will have to familiarise himself with the register and presumably will have to be prepared to keep in his mind—or certainly the station officers will have to—the name and address and something of the circumstances of those in his bailiwick who have obtained this relief. Because otherwise, if they do not keep this in their minds and there is further trouble, the arrest will not be made.
One understands that this sort of injunction will to a large extent apply in London or in the conurbations. But what happens if—dare one say it? —somewhere in the land where Members of the other place have their flats, there is trouble? Does the wife go to Cannon Row or Rochester Row? And what happens if she goes to Rochester Row when she should go to Cannon Row, and they have not got the register? This is the sort of minor difficulty which has to be taken into account, because they will not know.
Then it says here:
"…the constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of [the] provision".
Let us suppose it is not violence that the woman alleges, but that her consort, or husband, has in fact entered the matrimonial home when he has been told that he must not. What are the guidelines? If a woman goes on Sunday morning and says, "My husband came into the house last night and said he wanted to take his shirts away, because he was not going to

1449
live with me any more. I want him arrested. The judge said he would be. "Maybe that situation is twelve hours old. What would the constable do? Would he arrest, using the power given to him? Or would he say, "If your husband has got his shirts, I should be thankful he's out of the house, madam"? It is practical questions like these which have to be asked.
Supposing the circumstances are such that the officer does arrest the husband. What does he then do with him? Does he ring up the county court judge and say, "I've got Bert Bloggins here. You gave an injunction three months ago and he has come back into the matrimonial home"? Or does he try to get on to the solicitor for the Metropolitan Police, or does his superintendent do so?—or who? Bearing in mind it is a weekend and that the husband can only be incarcerated for 24 hours, all this has to be done, and the man has to be brought before the judge during this period.
My Lords, may I just say this, that in a Session when we have spent a great deal of time arguing the merits of the Bail Bill which has, to a very large extent, stopped people being incarcerated at the whim of the police, should we now pass a law that says that in fact a constable has power to lock up a man for 24 hours at the whim of an injured wife? Is that good law? I do not know, but I question it.
Another matter is this: if a wife who has been granted an injunction, with a power of arrest attached to it, and if there is further trouble, the person who is responsible for making that arrest will be the police officer. He has, if I may coin the current phrase, to make a value judgment on the merits of the situation. Occasions do arise when quarrels, and even strife, are six of one and half a dozen of another. I just query whether it is right for us to expect an ordinary young constable, faced with this sort of situation, which has nothing to do with the criminal law, to make this sort of value judgment which he will have to make.
Supposing the woman is a liar. Supposing she has held the warrant over her husband's head. Supposing he has merely been rude to her and says to her, "Go on, you wouldn't dare to get the police",
1450
and she says, "All right, I will," and she then goes off and says, "I have been caused actual bodily harm again" and it is all untrue. The husband is arrested and deprived of his liberty for 24 hours. To whom does he then have recourse? Can he sue the police officer for false arrest when he is carrying out a warrant on the orders of a superior court? He cannot sue his wife. He will not get any damages from her. That is another question.
My Lords, I fear I have taken quite a long time to criticise Clause 2. I have nothing to say about Clauses 3, 4 and 5 which to me seem an inoffensive and, indeed, quite effective way of amending the Matrimonial Homes Act. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord welcomes the mandatory duty, forced upon him by a manuscript Amendment at the last gasp of the Committee stage in another place, to make his orders by 1st April 1977, whether or not he is ready. But no doubt he does, or he would have said so, or no doubt, if he is not so satisfied, he will invite the noble Baroness to amend the Bill in this House.
I think we are in danger of enacting a legislative nonsense. I think we—and it is Parliament I am talking about in this instance—sometimes consider the good cause with more enthusiasm than temperance, and move too quickly in trying to remedy things. 1 would have hoped that so far as Clause 2 is concerned the noble and learned Lord was speaking after me; he would have been in a position to have said either, "Yes, we take your points and will go away and consider them, and if there is any validity in them we will either desert the Bill, so to speak, for this Session, or at any rate amend the whole Bill so that the matter is more satisfactory", or alternatively, at least go to allay the feelings and fears of noble Lords that in fact, as I have said, too much is being tried too fast.
But there it is. It may be we have a few weeks now—not so many as I should have liked, but a few—until we meet again. So perhaps either the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord could write to me. Otherwise, I am bound to say that, if there is no satisfaction, we shall have to go into this matter with considerable care in Committee.
The LORD CHEANCELLOR: My Lords, with the leave of the House might I answer the point that has just been made? I have been given permission to intervene at this stage. Of course we will look at the points raised by the noble Earl. Frankly, they are the sort of difficulties the police normally encounter and, as I have indicated, they are not disposed to oppose the provisions of the Bill. My noble friend, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and myself could well get together to see whether there is anything of substance which ought to be dealt with.
While I am so irregularly on my feet, may I give the answer to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that an injunction may be obtained by a cohabitee by means of an action for assault, coupled with a claim for damages in the county court. But there must be a claim for damages before the injunction process can be called in aid. By reason of the terms of the Bill, an injunction can be obtained without the necessity of a joinder of an action for damages. That is the position.
7.59 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of DERBY: My Lords, there are two matters in this Bill about which I should like to speak. The first is to give a welcome to it in general terms, because it deals with the problem of seeking to relieve suffering, whose great extent has only recently come to light, and whose full extent is not yet known. For this reason, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her support and interpretation of this Bill. Whatever revision it may require, something of the sort seems to me to be urgently called for.
The second thing I would do is to draw attention to subsection (2) of Clause 2. This is a point to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already referred, and my own conclusion is the same as his. But I feel bound to express a point of view which has been put to me very strongly. This subsection has caused disquiet because it equates spouses and cohabitors as having the same status. It is urged that it is objectionable to include extra-matrimonial relationships in a matrimonial Bill. To treat them in a legal enactment as being in practice the same as married relationships is, it is said, to undermine the state
1452
of marriage. One correspondent put it in the form, "This is another nail in the coffin of the sanctity of marriage". I have some sympathy with this approach, and I would remind your Lordships of the debate initiated a few weeks back by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury about the place of marriage and family life in the nation.
We seem to be presented here with a choice between two courses. If we support the Bill as it stands with this subsection, we are doing something, however slight, to undermine the stability of marriage as an institution vital to the welfare of the whole community. On the other hand, not to include those who live in a relationship of cohabitation would be to leave out those who, on the testimony of many social workers, are at greater risk in terms of domestic violence than those who are married. In making a choice, it is important to recognise that the aim of the Bill is to give easier relief than is obtainable at present to those who are brutally treated either in marriage or while cohabiting. The fact that this aim is paramount lessens the danger that marriage is being undermined. Indeed, if the dangers are greater in cohabitation, their being brought to light could well help to discourage that practice.
Compassion must be the prime consideration in legislation of this kind, and also in the making of such choice as there is over this particular point. I speak, I suppose, as the official representative of one whose sun shines on the evil as on the good, and who sends his rain both on the just and also on the unjust. God is undiscriminating in the generosity of his compassion, and so also should we be. To have two Bills to cover those who are married and those who merely live as though they are married would be unreal in a situation which calls for great compassion, and it might well do more to undermine the institution of marriage than the present Bill could possibly do, because it could be wrongly discriminatory. I support the Bill, but I think it is important to consider the kind of effect that this legislation may have in an area about which we need to be vigilant.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, perhaps I may first of all thank the right

1453
reverend Prelate for his welcome to the Bill and say that I understand and sympathise with his reservations, but I feel that in this, as I think he has indicated, we must take the wider, compassionate and Christian point of view. Having made the point, I do take this as his caveat. I am deeply grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making the very valid points about the way this law would be finally made into nuts and bolts, the amendment of the Rules of Court, Clause 1, and, of course, his very clear explanation of Clause 2. I was going to reply to the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, but I believe he has now had two replies, so I will not add to that.
It seemed to me that the only really strong opposition came from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I should not like to be unkind to him, but I felt that he somewhat made light of the terrible sufferings of these women. He also, in a way, I felt, patronised the police. This may be only an impression coming through to me. The local officer does know his people. I sit in a magistrates' court; one of the things that impresses one most of all about police officers is the way that they give their evidence about individuals, whatever they are charged with; the way they speak and say, "I know that this man, when he says this, means it". He speaks with some knowledge. So I do not think there is the danger that the woman will be confused and running to the wrong station. In any case, there are reservations which will prevent this from happening, in relation to the arrest, which I can let the noble Earl have in writing; I am a little nervous about giving it in the House in case I am not strictly correct, and therefore I would like to do it in writing.
I hope the noble Earl will also take up the invitation. I would be happy to meet him with the noble and learned Lord on any occasion, whether to discuss the Bill or not. It is important that it should go through unamended. Otherwise, as I am sure the noble Earl appreciates, it will not go through, and I know he would not want that.
Can I appeal to him this way. If it does nothing to help, it surely does nothing to hinder. He suggests this might be
1454
used perhaps on the whim of a wife. I know he has seen and heard stories in the divorce court, but has he seen the terrible injuries that some women suffer? When he speaks about the whim of a wife, and the man coming in to get his shirts, I cannot think any police officer will accept such flimsy evidence, and indeed he is empowered not to.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks me the question and puts it on a personal basis, and I shall reply. During the period that I was at the Bar I prosecuted and indeed defended cases, which ranged from common assault in the courts where the noble Baroness sits, up to murder in the Central Criminal Court. I have seen and heard, and, as I said, represented these ladies in the civil sense. I know very well what happens to them and how they feel.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining that, because I thought he rather suggested that this might be utilised lightly. I think he used the phrase, "on the whim of a wife", who would hold this over her husband. I was not quite certain when he said he looked forward to the weekend. He has every right to look forward to the weekend, unless he is going to go home and beat his wife, in which case I hope he does not look forward to the weekend.
He also suggested that it would be necessary to get the judge out of bed. I think he is overstating the case. The speed with which one operates is not necessarily immediately at that point of time. The next morning is still the time when the woman, having left the house, wants to take action, but at the present time is able to take action only in certain ways. I understand and appreciate his reservations. I would be the last to desire that anybody should be arrested without having committed any crime and who afterwards was found to be innocent. In relation to the policeman having to make his own judgment, if I may refer to my humble courts again, in the case of a fight in the street it always seems to me that if both parties complain that the other started it but one has a large bruise on his head, the policeman must, of necessity, have had to make some value judgment at some point of time. While a violent

1455
assault in the street between two strangers can be dealt with, all too sadly a violent and horrible assault between two parties who live together may well not be dealt with, and all we seek to do is to make this possible. If there can be any easement of the terrible pain which women endure, I am quite certain that the noble Earl would be the last to want to prevent that happening.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
RIVER MEDWAY (FLOOD RELIEF) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  NORTH SEA PIPELINES: CONSULTATIONS
  NORTH SEA PIPELINES: CONSULTATIONS
  WINE SALES BY THE GLASS
  WINE SALES BY THE GLASS
  EEC: DAIRY SECTOR PROPOSALS
  EEC: DAIRY SECTOR PROPOSALS
  POPULATION AND HEALTH CENTRES
  POPULATION AND HEALTH CENTRES
  HEALTH CENTRES: DENTAL PRACTITIONERS
  HEALTH CENTRES: DENTAL PRACTITIONERS
  St. THOMAS' HOSPITAL TREATMENT BLOCK ACCOMMODATION
  St. THOMAS' HOSPITAL TREATMENT BLOCK ACCOMMODATION
  GROUP PRACTICE LOAN FUND
  GROUP PRACTICE LOAN FUND
  SHIPREPAIRING: SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES
  SHIPREPAIRING: SUCCESSFUL COMPANIES
  DREADNOUGHT HOSPITAL, GREENWICH
  DREADNOUGHT HOSPITAL, GREENWICH