Sitting of 16 November 1976

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

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS
Mr. Speaker: With the agreement of the House, and in accordance with present
respecting application of Standing Order No. 30 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1976 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when claimed

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in Standing Committees under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

Date when Closure claimed, and by whom

Question before Committee when claimed

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against

—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Return ordered,
  Of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1975–76 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of Parliamentary procedure and of those within the committees' orders of reference for which no Parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the House respectively, in session 1975–76 showing the number where the question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under Standing Order No. 73A(5).—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  practice, I propose to call the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to move together all nine of his motions for unopposed return.

  ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 9
  Return ordered,
  Of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1975–76.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 30)
  Return ordered,

  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
  Return ordered,
  Of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1975–76:
  Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1975–76 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the preambles were reported to have been

  1085
  proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
  Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1975–76 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
  And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  PUBLIC BILLS
  Return ordered,
  of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1975–76, showing:

  (1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and

  (2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of (he Prorogation or Dissolution.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SELECT COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  of Select Committees in Session 1975–76 with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the number of meetings held by each Select Committee and Sub-Committee, and the number of meetings each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
  Return ordered,
  of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1975–76, stating for each day the day
  1086
  of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  STANDING COMMITTEES
  Return ordered,
  for Session 1975–76, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and Statutory Instrument, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

  SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS
  Return ordered,
  Of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1975–76; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders:
  Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1975–76, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Scotland
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the percentage of the insurable population who are registering as unemployed in Scotland and in Coatbridge and Airdrie, respectively.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): At October 1976 the percentage rates of unemployment were 7·3 per cent. in Scotland and 9·9 per cent. in the North Lanarkshire travel-to-work area, which includes Coatbridge and Airdrie.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are areas in the Strathclyde Region where the numbers of unemployed are double the national average? Will he urge the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop those public expenditure cuts which would cause further un-employment and worsen the situation in that part of the country?
    Mr. Golding: My hon. Friend will know that my visit brought home to me the severity of unemployment in his constituency. Our view, however, is that we cannot provide a permanent solution to our unemployment problem without placing limits on public expenditure. I am sure my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we expect the local hospital at Airdrie to be completed in 1977. This will provide approximately 1,500 jobs, of which about 400 will be non-medical and suitable for local workers.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we are delighted that he feels he has been enlightened about the unemployment situation in Scotland? May I ask when will he come forward with overall constructive plans to ensure that the people in the west of Scotland get the kind of life to which they are entitled, particularly since the gross domestic product and the resources of Scotland are contributing to the United Kingdom economy? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the words he used are totally unacceptable to the people of Scotland?
    Mr. Golding: The hon. Member referred to the west of Scotland. The Government are concerned about the unemployment situation in the whole of Scotland. We have been delighted that the latest survey undertaken by the Scottish CBI reported fewer firms working below capacity than was the case in July and that there are more firms proposing to increase their work forces than there are firms proposing to reduce them. The Government are pleased about that state of affairs.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Employment what is the present level of unemployment in the construction industry; and what was the equivalent figure for 1st March 1974.
    Mr. Golding: At 12th August, the latest date for which an industrial analysis is available, 193,818 people who last worked in the construction industry were registered as unemployed in Great Britain. The figure at March 1974 was 113,046.
    Mr. Latham: Have not those atrocious figures been made all the worse by the fact that the construction industry has taken all the strain of the cuts made so far, while indiscriminate food subsidies and other transfer payments have gobbled up all the available resources?
    Mr. Golding: It is not true that the strain has been taken entirely by construction workers. The Government have taken many measures to bolster the situation in the construction industry. Naturally we are concerned about the unemployment situation in that industry, which is mainly due to the falling off in public works.
    Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that his answer is pathetic? What effect does he estimate that the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate will have on investment and, therefore, on building jobs in the next year or so? Is it not a fact that the 15 per cent. minimum lending rate is necessary so that the Government may get their money, while the private sector is being starved of resources, with the result that there is an increase in unemployment in the private sector?
    Mr. Golding: We do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Naturally we hope that the high interest rate will be short lived. It is apparent, however, that the greatest problem in the construction industry lies in the public works sector. This would be made immeasurably worse by the massive cuts in public expenditure proposed by the Opposition.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: In view of that reply, will my hon. Friend recommend an increase in public expenditure on construction work, bearing in mind that that would not hurt the balance of payments since the products used would be almost entirely British and would be used by British labour?
    Mr. Golding: That is not entirely true because imports play a big part in the work. The level of the ceiling that the Government have had to place on public expenditure is due to the fact that they have to tackle the general problem of inflation at the same time.

    Work-sharing Programmes
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what encouragement he is giving to work-sharing programmes.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): I regard reductions in working hours and overtime as matters for negotiation between managements and employees
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of unemployment is now one of large-scale structural unemployment and not cyclical unemployment? To this extent, is it not wise that we should positively be pursuing work-sharing programmes, particularly cutting back on the hours of overtime worked and sharing work in that way?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend whether the main source of unemployment is structural unemployment or demand-related unemployment. There is a Question later on the Order Paper about overtime, but, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said when we were last up for Questions, we are concerned about the level of overtime working. We note the TUC resolution on this subject at its
    1090
    Congress and hope that it will be taken into account by both unions and employers in the working out of work arrangements.
    Mrs. Chalker: What assurance can the Minister give the House that all employees will be consulted on the subject of work-sharing in companies where there is not exclusive trade union membership? Surely they, too, have a voice that should be heard even if they are not members of trade unions.
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Lady did not listen to my original reply, which I shall repeat for her benefit. I regard reductions in working hours and overtime as matters for negotiation between managements and employees.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does the Minister agree that the increase in overtime working flows to some extent at least from the Government's pay policy, because this is a way in which take-home pay can be increased?
    Mr. Walker: Before the hon. Gentleman makes assumptions about the levels of overtime working, he might care to consult the figures. I think he will find that overtime working has remained extraordinarily stable over the past three years or so.

    Lost Working Days
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days have been lost during the last 12 months which would not otherwise have been lost but for unemployment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): Multiplying the number of unemployed by the estimated number of days worked per year by those in employment gives very approximately 300 million days.
    Mr. Morrison: Does the Minister agree that that is a rather alarming figure? Will he tell the House what he expects the future trend to be with regard to unemployment and whether he expects more or fewer working days to be lost during the next 12 months as a result of unemployment?
    Mr. Grant: First, I agree that it is an alarming figure—I think that the whole House would accept that—but I do not

    1091
    think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to speculate on the level of unemployment ahead of us beyond what has already been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and, indeed, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that academic studies have shown that the higher the level of unemployment benefit, the higher the level of unemployment? Therefore, will the Government give further consideration to the bringing of unemployment benefit into tax as a means, among other things, of reducing the level of unemployment?
    Mr. Grant: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened with care to what has been said on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. I think that the Opposition should get the whole thing into perspective before they go out on a limb like that.
    Mr. Newens: Is it not a fact that if the cries by the Opposition for cuts in public expenditure were implemented this would greatly increase the present levels of unemployment and make the whole situation even more intolerable?
    Mr. Grant: I do not think there is any doubt that my hon. Friend is right and that this is really the most distinctive difference between the two sides of the House.

    Manpower Policy
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he has yet received a copy of the Manpower Services Commission's document "Towards a Comprehensive Manpower Policy".
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): Yes, Sir. The report reflects the importance that the Government attach to the development of longer-term manpower policies which support our economic and industrial strategies.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the Secretary of State aware that on page 13 of the report there is a reference to the Government's target of 700,000 unemployed in 1979? Does that remain the Government's target? If so, will the right hon. Gentle-
    1092
    man tell us what the targets are for 1977 and 1978 on the way to that target?
    Mr. Booth: The target remains, and, without seeking to be precise as to estimates, we would attempt to reach that target as quickly as possible. We shall rejoice if we can reach it much earlier, but I believe that the indications in the report by the MSC are that that will be a considerable achievement.
    Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not principally a matter of getting people back to work, because many of those jobs have disappeared? What new efforts is my right hon. Friend contemplating to help to create new jobs?
    Mr. Booth: I agree with my hon. Friend that the MSC's report indicates that there is a very important structural element in the total unemployment picture. To that extent, I think that the report validates much of the importance that the Government attach to an industrial strategy that will create many more new jobs in manufacturing.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Secretary of State now have the courage to admit that there is no chance whatsoever of reaching the optimistic target for unemployment that both the Government and the Manpower Services Commission have set themselves? Would it not be better if he were honest with the country and said that, however regrettable it may be, these targets are not now possible of attainment, and if he then started to take the right sort of action to help to reduce structural unemployment, particularly among the young?
    Mr. Booth: To say that the target is not being attained would take neither courage nor honesty. It would be a demonstration of a lack of will to achieve the target.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what changes are proposed in the regional organisation of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Golding: This subject is currently being studied.
    Mr. Roberts: Are the Commission's plans to decentralise to Scotland and

    1093
    Wales to be implemented before or after the passage of the devolution Bill? Surely there is no reason why the transfer of responsibilities to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales should not take place now.
    Mr. Golding: This matter is under consideration by the Government, and I am not yet ready to give an answer to that question.

    Trade Unions (Recognition)
    Mr. Parkasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many trade union recognition issues ACAS is currently dealing with under the provisions of the Employment Protection Act.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I am informed by ACAS that at the end of October the Service was dealing with 307 recognition issues referred under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act.
    Mr. Park: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say in how many cases the outcome was recognition of the union, and does he agree that in the recent case of Grunwick Processing it would have been much more sensible to use this valuable process rather than allow the situation to fester as it did?
    Mr. Walker: The reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is that approximately two-thirds of the settlements involved recognition of the union. In the others, the unions' claims for recognition were withdrawn. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend about the ugly Grunwick situation, much of which might have been avoided had the firm responded much earlier to the union's suggestion of the use of the Section 11 procedures under the Employment Protection Act.

    Employment Protection Act
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment what effect the Employment Protection Act has had on the unemployment situation.
    Mr. Booth: The improvement in industrial relations which the Employment Protection Act is designed to produce should strengthen business confidence and our productive capacity and so enhance employment prospects in the long
    1094
    term. No measure of its short-term effects is yet available.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Secretary of State aware that many employers consider the Act to be a positive financial disincentive to take on more staff, particularly young people and school leavers? Can he say what consideration he has given to amending the Act in the light of experience when statistics are available?
    Mr. Booth: It may help the hon. Gentleman in his dealings with employers if I tell him that my Department has estimated very carefully the cost of the Act when it is fully implemented, which stage we have not yet reached. All those estimates indicate that the cost to employers will be less than one-quarter of 1 per cent. of their wage bill. I find it very hard to believe that the Act can be regarded as any considerable financial disincentive to taking on employees. The vast improvement in industrial relations that has been achieved under the Act is something that all employers should welcome.
    Mr. loan Evans: Does my right hon Friend realise that the Act has been greatly welcomed by trade unionists and by employees generally and that it is a major step forward in improving industrial relations?
    Mr. Booth: Yes, I appreciate that, and I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. I should say that in enacting the Employment Protection Act the House was, for a great many of them, only putting into statutory form practices which many of them already pursued.
    Mr. Brittan: Will the Secretary of State accept that the damage caused by the Act cannot be gauged by the cost to employers, who employ labour in spite of the terms of the Act, but is more accurately to be assessed by the effect on unemployment because employers will not take on workers as a result of the Act? If that is so, will the Secretary of State, when there is time to measure the effect of the Act, give his assessment not of the cost of the Act but of the effect on unemployment created by it?
    Mr. Booth: I should be interested to know whether the proposition of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend is that the

    1095
    Act should be repealed. It is our estimate, as I indicated to the House, that the cost of the Act is extremely small and that the advantages to be gained have already been recognised by a great many employers who are practising within the Act and, I believe, will continue to do so irrespective of the statutory requirements.
    Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are parts of the Act that the Opposition believe are damaging to employment and, therefore, will need to be reviewed and changed? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman get on with that now?
    Mr. Booth: I was being generous to the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends in thinking that some of their comments about the Act during its passage through the House were matters on which they would revise their judgment when they saw the Act as a whole. That is obviously not the case, and we shall, therefore, listen with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman when he tells us which part of the Act should be repealed.

    Enfield
    Mr. Bryan Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will pay an official visit to the London borough of Enfield.
    Mr. John Grant: My right hon. Friend at present has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that if he visited the London borough of Enfield he would meet a great deal of concern among my constituents at the proposed loss of jobs at Standard Telephones and Cables? Will he further accept that this is an illustration of the extent to which public expenditure cuts lead to a loss of jobs in manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Grant: My Department has not been formally notified of any proposed redundancies in STC at New Southgate. I know that there have been reports of redundancies to occur at that factory, I believe next year, and I hope that the company will take into account the availability of help under the temporary employment subsidy scheme before it takes any decisions about future employment levels at the New Southgate factory.
    1096
    I do not think that the question of public expenditure cuts is relevant. If we keep inflation in check and increase our industrial competitiveness, although no one can pretend that the problems will vanish, we shall go a long way towards resolving them.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: I am very pleased that the Government have at last recognised the need to tax all short-term benefits, or at least investigate the position—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must try to relate their questions to the Question on the Order Paper.

    Industrial Stoppages
    Sir W. Elliottasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many industrial stoppages the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been involved in in the last 12 months.
    Mr. Harold Walker: In the 12 months up to 31st October 1976, the ACAS received 3,488 requests for conciliation. An analysis showing how many industrial stoppages were involved will be available in the Service's next annual report. In the calendar year 1975, the ACAS received 2,564 requests for conciliation and conciliated in 483 cases involving a stoppage of work and 132 involving other industrial action.
    Sir W. Elliott: Is the Minister aware that conciliation is urgently needed concerning the Tyneside Metro system, since its future construction is heavily threatened by the blacking action of members of ASLEF? Will he use his advisory service to indicate to those who are holding up this development that employment prospects on Tyneside and many other places in the country as well will be heavily threatened if this project is ended?
    Mr. Walker: The House has long recognised the unwisdom of Ministers commenting on cases and disputes that are currently in process and the desirability of avoiding the use of words that might exacerbate difficulties. But, of course, the services of ACAS are available at the request of the parties.
    Mr. Buchan: Can the Minister give figures to illustrate the reduction that has occurred in the number of man-hours lost

    1097
    through industrial disputes since the repeal by the present Government of the class-ridden legislation enacted by the Tory Party when it was in power? Would he not agree that that dramatic fall illustrates completely that, whoever is responsible for the present situation, it is not the workers or the trade unionists, despite the allusions by Tory Members?
    Mr. Walker: I am sure that the House as a whole is satisfied with the enormous improvement in industrial relations and the fact that the number of days lost due to industrial disputes this year is 50 per cent. down on last year, which in turn was the best year since 1968. I understand that for the first nine months of this year industrial disputes accounted for less than half the days lost.
    Mr. Madel: Do we take it from those statements that ACAS gives advice to firms as to how they might improve their disputes procedure? Would the Minister agree that, despite the drop in the general figures for the number of days lost, there are still far too many cases where the disputes procedure in firms is bypassed and industrial action takes place? Is there not a need for improvement?
    Mr. Walker: I am glad to have a chance to say what I should have said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), which is that of course there is no doubt that the services of ACAS have made a significant contribution to the improvement to which I referred. In reply to the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel), I think he may know—because he takes an interest in these matters—that ACAS has issued a consultation document about disputes procedures. I am sure that if he has some views to express ACAS will be glad to receive them.

    Temporary Employment Subsidy
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many firms are currently benefiting from the temporary employment subsidy; how many workers are covered; and if there is any intention to extend the scheme when it expires at the end of the year.
    Mr. Golding: As at 29th October 1976, 1,845 applications had been approved
    1098
    covering 135,332 workers and 385 applications affecting 32,222 workers were under consideration.
    The Government are now considering the need to extend the scheme in one form or another beyond 31st December.
    Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend give two assurances? First, will he tell us that the temporary employment subsidy will be given only to companies with prospects of long-term viability? Secondly, will he say that where firms which receive the temporary employment subsidy make workers redundant his Department will make a full inquiry into the circumstances?
    Mr. Golding: The present rules require us to be certain that there is long-term viability in a firm. Secondly, if circumstances were to change, it is possible that redundancies would be declared which could not have been predicted at the time initial inquiries were made.
    Mr. Tebbit: Is the Minister satisfied that this system, which ensures that factories are over-manned, is the best way to form a springboard for the great take-off of industrial efficiency about which the Prime Minister so often talks?
    Mr. Golding: We do not believe that the temporary employment subsidy leads to over-manning on any scale at all. We believe that it is a sensible scheme in that temporary help is given to firms to avoid workers being declared redundant and thereby becoming an additional burden on social security funds.
    Mr. Pardoe: Does the Minister recognise that 31st December is not very far away and that there will be great uncertainty unless and until the Government come to a decision? Will he therefore make up his mind very quickly about this matter? Will he recognise also that the dropping of this subsidy will cause greatly increased unemployment in Cornwall and that by far the best replacement would be a massive programme of labour-intensive public works in development areas?
    Mr. Golding: We shall bear both those points in mind. We realise that an urgent decision is necessary, and we appreciate that if the subsidy were to end there would be other costs involved.

    Wage Levels (Statutory Obligations)
    Mr. David Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will conduct a survey to discover the number of workers who will be made unemployed as a result of the drive to compel employers to increase wages in accordance with statutory obligations.
    Mr. John Grant: No, Sir.
    Mr. MitchellWithout in any way condoning low wages, may I ask whether the Minister does not think that he ought to know whether his activities are adding to the number of unemployed and, if so, by how many?
    Mr. Grant: I think that that would be a waste of scarce resources. Although the hon. Gentleman says that he is not condoning the payment of low wages, he must take on board that the argument that there is a threat to jobs is the kind of argument that has been used by bad employers through the ages.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is it not humbug to suggest that employers should be encouraged not to pay proper wages and that there should be no statutory minimum wages?
    Mr. Grant: It is certainly humbug to. suggest that employees should not be paid the proper statutory minimum. Successive Governments have supported that position. As so many Opposition Members seem to be concerned about the level of unemployment benefit, perhaps it is worth commenting that it is hardly surprising that some people might be better off out of work when one thinks of the low wages that some of these employers seek to pay.
    Mr. Henderson: Reverting to the original Question, will the Minister tell us whether there is any evidence that women are being discriminated against as a result of the Equal Pay Act? Is any evidence of that available to the Department?
    Mr. Grant: Although that is not directly related to the Question, the evidence is to the contrary. The situation concerning discrimination against women has been considerably improved as a result of the Equal Pay Act.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister consider extending or postponing the introduction of Schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act, which will make new statutory provisions concerning wages which, in the opinion of many, will add a great deal to inflation?
    Mr. Grant: No, Sir. We are committed to that, and we shall certainly want to proceed, as we have made clear we shall.

    Courtaulds (Closures)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Employment what consultations he has had regarding the announced closures of Courtaulds plants in North Wales and North-West England; and what action he proposes to take in order to ensure employment for the workers who will be made redundant by these closures.
    Mr. Booth: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Wales, my hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and I met Sir Arthur Knight, the Chairman of Courtaulds, on Tuesday, 2nd November to try to persuade him to rescind or at least postpone the proposed redundancies. We are hoping to meet the trade unions' Courtaulds Co-ordinating Committee at the earliest opportunity. As regards the second part of the Question, I am in close and constant touch with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Industry and for Wales, who, I know, will continue to give a high priority to the steering of new projects to the areas affected. In addition the Manpower Services Commission will, of course, do everything in its power to help those made redundant find or train for alternative employment.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that measures such as the Employment Protection Act, temporary employment subsidies and all the talk of planning agreements have led the workers at Courtaulds to asume that, despite appearances, their jobs would be safe right up to the last moment because the Government would step in and save them? Is he further aware that the Government have no such power? Does he agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) that

    1101
    the best future for these people is that new jobs should come into this area, and that this entails new Government policies?
    Mr. Booth: I am not aware of that. I am aware that there is grave concern among many of those employed at Courtaulds about the proposed redundancies, which they take extremely seriously. A number of jobs at Courtaulds is already supported by temporary employment subsity, and I believe that a number of the measures that are operated by my right hon. Friends and myself have made a considerable contribution to the expanding of employment opportunities and the expanding of Courtaulds' operation in this country. While we are dealing with a particular and difficult problem in the areas where redundancies are proposed, it will help to keep some sense of perspective if we still recognise that great employment opportunities have been created in this firm as a result of direct Government aid.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the closure of the Skelmersdale factory would be a terrible blow to that town and, indeed, to the whole of Merseyside? What possible projects can he bring to that area if the closure takes place, given the already intolerably high level of unemployment in the town now?
    Mr. Booth: I accept that the closure of the Courtaulds factory at Skelmersdale to which my hon. Friend refers would be a terrible blow to the town. I cannot yet say whether we could ensure that an alternative job opportunity of similar size could be brought about. That is why we must redouble our efforts to try to avert such a closure.
    Mrs. Chalker: What study has the Department made of training possibilities for the North-West and North Wales in particular to take up much of the unemployment that is now being suffered as a result of industries going out of fashion and out of business?
    Mr. Booth: The particular problems of the North-West led the Manpower Services Commission, through the Training Services Agency, to expand greatly the training opportunities scheme. I believe that within this year we shall see an expansion
    1102
    of about 50 per cent. in training opportunities in that area.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that over the years Courtaulds has received a considerable amount of money by way of Government assistance, that there has been modernisation of the plants and that the trade unions in particular have worked well with the company and have made all sorts of manning level agreements which have been satisfactory? Despite that, these workers are faced with redundancies. Is it not time that the Government began to act in another direction—namely, through the NEB—to create alternative employment in areas such as Merseyside which can take up work through Government agencies?
    Mr. Booth: It is true that in all but one of the plants concerned in the redundancies the firm has indicated to us that there is no question of difficulties with trade unions in obtaining suitable manning agreements. It is the contention of Sir Arthur Knight and his managers that all but one of the redundancies stem directly from commercial and trading considerations. It is part of the Government's intention that we should continue to explore the extent to which the role of the NEB might be expanded in order to provide alternative work.

    Industrial Tribunals (Membership)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many appointments to industrial tribunals of members representing employees have gone to members that are affiliated to the TUC and how many to members of other registered unions who are not affiliated.
    Mr. Harold Walker: All 1,095 employee members of the tribunals have been appointed following consultation with the TUC.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: That is not an answer. Is the Minister saying that no members have been appointed from a registered union other than unions affiliated to the TUC? If he is saying that, is it not a scandalous abuse of the power of judicial appointment that the Minister should not appoint perfectly qualified persons simply because they do not choose to affiliate?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think that the hon. and learned Member can have listened to what I said. If all the employee members were appointed following consultation with the TUC, it follows that none had been appointed without consultation with the TUC. With regard to the latter part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question, the statutory position now and the practice followed by the Government is exactly that which was followed between 1965 and 1971 when it went unquestioned.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister confirm that half of the employees in this country are not members of a TUC-affiliated union? If he can confirm that, will he tell us why it is reasonable not to appoint anyone who would represent people with this kind of aptitude or membership of a non-affiliated union? Does he not accept that there is a better way of taking the politics out of trade union membership?
    Mr. Walker: I must tell the hon, Gentleman that the statutory obligation on my right hon. Friend, which was laid down in 1971 by the then Conservative Government, requires him to consult organisations which represent employees. I know of no organisation that represents non-union members.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Will the Minister ensure that when further appointments are made to industrial tribunals account will be taken of the fact that about one in 10 members of unions are in unions not affiliated to the TUC? It is quite wrong that they should not have the chance of serving on industrial tribunals.
    Mr. Walker: No; I think that we need employee representatives on industrial tribunals who understand the problems of ordinary working people. By and large, the organisations to which the hon. Gentleman refers represent professional and managerial workers. I do not think they would reflect the interests to which I have referred.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    London
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of unemployed in the Greater London travel-to-work area for the month of October 1973, 1974, 1975, and 1976; and if he will express them as a percentage of the total employed population in that area.
    Mr. Golding: In October 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 the numbers unemployed in the Greater London travel-to-work area were 49,077, 59,931 120,539 and 160,368 respectively. The rates of unemployment represented by these figures were 1·3, 1·5, 3·1 and 4·1 per cent, respectively.
    Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that at 4·1 per cent, the unemployment rate in Greater London is exactly what the unemployment rate was in the development areas in 1973? What policy changes does he propose in order to arrest this deplorable trend and to get London back to work, with or without Labour?
    Mr. Golding: I was not aware of that figure. In his statement on dockland on 5th August, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced certain measures to bring further work to London. The Government are well aware of the very high level of unemployment in several areas of London.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is it not time that we at least stopped moving jobs out of London? Will my hon. Friend look carefully at the proposal to move the office of the Government Chemist out of London, since this proposal will make an already intensely serious situation in South-East London a good deal worse?
    Mr. Golding: The needs of the various regions of the United Kingdom have to be balanced by the Government. The Government are aware in particular of the serious loss of jobs in the East End of London and other badly-hit areas in the inner City.
    Mr. Prior: Is the Minister aware that for the whole of Question Time so far

    1105
    we have had a series of pitiful and pathetic answers? Have the Government no policy to put into practice their election slogan of " Back to work with Labour", or are we always to have a Labour Government increasing unemployment?
    Mr. Golding: Again the right hon. Gentleman makes the point that if he were at this Dispatch Box he would be announcing savage public expenditure cuts which would bring further unemployment to London. The Government have, through special measures, brought 9,700 jobs to London. That has certainly not been with the full support of the Opposition.
    Mr. Grant: In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of that reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on another occasion.

    Dismissals (Public Sector)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many employees in the public sector have been dismissed for refusing to join a trade union.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The information is not available.
    Mr. Gow: Why not?
    Mr. Walker: Because, as the hon, Gentleman and his hon. Friends should know, there is no obligation on employers or the unions to notify the Government in this kind of situation.
    Mr. Mayhew: Does not the Minister have sufficient interest in the consequences of his recent legislation even to inquire how many people have been flung out of work—for example Mr. Roger Webster, my constituent and a former member of British Rail—as a result of refusing to join a union when there is no conscience clause in operation?
    Mr. Walker: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that there ought to be an obligation on companies to notify the Government of dismissals that occur in these circumstances, particularly when, as has been stressed on so many occasions, the Government's attitude is one of complete neutrality?
    Mr. Prior: Have the Government no interest in this matter? Are they not prepared to use their influence to bring about a situation in the nationalised industries in which people are not dismissed from their jobs just because, on conscience grounds, they refuse to join a union? Is not that a scandalous state of affairs? Are not the Government prepared to do anything about it except wash their hands of it?
    Mr. Walker: Again, I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the Opposition's position on the closed shop. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Are they against it, are they in favour of it, or do they share the view—which we have expressed so often from this Dispatch Box, which is embodied in our legislation and which is one of complete neutrality—that these matters should be left to the parties in industry to determine for themselves?
    Mr. Gow: In view of the shameful nature of that reply, Mr. Speaker, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    ORMSKIRK
    Mr. Kilroy-Silkasked the Prime Minister if he will make an official visit to Ormskirk.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Jamea Callaghan): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: That reply will disappoint many of my constituents. Does my right hon. Friend realise that Mersey-side as a whole is suffering from a serious industrial and economic decline which is largely unrelated to the industrial recession, and that the threatened closure of the Courtaulds factories at Skelmersdale and Aintree and the proposed redundancies at Plessey in Liverpool and in Kirkby will have a catastrophic effect on the industrial life of the whole area? Is it not now time for the Government to relate their industrial policy to the particular needs of Merseyside before it is too late?
    The Prime Minister: I recognise that there are special problems for Merseyside, which suffers from structural weaknesses arising from the decline in the port industry over many years and also in some

    1107
    other industries such as shipbuilding and ship repairing. That is why it was given special development area status two years ago. Since then, a number of offers have also been made of selective assistance to a total of about £4½ million and advance factory projects have been undertaken.
    But the position of Merseyside cannot be isolated from the general economic position of Britain as a whole, and there is no future in indulging in a consumer boom which would have worse consequences at the end of the day than if we were to focus our attention on earning our living by increasing our exports.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is the Prime Minister aware that he will be welcome in Crosby, the constituency next door to Ormskirk, if he will come there and explain what he said at the Lord Mayor's banquet last night—that there must be proper reward for skill and responsibility? What practical steps is he taking to ensure that reward?
    The Prime Minister: There will be continuing discussions with the TUC about the next round of wage increases, which must recognise skill and responsibility in some form or other and which, I take it, will be reflected also higher up the scale. What has happened is the result of the wage settlements that have been agreed by the TUC over the last couple of years. They have had the effect of helping to reduce inflation. It has been generally acknowledged that, when there is a rough-and-ready agreement such as we have had over the last two years, anomalies are created. I often spend my time explaining this. I hope to have the assistance of Opposition Members also.
    Mr. Heffer: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that if he did come to Merseyside he would undoubtedly have a wanner response than he had from his City audience last night? Would he not agree that one does not have to be concerned with the consumer, in the sense of a consumer boom, to get the building industry back to work? The construction industry on Merseyside is in a dire situation. Could not assistance be given to that industry in order to get many of those thousands of workers back to work at the earliest possible moment?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I was in Merseyside in September and had a warm welcome from many people. I should be happy to go back again. As regards the construction industry, my hon. Friend has pursued this matter with great assiduity for a considerable period, but I cannot promise exceptional measures for the construction industry. There is no prospect at this moment of the construction industry going ahead until there is a general return of confidence as we overcome inflation. As inflation is overcome, I believe that there will be an upturn in the economy.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is little point in talking about taxation and pay anomalies unless he is prepared to take action to deal with them? Does he agree with the view expressed by his Secretary of State for Social Services on the radio that, in equity, short-term benefits should be taxable?
    The Prime Minister: The theory is often very different from the practice. In 1948, short-term unemployment benefits were taxed. It resulted in such an administrative dog's breakfast that the practice was abandoned six months later. Since then, successive Governments have considered how these matter can be rectified, so the issue of principle is, frankly, of less importance than what can be done in practice.
    I am bound to say to the right hon. Lady—I hope that she will not join in—that among some newspapers a most squalid campaign is being developed which bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation. There is a real problem here. If there is an overlap between people who are at work and the unemployed because by statute—agreed by this House, with the consent of both parties—the benefits of the unemployed are related to increases in the cost of living—
    Mr. Churchill: An £8-a-week increase?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows even less about this than he does about Mr. Ponomarev.
    We also have a wage agreement which limits the increase in wages—as has been

    1109
    done over the last year—to below the increase in the Retail Price Index. This clearly creates substantial anomalies and, I think, considerable grievances, but it is far easier to state the grievance than it is to consider the remedy, which would require not only legislation but a substantial increase in the number of civil servants. Although the Opposition make noises about it, they are committed to reducing that, too.
    Nobody wants to deny that there is a problem here which must be considered. [Interruption.] I shall go on saying it until it sinks into hon. Gentlemen's thick heads. Stating that there is a problem does not necessarily produce the remedy within 24 hours.
    Mrs. Thatcher: But the Prime Minister has known about the problem for months and months and was warned in the Budget debate that this would happen: that if he increased unemployment pay by about £8 a week—in other words, by 15 or 16 per cent.—and the pay for those in work by only 5 per cent., he would have this problem. Will he take any action at all?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is descending to a squalid tactic. It is not so long ago that the Opposition were pressing for a six-monthly review to be based on the Retail Price Index, and on 24th June the House passed this year's uprating order without a Division, in 74 minutes flat. Who are the humbugs now?

    TUC
    Mr. Corbeftasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.
    Mr. Mike Thomasasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friends to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) on 12th October.
    Mr. Corbett: When my right hon. Friend meets the TUC, will he confirm that he shares the view that no amount of unemployment pay can compensate for the indignity and hardship caused to
    1110
    a man and his family through having his job taken from him? In order particularly to help the young unemployed, will my right hon. Friend consider an early announcement about extending both the scope and the period of the job creation programme?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly consider both those matters. The temporary employment subsidy has been a very successful means of helping firms which are in temporary difficulties. It expires on 31st December, and the Government are considering what new plans should take its place.
    Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that due to the problems of the electrical plant industry 15,000 jobs in the Northern Region and 6,000 in my constituency are at stake? Is he also aware that the National Economic Development Office has produced a report which has for some reason not been published and which states that the bringing forward of the orders for electrical plant could save the situation at little or no cost to public expenditure? Is he aware that the policies pursued by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Sport and Recreation for either drought or flood situations are not adequate for the CEGB power plant ordering programme?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am aware that there is a very big problem in relation to ordering power plants which seems to have arisen from previous decisions of the Central Electricity Generating Board and past Governments. The Government are now giving careful consideration to this matter, and we shall announce our decision in due course.
    Sir David Renton: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC, will he tell it of the profound delight which workers in the largest cold store in Europe, which is in my constituency, have expressed about the part that the House of Lords has played in amending the Dock Work Regulation Bill? Will he further tell the TUC that on this occasion, as on others, it is a case of the Lords being on the side of the workers—[AN HON. MEMBER: " Rubbish ".]—and the workers on the side of the Lords and that both those fine bodies of people are unanimous in being against the Government?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall certainly convey the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sentiments to the TUC, and I shall be interested to hear its response. If it is printable, I shall send a letter to him.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister, when he next sees the TUC, elicit from it why it disagrees with Sir Ronald Mclntosh's view about the need to concentrate on productive rather than nonproductive public expenditure? Is it the policy of the Government and the TUC to encourage unproductive public expenditure? If not, how do the Government propose to tell the difference between the two?
    The Prime Minister: I have no idea. But as regards Sir Ronald Mclntosh, I do not think that I shall be discussing this matter with the TUC. It has expresed its view about it. The "Mclntoshes" generally seem to have been causing a bit of bother lately. Regarding the views of Sir Ronald, I thought that his speech was rather like the curate's egg: it was good in parts. There were some parts I found myself in agreement with more than others.

    HARLOW
    Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister when he last paid an official visit to Harlow.
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet made an official visit to Harlow.
    Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend come to Harlow to see the tremendous success achieved there as a result of the far-sighted policy of the Labour Government which established the London new towns, the tremendous standard of welfare benefits, unsurpassed anywhere, provided for old people by the Labour-controlled council and a full comprehensive scheme of secondary education? Will he assure the House that in future there will not be any change in attitude towards new towns, despite an increase in the necessary drive to do something about the rundown in city centres?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. It is interesting to note that the successes of the new towns produce sneers from the
    1112
    Conservative Party, even though they are one of the features to which visitors to this country always pay attention and wish to see. I can assure my hon. Friend that there will be no abrupt reversal of new town plans. No final decisions will be taken without proper consultation. Of course, at present there are limited resources and a limited amount of mobile industry. Therefore, we have to consider very carefully the balance between new towns and inner cities and the regions. But no urgent decisions will be taken that will result in the new towns being unable to proceed.
    Mr. Cormack: When the Prime Minister goes to Harlow, will he tell the electors of that constituency that the prime function of Her Majesty's Government is to maintain the defence of the realm and that he stands four square on that as being the first priority of his Government? Will he also explain to those electors how he proposes to defend the mixed economy on the lines he advocated last night while 70 or 80 Members from his own party are dedicated to the destruction of that mixed economy?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his suggestions for another speech. I shall bear them all carefully in mind when I prepare it.

WATER RESOURCES
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Ho well):With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on water resources, in response to an invitation to do so by the Opposition.
As the House will appreciate, the very heavy rainfall of the last two months has greatly improved water supplies. Rationing has stopped, and most water authorities have been able to relax or lift restrictions on non-essential water uses.
The fact that we were able to survive the worst drought since records began 250 years ago with no significant effect on industry and employment, though with hardship to some domestic consumers and some effect on food prices, is a reasonably satisfactory outcome to what seemed in the summer to be an extremely threatening situation. That we

1113
did survive this difficult period is largely due to three major factors—the programme of emergency works carried out by the water authorities, involving improved inter-linkages within regions; the response by the public and by industry to our appeal for economy in water use; and the wide use made of the new powers conferred on water authorities by the Drought Act.
It is worth noting that since the Act became law in early August—[HON. MEMBERS: "There has been rain."]—I think the standard of humour is not quite up to what we expect, Mr. Speaker—there have been some 150 orders granted under the Act, 110 of them for augmentation of resources and 40 for limitations on water use, and the implementation of the Act proved to be crucial.
The National Water Council was commissioned by the Government to present proposals for a winter programme to ensure supplies next year. I am grateful to the NWC for its report, which I consider to be soundly based. It has reported that work to the total value of £187 million is in hand or commissioned; and this includes £66 million worth of additional work as a result of studies put in hand during the late summer. The NWC concludes, on this basis, that even if we have another dry winter followed by a dry summer comparable to this year's experience there would be sufficient supplies available next year to maintain industrial production and employment and to meet almost all domestic requirements.
The cost of the new works can be broadly contained within the industry's capital investment ceiling and will not make further demands on public expenditure. I must stress, however, that the study's conclusion rests on the assumption that we shall continue to make economies in our use of water. Ground-water sources are still seriously depleted and will take many months to recover.
There are a number of lessons to be learned as a result of this year's experience. I am asking the National Water Council, in collaboration with my Department, to carry out a detailed study of the relative merits of different forms of water rationing by standpipe and by rota cuts; of contingency plans for such action; of the operation of the Drought Act procedures; and—as part of the
1114
preparation of a long-term strategy—of the criteria on which water supply planning is based.
So far as the future structure of the industry is concerned, the Government believe that the drought abundantly confirms the validity of the proposals set out in the Consultation Document issued last March. Water services have to be organised within hydrological boundaries. But it is essential to establish a strong national water authority capable of developing a national strategy and with responsibility for national planning.
We therefore intend to publish a White Paper early next year setting out detailed proposals for the implementation of these conclusions, and upon other matters, with a view to presenting legislation to Parliament as soon as is practicable.
Mr. Arthur Jones: This is a real success story for the Minister, although he does not actually claim to have influenced the weather. Nevertheless, I understand that in some parts of the country he has changed the pseudonym by which he was previously known and is now called "The Minister of Flood".
May I remind the Minister that the House has had no opportunity to debate the issues raised in his statement? I am sure that both sides of the House hope that an opportunity to do so will occur early in the next Session.
What information is now available in respect of the long-term climatic trends? I understand that the Minister has set in hand an inquiry through a climatology unit based on the University of East Anglia. Can an interim report on this study be expected? Does the Minister recognise the important part played by the private water companies during the emergency? We had some news of the Minister's plans in that respect, but is he not prepared to recognise that those companies played an important part and will have to do so in the future, too?
In the context of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the National Water Council and the support being given by that authority, I join the Minister in the tribute he paid to all concerned in the recent operations. Does not that experience show the validity and soundness of the present arrangements for the regional water authorities?
Mr. Howell: As the House knows, we have commissioned studies on climatology, through both the Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia. We have not yet received any reports. When I have such reports, I shall inform the House.
The response of the water companies was mixed. Some authorities had to be brought sharply to the point of understanding that the nation's water resources must be taken as a whole and harnessed and managed as a whole. I suggest that that has been the principal lesson taught by the drought. We cannot divide off the supply of water in one part of the country. We are interdependent. In respect of private water companies, it is interesting to note, when people fight a battle to keep them in existence, that there are no private sewerage companies.
Mr. Thorpe: May I, coming from an area which suffered not only from drought but from standpipes and extreme hardship, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the water authority in that area did not bother to meet at all between June and September this year? Is he further aware that the area most affected, namely, North Devon, does not even have a representative on that water authority board? Will the Minister see that that matter is put right with the powers of appointment which I understand he will be able to exercise in the near future? Further, could we, preferably, have members elected to these boards?
Secondly and finally, is it not somewhat illogical that, when the Almighty is over-generous and we have floods, that qualifies for Exchequer grant, but when the Almighty is parsimonious and we have drought there is no assistance except that it is put on the rates? Will the equalisation grant help this, and would it not be good theology to look at this again?
Mr. Howell: The right hon. Gentle* man is not quite accurate. Water charges are independent of rates at the moment, although they are often collected by rating authorities as a matter of convenience. I think that it is the policy of both sides of the House that the water industry should be financially independent and not subject to Exchequer grants of any sort. I think that that is the right policy.
I am concerned about the relationships in the South-West between the water
1116
authority and local authorities. I think that there is not the standard of collaboration that one would expect between two sets of public bodies, and I am investigating that.
On the question of election, more than half the members of each regional water authority are appointed by the local authorities, as the right hon. Gentleman will understand. But when I have the opportunity to introduce my legislation into the House, or perhaps in the debate on the White Paper early next year, we may discuss some of the issues involved in those considerations.
Mr. Lipton: Has it been established whether standpipes work under water?
Mr. Howell: I do not think that they have been tried.
Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Minister tell us now, first, why there was such a delay in bringing forward the Drought Bill and, secondly, why there was such a delay before the regional water authorities implemented action following that legislation? Will he publish for the benefit of the House details of how the water companies in fact coped? Finally, will he comment on the National Water Council's handling of the drought and its latest proposals for yet a third year of substantial increases in water charges?
Mr. Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman raised all the questions about the timing of the Drought Act when the Bill was before the House in August. I therefore do not think that there would be any advantage in replaying that match now.
Most of the 150 orders made under the Drought Act were confirmed within a matter of three or four days. I think that the general feeling of the House, as the Bill contained such Draconian measures, was that the House would not have passed those measures had the emergency not been seen to justify such exceptional legislation.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I will allow one more question from each side on this.
Mr. Noble: May I turn my right hon. Friend's attention to the long-term planning which he mentioned in his statement? Is he aware that the foremost

1117
outdoor participant sport is angling? In any long-term planning, particularly related to water linkages between systems, will he consider the effect on migratory fish and consult angling interests to ensure that these are not damaged?
Mr. Ho well: The needs of 3½ million anglers are ever present in my mind. I certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking. We are constantly in touch with the National Water Council and would certainly seek its advice on any matters arising from long-term reorganisation of water supplies.
Mr. Rost: Would the Minister now please blow his whistle again before we are all drowned?
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman's comment, like much of the laughter earlier in my statement, fails to appreciate that at the moment we are in fact having slightly under average rainfall for November. Fortunately, we had double the amount of rainfall in September and October, which got us out of the difficulty. But I am bound to say that if we had a cold winter after Christmas and then a dry summer we should need all the economies for which I have asked in my statement.
Mr. loan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the drought had a serious effect on Welsh constituencies where many people had their supplies cut off for 13 hours, would you allow a question from a Welsh Member?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should declare my own interest. The water supply was cut in my own constituency. However, I have drawn those questions to a close now.
Mr. Bidwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your not calling me has put me in serious difficulties. Am I to advise my constituents to stop praying for rain?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will see me privately, I will advise him.

LOBBYING OF HONOURABLE MEMBERS
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the lobby tomorrow.
Members will be aware that tomorrow more than 30,000 people may take part in a mass lobby of the House of Commons.
To lobby one's Member of Parliament is a fundamental right of the people of this country. However, if we are to maintain this right as a reality, special efforts have to be made by everyone on occasions such as tomorrow's to enable as many people as possible to have access to their Members, and I therefore appeal to all Members for their support and close co-operation.
The usual arrangements for such lobbies will be in operation tomorrow. These have been decided by the Services Committee, which has given much consideration to this matter during the past few years. The aim is to let as many lobbyists as possible into the Precincts to meet their Members. But to do this it is essential to keep a steady flow of lobbyists to the Central Lobby and to the Grand Committee Room where they will be able to talk with Members, and to make sure, as far as possible, that there is no interruption to this flow.
By these means we shall get the maximum number in, but I am afraid that at the same time we must recognise that we cannot hope to get everyone into the Palace. Indeed, I doubt whether it will be physically possible to get more than 3,000 in during the course of the afternoon, and that means that, with the best will in the world, there are bound to be large numbers of disappointed people.
Members themselves can help in various ways; in particular by assisting the police in the orderly admission of lobbyists at St. Stephen's Entrance, and by refraining from picking out parties of lobbyists from the queue outside the building, because this is always seen by others as queue-jumping and causes resentment and anger. It would also be very helpful if Members could limit their discussion with individual lobbyists in the

1119
Central Lobby; if this is done, more people will be able to see their MPs.
Members can also help by assisting lobbyists to leave the Grand Committee Room in the right direction, which is by the North door of Westminster Hall into New Palace Yard. If lobbyists are allowed to go to the Central Lobby from the Grand Committee Room this could be unfair to others who are still waiting outside the Precincts.
I have myself discussed the arrangements for the lobby with the Serjeant at Arms and the police. We all want to ensure that as many lobbyists as possible have access to their Members tomorrow, and if Members have any complaints about the conduct of the lobby we want to deal with them as quickly and helpfully as possible.
I should therefore be grateful if they would bring such complaints to my office or to the Serjeant at Arms rather than seeking to raise them as points of order on the Floor of the House. Meanwhile, I have arranged for notes of guidance on mass lobbies to be available in the Whips' offices for any Member who wishes to have them.
Mr. Peyton: I do not recall any such statement ever having been made before in advance of a lobby such as this. For all that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his thoughtful ness in making that statement.
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that access to Members of Parliament is a very important right. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, as we all should, that if too many people seek to exercise this right at the same time, it will be frustrated, if not defeated altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the inevitability of disappointment on these occasions. As it is always the police who are on the receiving end of disappointment and of untoward incidents occurring as a result, I hope that we shall take an opportunity at some time to consider how far we are justified in putting upon the police the burden of handling virtually unmanageable situations.
Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he put his question. The difficulties with
1120
which the police have to contend on mass lobbies have been seriously considered by the Services Committee. It is on the basis of that consideration that many of these recommendations are made. 1 thought that it would be easier to say this to the House on the day before the lobby than to try to say it in the atmosphere of what may occur tomorrow. However, I hope that what I have said and what the Services Committee has recommended may help us to make this not only a good lobby but an orderly one as well.
Mr. David Steel: We all have sympathy with the Leader of the House in his difficulties in dealing with a mass lobby of this kind. He says that members of the public have a right of access to their Members of Parliament. Can we in any way make it clear that it is much easier if people lobby their Members of Parliament in their own constituencies? It is asking for trouble to build up frustration when people travel a very long distance only to find that they cannot physically get access when they get here. As this lobby is supported by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, will those Members of this House who are members of that committee be on hand to help act as stewards?
Mr. Foot: I do not think there is any question of having special stewards. It is best to leave that matter to the authorities of the House and the police outside. I fully understand that members of the public have access to their Members of Parliament in their constituencies, but it is a long and ancient tradition of this country that members of the public should also have access to Members in this House. 1 do not think that we should abrogate that in any way. We are seeking to ensure that that right is upheld in a way that is sensible.
Mr. George Cunningham: Why does not the Leader of the House say clearly that mass lobbies are not a sensible way for people to meet their Members of Parliament? Members should meet them either in their constituencies—as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) suggests—or here at the House, and should not try to do so in the presence of thousands and thousands

1121
of people, because it is impossible to have any serious discussion in such circumstances. Will the Leader of the House use his influence on outside bodies, where he has a position of influence, not to have a repetition of the farce that we shall experience tomorrow?
Mr. Foot: I do not accept the proposition put by my hon. Friend that mass lobbies are to be attacked or denounced in the comprehensive way that he suggests. I agree that every step should be taken to keep them in proper order, but anyone who knows the history of this country realises that mass lobbies have played a considerable part in the history of our country. It would be deplorable to turn our backs on that altogether.
Mr. Powell: What is the authority for the right hon. Gentleman's statement that it is a fundamental right of a constituent to meet his Member of Parliament at a time and at a place appointed by the constituent himself?
Mr. Foot: The fundamental right about which I am talking—and I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would agree with this—is founded in tradition—a very good tradition, too—which goes back deep into the history of this country, whereby members of the public have come to the House of Commons to put their case to their Members. Sometimes they have wished to do it in considerable numbers. The establishment of the women's vote in this country was partly the result of mass lobbies carried out by women to the House of Commons. To say that that is not a part of the tradition and history of this country is an extraordinary proposition.
Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main reason for the mass lobby tomorrow is the record postwar dole figures and the fear of a good many more hundreds of thousands of people that they are to join this ever-lengthening dole queue? Will he, therefore, take account of the fact that only in very recent years has the Services Committee prevented lobbyists from going upstairs to the Committee Rooms and meeting Members there? Can we have that rectified so that even more people can come in? Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the possibility of allowing lobbyists to go into Westminster Hall, so that many thousands could stay in there?
1122
Those are positive propositions, quite apart from getting down the dole queues, which would mean that my right hon. Friend would not have a lobby at all.
Mr. Foot: I shall not go into the general question of what political points members of the lobby may wish to put forward. They will no doubt put their case tomorrow.
With regard to the suggestion by my hon. Friend to allow the lobbyists to go into the Upper Committee Corridor, or in big numbers into Westminster Hall, the Services Committee, which has considered these matters carefully, has recommended against both those propositions. The reason for that is that the Services Committee believes that in such circumstances the security provisions could not be carried out. It is on the basis of the recommendations of the Services Committee that we shall be conducting the lobby tomorrow, but that does not mean that many lobbyists will not be able to get into the Central Lobby. We want to ensure that as many as possible, as smoothly as possible, will be able to exercise that right, and in doing so I think we are approaching the matter in a sensible way.
Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that although, as he rightly says, there have been mass lobbies for many years, it is only in recent years that they have reached the present great proportions which interfere with the work of the House and the work of individual Members? Will he somehow make it known to the various pressure groups in this country that these mass lobbies are often counter-productive because of the way in which they are conducted?
Mr. Foot: If the House of Commons wishes to forbid mass lobbies, it should take a decision to do so. We should have to debate the matter, and certainly there would be a very strong view to be presented against that of the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). I do not believe that we should forbid mass lobbies. What we have to do is to try to make them function properly. Of course it is true, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that they cannot operate in such a way that they interfere with the business of the House. And there will possibly

1123
be some important Divisions in the House tomorrow, and I hope that no Member is to be seduced from his duty in the Lobbies by the lobbyists themselves.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his attitude towards the principle of mass lobbies? He admits himself that only about 3,000 constituents will actually get in tomorrow. The unions estimate that there might be 20,000 in the mass demonstration, which means that 17,000 will be frustrated. Moreover, they will think that if they put in a Green Card when they actually reached the Central Lobby, somehow or other their Member will have got it, whereas the officials quite frequently take the Green Cards and put them straight into the wastepaper basket.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Foot: I cannot accept what my hon. Friend says about the officials of the House. I think the officials of the House do their very best to try to deal with these problems in the best possible way, although sometimes they are subjected to great difficulties in the conduct of their business. I say to my hon. Friend—as I said earlier—that if the House wanted to ban mass lobbies, that is another matter altogether. That would have to be debated and decided in the House. Certainly I think it would be a serious departure from the traditions of this country if we were to try to ban mass lobbies.
Mr. Peyton: I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will invite his hon Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) in fairly sharp terms to withdraw the charge he has made against officials of the House, who are in no position to defend themselves.
Mr. Foot: I have already repudiated what my hon. Friend said. The question whether he withdraws is for him. I have repudiated entirely the criticism of officials of the House in the matter. I think that the whole House—and my hon. Friend on second thoughts—will appreciate that officials of the House, particularly on such mass lobbies as this, have very great difficulties to contend with and that we should do our best in assisting them.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall take two questions from each side of the House.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), I shall be happy to withdraw an allegation made against officials of the House if that allegation is untrue. All I can say is that at times of mass lobbies I have been told by the officials in the Central Lobby that the burden upon them of distributing the Green Cards is so great that it is impossible for them to do so and that the recipient has been the wastepaper basket, That has been confirmed by my own experience of having constituents who have put in a Green Card and I have never received it even in the mail the following day. If I am wrong, factually, in what I have said, of course, I will withdraw.
Mr. English: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. Is not one of the problems regarding tomorrow the fact that there are two mass lobbies and not one? One is related to public expenditure and the other is related to the tenants of caravan sites.
Mr. Skinner: They have put it off until next week.
Mr. English: My hon. Friend to whom I always listen, tells me that the second has been put off until next week. But the organisation has not told its members, because its members have been telling me that some of them are still coming tomorrow. May I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that whether the caravan site people have put it off officially is irrelevant because some of them, too, are coming tomorrow? Will he therefore instruct the officials of the House and policemen to try to distinguish between the two?
Mr. Foot: Possibly the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has served the purpose, in that if they have not all put it off already, maybe the others will now put it off, having heard this interchange. It would certainly add to the difficulties of the police if they had to distinguish between the two lobbies.
Mr. Churchill: Bearing in mind that the Lord President has made it clear that not one in ten of the lobbyists due to arrive tomorrow will gain access to the Palace of Westminster, and bearing in mind also that the Communist Party and International Socialists are trying to muscle in on this act, does the Lord President not think that it was reckless and irresponsible of his party to suggest that constituency Labour parties should seek to demonstrate against the Labour Government in this way?
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is trying to muscle in on this discussion which, until he intervened, was a perfectly sensible one dealing with how the House of Commons could best go about its business.
Mr. Younger: Will the Lord President not look again at the principle of this matter? While it may be an inalienable right of every constituent to see his Member of Parliament, is it not the case that this lobby is deliberately designed to be so big that it is unmanageable? Is that not an interference with that right about which the House ought to do something?
Mr. Foot: If the House of Commons wants to change its traditional attitude to mass lobbies it must obviously do so by discussion and vote. What I am seeking to ensure is carried out in the most orderly manner possible is the traditional method of lobbying whereby members of the public who wish to come on lobbies are able to come in as large a number as possible. Of course, it is not possible for all those who come in such numbers to get into the Palace of Westminster, and I thought it right to make that clear in advance so that those who may be disappointed will understand the reasons, instead of venting their disappointment on the police and others.
Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Lord President accept that, despite some of the points that have been made, his announcement will be widely welcomed throughout the country? Is he aware that many people are seriously preparing for this lobby to make representative approaches to their Members? Does he appreciate that, in spite of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said,
1126
many of those who will not be able to see their Members will be holding meetings in Central Hall, Westminster? They will have report-back accounts of the meetings that have taken place in the House and will not have a wasted journey. Will my right hon. Friend hold fast to the announcement that he has made and not be deterred by the enemies of democracy who attack the lobby?
Mr. Foot: I can assure my hon. Friend that I shall not be deterred by any of the enemies of democracy that I see opposite.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Arthur Latham: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule upon a matter of breach of privilege and possible contempt of the House. It concerns a document—a copy of which I provided to your office last night, Mr. Speaker—which was circulated within the Palace of Westminster by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). It is headed "House of Commons", bears the imprint of House of Commons stationery, and reads:
"Extract from a speech by Mr. Iain Sproat, MP (C) for South Aberdeen, at a meeting of London Scottish Conservative graduates, Chelsea, London … at 1.30 on Monday 15th November 1976".
A number of Press reports based on this document have appeared today, but my complaint concerns the whole document, which had a fairly wide distribution within the Lobby and the Gallery of the House last night. I shall not burden you and the House by reading the whole document—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read it."] I shall indeed read enough to satisfy and possibly to incriminate some Tory Members. It says:
"The Labour Party has clearly been infiltrated to a terrifying degree "—
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I counsel hon. Gentlemen opposite to watch their cheers because this moves from the banal to the scurrilous, as they will learn—
"by fifth columnists who call themselves Labour, but who in fact hold views totally alien to the democratic Labour tradition."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It goes on:
"They have tricked decent Labour voters ".
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that questions of privilege are very serious and are usually heard in silence.
Mr. Latham: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this becomes more serious as it goes on. It continues:
"who would be horrified if they realised what certain of their MPs and others really stood for."
Thus far, Mr. Speaker, the cries of "Hear, hear" are expected, and one might attribute those remarks to a very young Young Conservative, and a not very bright one at that. One might regard those remarks as despicable.
Mr. Younger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) is raising this matter on a point of order. I ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the notes. [Interruption.] I shall do my best to control the House if the hon. Gentleman will co-operate with me and draw attention to the parts that he claims are a breach of privilege.
Mr. Latham: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I submit that those remarks, without the other remarks that I intend to quote, might be dismissed as being immature and irresponsible, but it is important to quote them and to make these comments so that when those quotations are linked to the other parts of the paper which I now wish to quote to the House the scurrilous and serious nature of the matter will be better understood.
The document goes on to say:
"And among MPs themselves there are now at least 30 whose views are, in my opinion, virtually the same as those of Communists, assorted Trotskyite groups, Marxists and the so-called New Left, etc."
It reads on:
"These MPs are perpetrating a massive fraud on the voters "
—I ask hon. Gentlemen to weigh carefully the true meaning of the words that I am quoting—
"by standing for Labour; they are little less than the equivalent of undercover political agents for alien political creeds."
The document then goes on to name 10 Members of Parliament, but to my knowledge none of the names was pub-
1128
lished by the newspapers because their legal advisers warned them against so doing. But the fact remains that the document, with those 10 names, was widely circulated within the precincts of the House.
Mr. Lawrence: Who are they?
Mr. Latham: There is also this further allegation:
"The aim of these people is to turn Britain into the equivalent of a totalitarian East European state."
I want to draw attention to four brief extracts from "Erskine May" which deal with this matter. At page 429, the current edition deals with unparliamentary expressions, saying:
"These may be classified as follows "
—and the first one listed is:
"The imputation of false or unavowed motives."
I submit that this document comes clearly within that classification.
On page 153, in the chapter headed
"Acts or Conduct Constituting Contempt".
"Erskine May" lists
"Reflections on the motives of a Member or a group of Members ".
An interesting point arises in that there is a complaint by the 10 who are named, but there is also a complaint properly to be examined in respect of the remaining 20 of the 30—[Laughter.] That is covered in the same chapter, page 145—I urge hon. Members opposite to take this matter seriously—
"Reflections upon Members, the particular individuals not being named or otherwise indicated, are equivalent to reflections on the House."
I submit that there is a breach of privilege or contempt in respect of the 10 named and there is also a breach of privilege of the whole House arising from the general allegation relating to a total of 30 Members.
On page 172 of "Erskine May"—I draw your serious attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker—we read:
"Where the matter of complaint is a charge alleged to have been made by one Member against another in a speech outside the House, it is usual, if the Member admits the correctness of the report, and states that he is in a position to prove the charge and is willing to do so, to give him an opportunity of establishing his charge and with this object to refer the matter to a committee.

1129
"Where the Member has refused either to withdraw the charges or to substantiate them, the House has sometimes adjudged him guilty of a breach of privilege, and dealt with him accordingly."
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the document that I quoted represents more than a political attack and is a disgraceful piece of attempted character assassination. Ten named Members and 20 unnamed are accused of deception and of fraud. An attack is made on their honour. It impugns their integrity and it attributes false and unavowed motives. If hon. Gentlemen come out of their facetious mood, as I think they are beginning to do, they will recognise that this document, in effect, accuses some hon. Members of treason. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a clear prima facie case of breach of parliamentary privilege, and I ask you so to rule.
Mr. Amcry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received an application on a matter of privilege, and I do not take points of order on it until I have made a statement to the House.
The hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Latham) is correct in that he handed in his document to my office last night. I received it this morning, and I shall follow the practice of my predecessors over a long time and give my ruling to the House tomorrow.
Sir P. Bryan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you kindly arrange to have a copy of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) placed in the Library of the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take points of order on a privilege question on which 1 shall rule tomorrow. Let that be quite clear to the House.
Mr. Amery Mr. Amery rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is this a separate matter?
Mr. Amery: With great respect, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not take points of order on a matter that has been submitted to me openly in the House and to which I am due to give consideration and reply tomorrow. I must warn any right hon. or hon. Gentleman who pursues the matter that I shall order him to resume his seat.
Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the hon. Member's submission, to which I do not want to refer, the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) from a sedentary position was calling my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and other hon. Members on this side Fascists. Will you rule whether that is in order?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House does itself no credit by shouts of abuse from one side to the other.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—not on this particular issue, but in general. I hope that it will not become a precedent that such rulings should always be given "tomorrow". You spoke of your predecessors, but I believe that it was only one predecessor who did that, and I know how easily these things harden into precedents.
Mr. Speaker: I have given my ruling to the House.

BILL PRESENTED
  PARLIAMENT BILL
  Mr. Michael Mr. Michael English presented a Bill to ensure that the will of the people as expressed by the House of Commons shall prevail over the will of the hereditary peerage; and for the reformation of the House of Lords; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 250].

CABLE AND WIRELESS, LTD. (DENATIONALISATION)
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to restore Cable and Wireless Ltd. to private ownership.
—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the House is anxious to hear the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Gow: It is just over 30 years since Cable and Wireless was nationalised. Moving the Second Reading of the Cable and Wireless Bill in this House, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Dr. Dalton, said:
"Yesterday is was coal; today it is cables. The Socialist advance, therefore, continues."—[Official Report, 21st May 1946; Vol. 423, c. 201.]
Perhaps I may reply to the doctor by saying that three weeks ago it was the National Freight Corporation, today it is Cable and Wireless and, as soon as the procedures of the House allow, it will be the turn of the British Steel Corporation to be considered for denationalisation.
Yet Dr. Dalton was right. The Socialist advance of which he spoke 30 years ago has continued. Coal, gas, electricity, the railways, the buses, steel, a large part of the motor industry, and perhaps soon aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing, are or will be owned and controlled by the State. This growing concentration of wealth, power and decision-making is now recognised as being far from the panacea which its supporters had claimed. Too often, the public interest has been sacrificed to the political interest of the party in power. Public accountability and public control have become a myth. Control by the State has meant, in effect, control by a tightly knit group of politically motivated men and women in Whitehall.
This Bill asserts that the role of the Government in the economic life of the nation needs to be curtailed; that the frontiers of the State which have advanced steadily over the past 30 years need to be flung back; that Governments do better what only they can do if they stop doing what they do not need to do; that the Government should cease
1132
to be involved directly in the management and control of commerce and industry; that the people themselves—"ordinary working people "—to use a phrase which falls so readily from the Chancellor's lips—and ordinary working managers, will do the job very much better than the politicians and that the increasingly political nature of decisions taken by the State-owned sector is hostile to the public interest.
In one respect at least, Cable and Wireless is top of the pops as a candidate for denationalisation. Unlike almost every other State-owned enterprise, Cable and Wireless has made a consistent profit. Last year it made a profit before tax of £28 million and a profit after tax of £11 million.
We in the Opposition seek to make a reality of Iain MacLeod's goal of a nationwide, capital-owning democracy. Let us see how the common ground, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has spoken, emerges in this situation. In its last two election manifestos, the Labour Party pledged itself to:
"a fundamental and irreversible shift in the balance of power and wealth in favour of working people and their families".
Just so. This Bill has the same objective—to transfer Cable and Wireless from the State to the people.
State ownership has proved to be a fraud. No representative of the public is permitted to attend the Annual General Meeting of the State-owned Cable and Wireless. Only the representatives of the Minister are permitted to be there.
When the rest of the nation is having to face up to the harsh realities of a Socialist Britain, there is resentment and incredulity about a different world, of which the people know little—the wonderland of Government patronage which provides jobs for superannuated politicians when they have ceased to be useful to their own party.
I have no wish to be unkind—there is no need to be unkind—to our former colleague, now the part-time chairman of Cable and Wireless. His unsuitability for that post is self-evident. He who disagrees has only to reflect on two facts which are in remarkable juxtaposition. Cable and Wireless is concerned with

1133
communications within and without the-United Kingdom. Its new chairman was the author of the White Paper on devolution, published exactly a year ago, paragraph 4 of which opens with these immortal words:
"In the Government's view "—
the former Lord President wrote—
"the proposals set out in this White Paper are coherent and workable".
The House—no, the nation—is waiting, with bated breath, for the next Annual Report of Cable and Wireless, which will be couched in the celebrated literary style of the former Lord President.
This Bill would put the country out of its agony. It would require the Secretary of State to sell all the shares in Cable and Wireless at the best possible price while reserving 20 per cent, on highly preferential terms for the employees.
It is not enough for the Tory Party to assert the desirability of employee-shareholders. It must be ready to back radical words with radical deeds and to do so on a massive scale. A major shift of ownership from the State to the people would match the mounting public disillusionment with the ever-growing publicly-owned sector and the power of the Government. The diffusion of wealth is the guarantee of liberty. If the Bill becomes law, one of the burdens falling on the Secretary of State will be removed. He will be relieved of the temptation to inflict still more of his colleagues on the board of Cable and Wireless.
This Bill has one further advantage. When my right hon. Friend forms her first Administration, she may consider it appropriate to appoint a Minister for denationalisation. If the Bill became law before that Administration is formed, its passage would mean that there would be one less burden on the desk of the new Minister.
It would be an agreeable change if the House were to give me leave to introduce one of my Ten-Minute Bills. I hope that it will do so today.
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty): I rise to oppose the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and his Bill. I do so on several grounds, but I direct attention first to the fact that we have just
1134
been treated to this week's episode in the hon. Gentleman's continual abuse of the procedures of the House for sensationalist reasons and purposes of personal aggrandisement. It is an entirely disgraceful Bill presented with an entirely disgraceful speech. All I am doing is telling the truth about the hon. Gentleman's weekly antics.
In the manner of this House we develop traditions, and I am sure that hon. Members will treat with great tolerance and charity the necessity that the hon. Gentleman finds for bringing irrelevancies before us on weekly occasions. The frequency with which he does so has coined a new phrase for us—"Gowlers". That is a new parliamentary term denoting total irrelevancies repetitively produced at weekly intervals.
I come now to the Bill which the hon. Member seeks to bring in. Even when his own party was going through its giddiest Selsdonite bout between 1970 and 1972, it never chose Cable and Wireless as a target for hiving off. Indeed, we are all familiar with the history of that failed experiment. The hon. Gentleman called for the appointment on a future occasion of a Minister for denationalisation. Throughout his speech, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was sitting next to him. He, if anyone, is ideologically and intellectually suited for such a barbarous and butchering task and would have been the man. But, of course, the last Tory Administration sacked him for sticking to the Selsdon policy. I trust that forgiveness is not yet in the Opposition's heart for that sacrifice to consensus politics.
The last time that the Tory Party had an opportunity to do such things, as on every previous occasion in the past 30 years when it had the opportunity, it took no step at all. Indeed, there is no other member of the Tory Party or anyone connected with the whole operations of Cable and Wireless anywhere in the world—in this country or any of the other 37 countries in which Cable and Wireless Limited operates—who supports the idea of the denationalisation of this company. I suspect that, as a consequence of the vote that will take place at the conclusion of these short proceedings, a few hon. Members will support it. They will be roundly defeated by common sense and by the Members who go into the other Lobby. I trust that we

1135
shall never hear such an idiotic proposition again.
We have just had, to our considerable benefit, the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which the hon. Member made no mention. He rehearsed the speech of Dr. Dalton 30 years ago, but he was not familiar with a House of Commons paper published in the 1975–76 Session which would have given him all the details, arguments and considerations about this extremely prosperous, profitable, useful, efficient and world-acclaimed nationalised industry, Cable and Wireless Limited.
All that the hon. Member can do with sensational gimmicks of this kind is to spread alarm in economies and societies that are less sophisticated than ours and which have a substantial dependence upon the services provided for world communication and, indeed, world peace by Cable and Wireless Limited throughout the world. Therefore, I trust that the hon. Member will take the first opportunity to admit that he was not really serious in his intentions and to regret any inconvenience caused to foreign governments in unsophisticated territories by the news reports that may follow his particular lunacy on this occasion.
There is one other consideration to point out about the whole question. The hon. Member drew our attention to the profitability of Cable and Wireless. That should commend the whole organisation to him. Indeed, I suspect that if there is a serious intention behind his proposal, it is because Cable and Wireless made a gross profit of £28 million last year and a net profit of £11·4 million, as he pointed out, and paid a dividend of £2·7 million to the Government. The hon. Member regrets that not one member of the public can attend its annual meetings. But Members of Parliament can attend them. Would that such democracy extended throughout the whole sphere—
Mr. Gow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kinnock: No. Would that such democracy extended throughout the whole sphere of nationalised industries and—dare I say it?—private corporations, so that those involved and those
1136
who had given either livelihood or money, in the form of consumption, working or producing, had the same right as Members of Parliament have in examining and scrutinising the year-to-year procedures and operation of Cable and Wireless.
Just to show how open this corporation is to the consideration of the public, I have in my hand not an annual report but a 57-page analysis of every activity, however big and however small, conducted by Cable and Wireless over recent years. I do not think that anyone could require a more thorough scrutiny of the operations of any commercial enterprise than that. Therefore, on those grounds the hon. Member's case does not stand up.
Finally, those Conservatives who have had occasion to give close scrutiny to the recent operation of Cable and Wireless have discovered that all these advantages and virtues have contributed to a nattering, but not inaccurately flattering, Select Committee report. Indeed, it has a special authority because on that occasion the sub-committee investigating Cable and Wireless had three Conservative Members and two Labour Members, so no one could accuse the Labour Party of superimposing its nationalisation prejudices and ideologies on this report, as we happened to be in the minority in this instance.
The hon. Member's hon. Friends—the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry)—a well respected Member—and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence)—will refresh his memory, I am sure, and educate his mind in the reality of Cable and Wireless and offset the inordinate prejudice that he has shown in this particular exercise today. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) are now elevated members of the Government and are not able to comment on this, but I am sure that if the hon. Member wanted to join them at the back of the Chair or in some other location, they, too, would contribute to his education.
Therefore, for all those reasons I urge the House to reject the motion by a very substantial majority.

1137
There is one other point. The hon. Member took the opportunity of his speech to make an ideological point. I do not quarrel with that. He talked about the diffusion of wealth being the guarantee of liberty. The problem with that concept is that those who would be the diffusers of wealth and the guarantors of liberty simultaneously use their wealth and the power that goes with it in order to control the wealth and liberty of others. They always have and always will. It is the function of the Labour Party, whether in respect of nationalisation or securing for the workers of Britain, by hand and
by brain, the fruits of their production, to offset the hon. Member's peculiar concept of what diffusion of wealth means.
Therefore, I beg the House for its support against this particularly squalid and irrelevant Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 {Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 150, Noes 183.

Division No. 406.]

AYES

[4.35 p.m.

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Bell, Ronald

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)

Havers, Sir Michael

Raison, Timothy

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Hayhoe, Barney

Rathbone, Tim

Benyon, W.

Hicks, Robert

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hordern, Peter

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Biggs-Davison, John

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Biaker, Peter

Hurd, Douglas

Rifkind, Malcolm

Body, Richard

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

James, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bottom ley, Peter

Jenkln, RtHonP. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Jopling Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Brittan, Leon

Kershaw, Anthony

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Brotherton, Michael

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Bryan, Sir Paul

King, Tom (Bridawater)

Shepherd, Colin

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Lamont, Norman

Shersby, Michael

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Lawrence, Ivan

Silvester, Fred

Channon, Paul

Le Merchant, Spencer

Sinclair, Sir George

Churchill, W. S.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cockcroft, John

Lloyd, Ian

Speed, Keith

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

McCrindle, Robert

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Cope, John

Macfarlane, Nell

Sproat, lain

Cormack, Patrick

Madel, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Corrie, John

Marten, Neil

Stanley, John

Costain, A. P.

Mather, Carol

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Maude, Angus

Stewart, Ian (Hitchln)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Mawby, Ray

Stradling Thomas, J.

Drayson, Burnaby

Mayhew, Patrick

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Mills, Peter

Tebbit, Norman

Elliott, Sir William

Mitchell, David (Basfngstoke)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Eyre, Reginald

Moate, Roger

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Molyneaux, James

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Monro, Hector

Townsend, Cyril D.

Farr, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Tugendhat, Christopher

Fell, Anthony

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Neave, Alrey

Walters, Dennis

Forman, Nigel

Nelson, Anthony

Weatherill, Bernard

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Nott, John

Wells, John

Fry, Peter

Onslow, Cranley

Whitelaw, Rt Hon WillHam

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Winterton, Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Page, Richard (Worklngton)

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Pardoe, John

Younger, Hon George

Grist, Ian

Parkinson, Cecil

Grylls, Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hall, Sir John

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Mr. Nigel Lawson.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Mr. Ian Gow and

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Archer, Peter

Bates, Alf

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Armstrong, Ernest

Bean, R. E.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashton, Joe

Beith, A. J.

Buchan, Norman

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Campbell, Ian

Atkinson, Norman

Bidwell, Sydney

Cant, R. B.

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Carmichael, Nell

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Clemitson, Ivor

Hunter, Adam

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Robinson, Geoffrey

Cohen, Stanley

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Coleman, Donald

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Concannon, J. D.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Corbett, Robin

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Rooker, J. W.

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roper, John

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Crowther, Stan (Rothertiam)

Jones, Dan (Burnlev)

Rowlands, Ted

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Kaufman, Gerald

Ryman, John

Cunningham, Or J. (Whiten)

Kelley, Richard

Sandelson, Neville

Davidson, Arthur

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Sedgemore, Brian

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamond, James

Selby, Harry

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Shaw, Arnold (lltord South)

Deakins, Eric

Leadbitter, Ted

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lee, John

Silkin, Rt Hon John (DepUord)

Dempsey, James

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silverman, Julius

Doig, Peter

Lipton, Marcus

Skinner, Dennis

Dormand, J. D.

Litterick, Tom

Small, William

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Lomas, Kenneth

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Luard, Evan

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Edge, Geoff

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Snape, Peter

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Mabon, Dr J. Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

English, Michael

McCartney, Hugh

Stallard, A. W.

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

McElhone, Frank

Sloddart, David

Faulds, Andrew

MacKenzie, Gregor

Stott, Roger

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McMillan. Tom (Glasgow C)

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Flannery, Martin

Madden, Max

Tierney, Sydney

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Magee, Bryan

Tinn, James

Forrester, John

Marks, Kenneth

Torney, Tom

Freeson, Reginald

Maynard, Miss Joan

Urwin, T. W.

Freud, Clement

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Mendelson, John

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

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mikardo, Ian

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

George, Bruce

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Watkins, David

Golding, John

Miller, Mrs Millie (lltord N)

Watkinson, John

Gould, Bryan

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Weitzman, David

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Graham, Ted

Moyle, Roland

Whitehead. Phillip

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Newens, Stanley

Whitlock, William

Grant, John (Islington C)

Noble, Mike

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Ogden, Eric

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Hardy, Peter

O'Halloran, Michael

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Harper, Joseph

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Park, George Parker, John

Woodall, Alec Wrigglesworth, Ian

Hatton, Frank

Pavitt, Laurie

Heller, Eric S.

Perry, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hooley, Frank

Price, C. (Lewlsham W)

Mr. loan Evans and

Huckfield, Les

Radice, Giles

Mr. Neil Kinnock.

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Question accordingly negatived.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  4.46 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will of course realise that I am no way challenging Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. However, I should like to ask you when it will be possible with the amendments selected, to discuss the influence of public money given to authors upon what they may write—which was my New Gause 1—or the subject of the interests of Members of Parliament in this Bill—which was my New Clause 2?
  I do not wish to suggest that the order of selection be changed. I merely wish to inquire whether these two subjects, which were not discussed in Committee, may be discussed on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): As the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, Mr. Speaker has not selected and has ruled out of order the new clauses to which he has referred. At what stage the hon. Gentleman will be able to discuss the particular subjects that he has just mentioned is difficult for the occupant of the Chair to say at the present time. Whenever we reach an amendment and the hon. Gentleman thinks his particular subject fits in with that amendment, he may get up, and if the occupant of the Chair thinks that the hon. Gentleman is in order, he will be allowed to continue. If the hon. Gentleman is not in order, he will be asked to resume his seat.
  Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you will realise that no one would wish to leave this Report stage and say that neither on Report nor in Committee was it possible to discuss whether some Members of Parliament were interested parties, in this Bill, or whether the fact that taxpayers' money was being given to authors might influence them.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman appreciates my problem. Because
  1142
  the new clauses have not been selected, these matters may not be discussed. That is as far as I can go.
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is precisely the point I was trying to make. In that case I would suggest that hon. Members are gagged from saying that this Bill is simply put through as a means of expressing the vested interests of certain hon. Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I doubt very much whether that is a point of order

  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [Lords]
    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
      The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out 'work' and insert 'book'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government Amendments Nos. 3, 9, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 45, 49, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64, 66, and 67; and Amendment No. 76, in Clause 5, page 5, line 37, at end insert
      '"author" means the person or persons credited in a publication for responsibility for the authorship of that publication '.
      Miss Jackson: All these are essentially the same amendment, seeking throughout the Bill to remove references to "works" wherever they occur and to restore to the Bill the word "books" They are intended to restrict the scope of the Bill to the form in which it was introduced. The scope of the Bill was extended by an amendment in another place and our attempt in Committee to restore the original wording was not successful. However, I said then that we would seek to do so again on Report.
      Before setting out our reasons for pressing this matter again now, I must make the Government's position perfectly clear. The widening of the scope of the Bill in the form in which it now stands is unacceptable to the Government. It is essential, if we are to retain any hope of early implementation of the Bill, to keep to proposals which we know to be practicable, at reasonable cost. However, I hope that the House will bear with me

      1143
      if I go briefly over the reasons for our position.
      Historically, public lending right has been pressed—
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Does that mean that if we succeed in defeating the Government over these amendments, they will drop the Bill?
      Miss Jackson: Of course the hon. Gentleman is aware that the stage at which we are now discussing the Bill is not its final stage, that there is scope for considering how the Bill emerges later from this House. In moving this amendment the Government are seeking to save the Bill. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
      As I was saying, public lending right has historically been pressed for the most part as a limited measure for authors of books. The authors' long campaign was fought, and has gained sympathy in many quarters, on the use of books in public libraries. It was in the specific context of books—
      Mr. Nigel Lawson Mr. Nigel Lawson (Blaby) rose—
      Miss Jackson: I will go on a little further, if I may.
      It was in the specific context of books that the Government promised when they took office in 1974 to seek to legislate, and the technical study which with much difficulty settled the practical framework for the Bill covered only books. There has been little demand, until the Bill actually appeared, for a more wide-ranging public lending right. This is a concept on which the Government, while recognising some substance in the argument, must reserve their position.
      Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, particularly as I did not have the privilege of serving on the Committee, although I have read the Committee Hansards from cover to cover—and a very good Committee it was, marred only by the paucity of words from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). I want to ask a question which is crucial to what the hon. Lady is saying. What is the definition of "books" within the meaning of the Bill?
      Miss Jackson: I shall come to that in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience until we get further into the debate, he will find that his questions are answered. If he was anxious to be a member of the Committee, I am not sure why he did not volunteer. Certainly it was not the most entertaining Committee on which I have served.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon Friend for giving way and I realise that she is suffering from, rather than responsible for, the Bill. Could she explain a very simple point? Libraries currently issue books, records, pictures, sculptures and toys. Would she tell me why only the literate taxpayer should have to pay for this? Why should only those who read books borrowed from public libraries have to pay? Why should all those who borrow records be exempt?
      Miss Jackson: My hon. Friend is aware, as will be the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) if he has read the reports of our Committee debates, that I have explained all these things a number of times. If I may be allowed to proceed a little further, I have every intention of explaining them again. Then I hope we shall be able to make clear once and for all why we feel this way.
      As my hon. Friend has said, the use of materials other than books—he named a variety of materials, but records, cassettes and slides are generally recognised as the most commonly used—is on the increase, but, as I said in Committee, it is still the case that the issue of various items of this kind is still a very small fraction of total issues. For example, in 1974, it represented only 1½ per cent. of the total of issues from public libraries in England and Wales and we see little likelihood of that pattern changing significantly in the foreseeable future.
      My hon. Friend will also know that we have argued that there are other sources for people who produce works such as records to gain revenue from the use of their works. The efforts of bodies such as the Performing Right Society give composers, lyricists and others a return from public performance of sound recordings, the like of which is not available to most authors of books.

      1145
      There is room for doubt whether the term "works" could in this Bill embrace gramophone records and cassettes, which are generally acknowledged as the most common other items available in libraries. It is clear that the supporters of the change by the other place and those hon. Members who agree with it intend that it should cover records and cassettes, but I am advised that "work" is a term of the Copyright Act 1956 which does not extend to items covered by Part II of that Act—namely, sound recordings, films and the like. It would be necessary to redefine "works" in the context of this Bill if we were to try to cover them for the purposes of PLR.
      The most compelling argument for not providing for "works" in the Government's view is that an effective scheme for "works" is not practicable at present. While the technical investigation group did not examine "works", its findings in respect of books are highly pertinent. Its conclusion was that for the accuracy and efficiency we should all wish to see in a scheme to distribute public funds it was essential to have a referencing system that provided unique identification of individual books, was comphensive and standardised, and could readily be automated. It concluded that without such a system the processes of registration labelling and data gathering in libraries would be so difficult, disruptive and costly as to render the operation virtually impossible. Books have the international standard book numbering system of which we propose to make use, but if that were not the case it is open to doubt whether we should have even this Bill before us today.
      As we also made clear in Committee over and over again, there is nothing comparable in the way of an individual labelling system for records and cassettes. They rely at present on manufacturers' individual systems and, contrary to what was suggested in Committee, nothing of the sort is in prospect. It is not just a matter of developing a new piece of equipment, however costly it may be; a complete system having the support of all the many companies in this field would have to be developed and fully tested in operation for some time for effectiveness. I repeat that there is no sign of such a major prac-
      1146
      ticable, efficient and workable development in the foreseeable future.
      The second main conclusion arising from the study of the technical group, to which again we drew attention in Committee, is that this system would be economic only if it could be based on returns from a sample of public libraries. We know that holdings and use of records, cassettes and other items are very different from one library to another, let alone from one authority to another. By no means all library points provide these items and where they do the size of the service can vary considerably. Also, practice varies in charging for use, which again could affect use. It has not been established, and it could not be established without much difficulty, trouble and extra cost, whether a statistically satisfactory sample could be established in the foreseeable future.
      Finally, I would remind hon. Members that in copyright the position for sound recordings is rather different from that for books. There can be several different contributors to many sound recordings—the composer, the lyricist and the arranger—and all may have a copyright interest. Also, for example, each piece of music on an LP could involve different people and different interests. All these problems would apply equally to PLR if the Bill were to be extended. All these problems would have to be solved before the conferment of benefit in the way of public money could be enshrined in legislation.
      5 p.m.
      At a time when we cannot say how soon money will be available to implement even the limited scheme proposed by the Government in the Bill, at a time when all hon. Members are continually pointing out the cost of administration and the need to keep it down to reasonable proportions, and at a time when we do not have practical means of extending the Bill beyond what has already been established, to extend the Bill in a way that would have practical and major expenditure implications does not make sense.
      Mr. Lawson: The hon. Lady undertook in the course of her remarks to tell me the definition of a "book" within the meaning of the Bill. She has forgotten to do so and I should be grateful if she would do so now.
      Miss Jackson: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. As I think he is aware, there is no definition off "book" in the Bill. We have no wish to write in such a definition. Our contention is that what in general constitutes a book is well understood. It is also our intention to avoid complicating matters too much by carefully restricting the scheme to books with single authors, and not including multi-author works and multi-reference books. We feel that to extend the scheme in that way would be impractical and cause too much complication. We are leaving the definition to the common understanding of what is constituted by a book.
      Mr. Roger Moate: When the hon. Lady referred to "multi-author works", did she mean multi-author works or multi-author books?
      Miss Jackson: I meant multi-author books.
      Mr. English: There are good precedents in law for a manuscript being described as a book, for the simple reason that the law of England is older than printing. I take it, therefore, that my hon. Friend accepts that written works such as would normally in common language would be described as works but which are manuscript books would be included, because they are in law books, although other works would be excluded?
      Miss Jackson: If these pieces of paper to which my hon. Friend refers are published and available for lending in a public library and if the authors are registered for public lending right, my understanding is that public lending right would be available on them.
      It is intended to set out many of these details in the scheme. It is one thing to establish the principle of public lending right now, in the knowledge that the scheme will have to wait and when the time comes we shall be able to work out those details because there is a practical, available and reasonable basis for the scheme; it is quite another to legislate, as would be the case with the Bill as it stands, for a provision which we can see no way of implementing.
      I ask hon. Members to share with the Government the desire to see progress made where it is possible to do so satisfactorily and with regard to economy,
      1148
      to weigh carefully where the real advantage lies when we are considering the amendment and to support the amendment.
      Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelms-ford): I am sure that we are all delighted that at long last the Public Lending Right Bill has reached Report stage. The Opposition pioneered this remedying of injustice to authors. The principle that lies at the basis of the Bill—in particular the £1 million of public funds to be made available to finance the right and the fact that that is to be drawn from Government and not from local authority sources—was agreed by the Conservative Cabinet on 7th February 1974. Had it not been for the unfortunate accident of the dissolution of Parliament on 8th February 1974, this reform would long ago have been on the statute book.
      There has been a very chequered history. After the dissolution of Parliament, I was, naturally, anxious that this pledge should be in the Conservative election manifesto. Unfortunately, owing to the speed at which that manifesto was produced, the typist left that pledge off the end of the page. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who at that time was a strong supporter of the measure, was engaged in a minor but important capacity m drafting the manifesto—the responsibility for drafting the manifesto is with the leader of the party, who naturally gets the best brains available—will be able to confirm my recollection of this.
      Fortunately, the matter was put right, because on seeing what happened I was able to go round to 10 Downing Street, then occupied by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and he at his first Press conference on the election, repeated the pledge on public lending right. At that time there was no mention of it in the Government's manifesto.
      Mr. Lawson: I confirm entirely what my hon. Friend said. It was because of the hasty compilation of the manifesto that the pledge was left off, and I take full responsibility for that. I remind my hon. Friend that I do not sink to blaming typists or functionaries of that kind. Although I am a supporter of public lending right, I am not a supporter

      1149
      of this Bill, which has nothing to do with a public lending right.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that expression of confirmation and support from my hon. Friend. I am interested to know that apparently all he did was to type the manifesto and that he was not responsible for anything else in it. I hope that his typing has improved, or that he has a good secretary who will enable him to communicate rapidly, coherently and fully with his constituents.
      Mr. Lawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Of course.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to say "Of course". I wonder when he is coming to the amendment that we are discussing. So far I have heard no reference to it.
      Mr. Lawson: I think that my hon. Friend generously gave way to me.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Chelmsford might take the opportunity to give a definition of "book" as opposed to "work", but he has not done even that.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: You may have been wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I was coming to the amendment. I was wondering when you would draw my attention to that fact.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that hint. I shall certainly do so at the earliest opportunity if he again gets away from the amendment.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Not even I, with my well-known rashness and temerity, would dare to transgress further. I am afraid that the rest of what I was going to say will have to await the publication of my memoirs. At the present rate it will probably be in the second volume. My memoirs will be a whole set of books which might be described as the "complete works".
      I fully appreciate the reasoning behind the Government's stand on the question of deleting "works". By that I mean that I fully understand why they want
      1150
      to take out "works", although I do not appreciate the Under-Secretary of State's logic. The hon. Lady has made the best case she can, but it does not logically stand up.
      The "works" amendment was inserted in another place and the Government attempt to remove it in Committee in this place. They failed because they could muster only four votes in favour of that course. One vote was from the Under-Secretary of State herself and another was from her supporter, the Whip on the Committee. Those two votes can hardly be counted as "free". Therefore, there were only two votes in Committee in favour of taking out "works" and substituting "books".
      A most formidable alliance was ranged in opposition. No fewer than 12 Members of the Committee voted freely and supported the retention of "works". The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), as always taking a heroic course, abstained. There is no doubt that the amendment has widespread support. Were things normal regarding the Bill, I should have no hesitation in saying that we would insist in taking the matter to a Division. The only case that has been made by the hon. Lady is that the amendment would involve an unacceptable widening of the scope of the Bill. It is only the scope of the Bill that has widened, nothing else.
      By accepting the amendment a principle is established, but the principle is brought into practice only when the scheme is put forward under other clauses. This is purely a widening of the principle. It in no way commits the Government to implementing an extension of the scope of the Bill at any time. In other words, it is purely enabling. That is the fact that was glossed over by the hon. Lady.
      On grounds both of justice and logic there is every case against the amendment and for retaining "works", as was insisted upon in Committee and in another place. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—alas, he does not seem to be here to listen to the tribute I am about to pay to him—who put his finger on the real point when he challenged the hon. Lady. He asked whether her attitude meant that if "works" were left in the

      1151
      Bill, the Government would abandon the Bill. The hon. Lady is too adept a parliamentarian to fall into the trap that was laid so seductively before her, and she sidestepped the question. However, she made her own position quite plain when she let fall a phrase about saving the Bill. She suggested that the Government were moving the amendments to save the Bill.
      What did that mean? It meant that she was saying as directly as she dared that if "works" remained the Government were likely to abandon the Bill. That is an extraordinary attitude. It shows how lukewarm is the Government's support for this measure. They would welcome an excuse not to go forward with it.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, why not?
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy, which I trust will never fail him. I take it that the Bill has his support, and not merely his support for the principle. His party's support seems to be marked by its failure to command the presence of its Members and the support of its Members. If the hon. Gentleman looks behind him—
      Mr. Ian Sproat: There are more Opposition Members present than Government Members.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Perhaps the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) will look behind him. How many of his hon. Friends may be counted as supporters of the Bill?
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: There are only two Back Bench Labour Members in the Chamber. I discount entirely the presence of the Minister and the Whip, her hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), on the Government Front Bench. They are not there for this statistical purpose.
      As I look at the Opposition Back Benches I can see three Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West-bury (Mr. Walters), who have been in the forefront of fighting for the Bill. I see two of my hon. Friends who are
      1152
      opposed to the Bill. I see the Opposition Front Bench groaning, if I may so put it, with talent. Indeed, the Shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), is here to see that nothing goes wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), the Chairman of the Arts Committee, is taking advantage of this opportunity to sit upon the Front Bench and give his support to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), who has so distinguished himself in his heroic fight to maintain parental choice in Kingston, has taken a few moments off from that battle to give his support.
      It was rather unwise of the hon. Member for Putney to draw the attention of the House and of a wider audience outside to the fact that, although the Opposition Benches are crammed with supporters of the Bill, there is a paucity of support from Labour Members. Let us hope that they will be ready to troop into the Lobby at the appropriate moment.
      I have long ago given up attempting to impose a party line upon voting on the Bill.
      Mr. Sproat: Hear, hear.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend is not one who is liable to change his mind at the behest of Whips. Anyway, his considerable talents are being diverted into other directions at present. I hope that means that he has lost energy for opposing the Bill. We have always accepted that on this matter Members must vote according to their conscience. That does not apply to the Front Bench of the Conservative Party, who are bound by the collective responsibility of the Shadow Cabinet.
      Mr. Sproat: It is a free vote.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is true that there is a free vote for Back Benchers. I must make it equally plain that it is the decision of the Shadow Cabinet that the Bill be given every support. Just as the hon. Lady and her colleagues have been supporting the Bill from the Government Front Bench, so we support it from the Opposition Front Bench.
      Mr. Moate: I think that my hon. Friend should define a little more closely

      1153
      the constitutional innovation that he has announced about a free vote for Back Benchers but a sort of whipped vote for the Opposition Front Bench. Is he serious about that suggestion?
      Mr. St John-Stevas: It is not a matter of a whipped vote for the Opposition Front Bench. The Opposition Front Bench takes responsibility for the policy decisions of the Shadow Cabinet.
      Mr. Hngh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order, when we are dealing with this amendment, for the hon. Member to reveal the grisly goings-on of himself and his Front Bench?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We do not want too many revelations.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: We must not turn this into the Book of Revelations, nor into the works of revelation. I merely point out that in this respect the Bill has the full support of the Opposition Front Bench.
      Quite naturally, there is a division of opinion on the Back Benches. Although the majority of my hon. Friends support the Bill, those of my hon. Friends who are opposed to it have a perfect right to make their views known, just as Government supporters who are opposed to it have availed themselves of that privilege. However, I hope that all those who oppose the Bill will put forward their arguments reasonably and rationally and will make no attempt to filibuster or to block the Bill. That would be highly undesirable.
      I have been diverted by these relevations from what I was saying about the Minister, and I want now to turn to one of her revelations when she said that the Government wanted to "save" the Bill. I suggest that that is a clear indication that, if the word "works" is not expunged from the Bill, the Government support which the Bill enjoys at present cannot be relied upon in future.
      Therefore, although the case in justice and in logic for the inclusion of "works" has been made out and although the argument which has been put into the hon. Lady's hands by her Department does not stand up to examination, we on the Opposition Front Bench will not press this matter to a Division. How-
      1154
      ever, we hope that at a later stage it will be possible for the hon. Lady to have second and wiser thoughts.
      Alternatively, we hope that a subsequent Administration will be able to widen the scope of the Bill so that the word "works" may be included. That may be implemented at a time when the economic climate of the country has improved, probably under another Administration.
      Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that, as it stands on the Notice Paper, Amendment No. 1 is defective, since it purports to leave out a word which is not present in the text of the Bill. I cannot put the Question on it, therefore. However, I call the Minister formally to move Amendment No. 3, which is substantially the first of this group of amendments.
      Amendment proposed: No. 3, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'works' and insert 'books'.—[Miss Margaret Jackson.]
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: We are grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for putting this matter to rights so succinctly. We wish only that the same talent were apparent among Government supporters.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I rise to support Amendment No. 3.
      The difference between the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and me is that I decided in Committee that it was not desirable to press my opposition in this respect whereas he has only just reached that conclusion. However, all those who repent are welcome. The hon. Gentleman's belated acceptance of the reality of the situation is equally welcome.
      I am glad to hear that the Opposition do not intend to oppose this proposal. When I occupied a ministerial post, I received a deputation from the record manufacturers led by Sir Joseph Lock-wood, a man whose personal charm overcomes his political opinions. The entire delegation was opposed to the inclusion of the word "works". I was able to make it clear to the members of the delegation that I doubted whether that would be possible, in any event. Later on, the word "works" was inserted by the Lords. However, the Government

      1155
      came back on it and tried again to change it to "books".
      The answer is fairly simple. The Bill is a pioneer Bill. It seeks to blaze the trail. Therefore, much as I wished to press the issue and to widen the concept and range of the Bill, I think that it is reasonable at this stage to accept that a pioneer Bill of this kind must be limited if it is to get on the statute book.
      I hope, therefore, that after due consideration the House will give the Government its full support. These Government amendments should be accepted. I hope that there will be no opposition to them.
      Mr. David Walder: I wish to support the Minister, even though she is aware that my support for the Bill sits on a knife edge in that I support the principle even though a number of the details worry me.
      The House knows that I have already-declared my own special financial interest in this matter, and I do not think that I need repeat it. However, it is only fair to say that my interest in the welfare of authors is simply on the basis of books borrowed from libraries. If the hon. Lady wants a definition of a "book", I have no doubt that Gertrude Stein can supply one—a book is a book is a book. I suspect that hon. Members who waste our time asking for definitions are concerned only to waste time.
      But I am concerned about books borrowed from libraries. If the author suffers, that is where he suffers. It we are to introduce "works" to cover possibly records and possibly cassettes, I ask the House how much further we are to go. We hear talk of sculptures. However, I have not heard of sculptures being borrowed from institutions and libraries.
      Like the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), I prefer to think of this Bill as a pioneer. It is obvious that it will be difficult in its implementation and working. For that reason, I am content to stay with "books" rather than to widen and to complicate the issue by seeking to turn "books" into "works".
      Mr. Sproat: I am sorry to begin this brief Report stage by disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder). I did so once
      1156
      or twice in Committee. However, I had hoped that a new spirit of amity would prevail on the Floor of the House during the Report stage. I disagree, and I hope that many others of my hon. Friends do, even if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) does not intend to lead his troops into the Division Lobby.
      The fact that you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the amendment was defective had a symbolism and importance which went far beyond the brief intervention which it produced—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) has misinterpreted my intimation to the House. It was simply that the amendment should have been numbered "1", and not "3". It was not defective. Amendment No. 1 would have been in order if the word "works" had occurred in the line mentioned in it.
      Mr. Sproat: If it had been a more serious defect, it would have been typical of the Bill. It is an extremely ill-drafted Bill, as the opposition to it proved time and again in Committee.
      That brings me to one of the more extraordinary features of this debate. In Committee, we heard a great many extraordinary arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) when he was the Minister responsible for the Arts. But today he had the temerity to say that the Opposition were at fault in not having a sufficient number of their supporters here. There are only two Back Benchers on the Government side now, and on one occasion in Committee they could not even find a quorum. After 20 minutes of being quorumless, the Committee had to be abandoned. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) was present, and I and my hon. Friends were there.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: For the sake of accuracy I would point out that on the occasion to which the hon. Member refers there were no Members of the Opposition present to make up the quorum.
      Mr. Sproat: The hon. Member for Putney is in danger of splitting hairs. We were in the Committee Room but for tactical reasons we were not technically

      1157
      in the Committee because we wanted it to adjourn. Mr. hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has rightly stressed his firm adherence to this Bill throughout. But the hon. Member for Putney did not support this amendment in Committee. To the best of my recollection he abstained. Therefore, he is in no position to criticise my hon. Friend for changing his mind. If he supports the Government tonight, he, too, will have changed his mind.
      As someone who is not in favour of the Bill and who intends to vote against it, I would agree that there is some merit in rewarding authors, but whatever that merit might be it is not contained in this measure.
      It is no good hon. Members opposite throwing up charges of Philistinism and giving us hard luck stories about authors. We are not debating the principle; we are debating the details. The details in this Bill are bad, and that is why some of us will oppose it throughout the Report stage.
      It could be argued that I should favour this amendment which restricts the effects of the Bill by taking out the word "works" and putting in the word "books". Perhaps the proponents of the measure would expect me to welcome this diminution of the evil which it will spread. But I do not propose to follow that argument on this occasion. The Under-Secretary said that if this amendment were not carried, the Bill would be scrapped. That, on its own, would be a very good reason for opposing the amendment.
      I take up the point of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) who talked about literate taxpayers paying for the effects of this Bill and this amendment. This is one of the reasons why we are against the Bill—precisely because it is not just the literate taxpayer but every taxpayer who has to pay, whether he is literate or illiterate, whether he has ever borrowed a book, or has the intention of doing so. One of my fundamental objections is that the rewards to authors will be funded centrally, and not by those using the library.
      The Under-Secretary made some play of the fact that the word "works" would not include gramophone records. She cited some Act the name of which I did not
      1158
      catch. But I am sure there is a word which would be acceptable which would include gramophone records—perhaps the words "gramophone records" could be written in. But taking out the word "works" means not including pictures, sculptures, cassettes, video-cassettes and even toys which I believe can be lent out by public libraries. One thinks particularly of blind people who are more dependent on cassettes so that they can hear stories told.
      Why should not authors receive money for their stories which are lent out as cassettes just because the work is not in book form? The Under-Secretary's argument is that this concept of "works" which we discussed in Committee is not on because it does not embrace gramophone records. But we could change that quite simply.
      The broad principle of justice upon which I and my hon. Friends based out case on Second Reading and in Committee was that if it was right for authors to get a reward when their books were borrowed from public libraries, it was right for authors of other works to get the reward as well. It is not good enough to sweep aside the justice of the case because of bureaucratic complexities. We had the Prime Minister speaking on the same subject this afternoon. It is a very dangerous principle to be concerned not with justice but merely with problems of administration.
      If the House decides that it wants to pass this Bill, broadly it should apply to all those whose works are taken out of public libraries. That is the principle on which we take our stand. The Undersecretary dismissed this as administratively impossible and too costly. That may be so, but it is no use a Minister saying that something is too costly without making any attempt to evaluate it.
      How costly would it be? How costly would it be to include pictures, sculptures, cassettes, video cassettes and toys? How costly would it be if we just extended it to gramophone records? If it were extended to gramophone records my hon. Friends and I might just be persuaded to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford into the Lobby, or at least to abstain. If we are to be so persuaded, we must know the exact cost.

      1159
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe about sculptures. He said that he did not know how often they were borrowed from libraries. I do not know either, as I have not borrowed a sculpture, and I do not imagine it is a common event. If it is not common, it cannot cost much. Therefore, the argument of cost falls.
      Then there is the instance of pictures. Many of us have benefited from the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West of adorning the walls of the Palace of Westminster with pictures. I imagine that he gets them from some central source, such as the Department of the Environment. This is just one example of how our lives are brightened by pictures. Other people may want to borrow pictures from public libraries, and why should they not do so?
      The Under Secretary must know how many public libraries lend out pictures. I do not know. I cannot accept her argument that it is too costly unless she tells me how much it will cost. How many people borrow pictures from public libraries? The Minister must have some statistics or she would not have said that it was too costly, unless she is simply guessing. If she is, I cannot accept what she says.
      I should be very happy to accept her argument about cost as one which vitiates vast areas and tracts of the Bill, but I cannot do so on this point, because we have no figures. In Committee we discussed a number of times the situation in the Federal Republic of Germany where, as I understand it, a Bill on a public lending right has been passed but is not in operation. I should like to know whether the German Bill covers "works". Does that Bill cover gramaphone records? That would be relevant in view of the degree of interest there is in music in Germany. If the Germans include gramophone records, why cannot we do the same?
      I understand that at the moment there is a charge in the public libraries in Britain when someone borrows a record.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: No.
      Mr. Sproat: I am grateful to the Minister for that correction. Is it the case that some libraries impose a charge while others do not?
      Miss Margaret Jackson: Yes.
      Mr. Sproat: If a charge is made by some libraries, it is possible in principle for all libraries to do the same. If all could do so, it would be possible to know the number of records that were borrowed, and by knowing that number we would be able to determine the cost. Therefore, in the absence of further evidence about gramophone records, the argument of cost will not stand up to close scrutiny.
      The Minister tried to chill our blood with descriptions of the bureaucratic complexity which would arise from the wider provisions of the amendment. I am not prepared to accept bureaucratic complexity as a blanket argument for denying justice to authors. The Minister said that it would be difficult to apportion the PLR on gramophone records because there were a number of tracks on each side of a record which involved different artists in different ways. For example, the soloist, the orchestra, the owner of the copyright and so on are all involved.
      I accept that there are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. The money could easily be paid to the copyright holder, who could distribute it to the various artists involved as they might see fit under a separate contract. I accept that it would be more difficult to apportion the reward on gramophone records than on books. But although difficulties would arise with records, that is no argument for excluding the works which we would seek to include.
      5.45 p.m.
      The Minister cannot say, for example, that paintings give rise to the same sort of problem. There is only one "author" of a painting, and that is the painter. There would be no difficulty in apportioning the public lending right. A sculpture is the work of only one man or woman. I believe that we can ignore toys. I would propose to amend the Bill to exclude toys if that became necessary. It is ludicrous to suggest that toys should be included. There is an aesthetic and instructional value in books, paintings and music, but the same cannot be said of toys. A toy cannot be on the same level as Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
      We come then to the question of defining a book. It is all very well for the Minister to say that she will not include a

      1161
      definition but will rely instead on common understanding. If any of us went to court and said "It was my common understanding that such-and-such applied" we would not get very far. My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe advised us to read Gertrude Stein. It is a bit much to expect those of us connected with the amendments to read Gertrude Stein, but if we did we would find a definition which, while it might be clever, would not be helpful. Does my hon. Friend think that the definition would be very clever or very helpful?
      Mr. David Walder: Both.
      Mr. Sproat: It might be very clever, but it would not be very helpful. It would not help if the Bill said:
      "a book is a book is a book."
      What would happen in the case of a magazine? What would the situation be if in certain households it was common understanding that a magazine was a book? Would the Minister's proposal be sufficient in such a case? My hon. Friends have asked whether the Conservative manifest would count as a book within the meaning of the scheme. If my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) wrote it, would he, as author, be entitled to get something for it? The Minister owes the House a definition of "book". It is too imprecise to rely upon "common understanding".
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford rightly said that the Conservatives pioneered the Bill. I would not want to take a great deal of the credit for that. I was shocked to hear my hon. Friend tell the House that he did not intend to vote on the amendment. He voted in favour of it in Committee. I do not think that any new arguments have been advanced by the Minister to make us change our minds. My hon. Friend make a good speech in Committee. He even persuaded the hon. Member for Putney to abstain, and that is no mean feat. But, having conquered these oratorical and persuasive heights, he is now prepared to abandon the case with a mere 15-minute speech which failed to convince us.
      I must tell my hon. Friend that it would certainly be my intention, if I received support from my hon. Friends, to divide against this amendment. It
      1162
      has, after all, already been passed in Committee with a lot of support from now absent Labour Members. The idea of works, not books, was accepted in the other place. I cannot see why the Conservative Front Bench, having seen these; two splendid victories achieved for justice for authors of all works, should now lightly abandon them.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will revise his intention, compel the Government to stick to the wording that we had in Committee, and ensure that, if there is to be are reward for authors out of this Bill—an average of about £5 is a pretty piffling reward—it is equitably shared amongst all purveyors of aesthetic value, whether books, pictures, gramophone records or sculptures.
      Mr. Phillip Whitehead: The silent majority in Committee give tongue on Report only if they see majority verdicts overturned. The majority verdict may well be overturned. Indeed, it is almost certain to be overturned in view of the notice of intent already served by the Opposition Front Bench. I must state my own intention for my hon. Friends in view of the way in which the Bill has been held up at all stages.
      I propose to support the Government on this amendment, although with a bad conscience in the sense that we are facing two difficulties here. One is the timetable problem of getting the Bill through. We all know how it has been prevaricated. We all know the hours of endless ennui we had to sit through in Standing Committee, many of us not saying a word in those proceedings, however much we were goaded. We all know that, unless the Bill proceeds to another place tonight, it will be lost for this Session and probably for good. None of us wishes to see that happen. I place priority on that in my argument.
      I think that we are doing something which is, in essence, rather dangerous. By excluding "works" from the Bill, we are setting out an exclusion which, in years ahead when this legislation is enforced, will be seen to bear more hardly on some deserving authors. I shall give one or two examples.
      It is right that those who have decided to vote for this group of amendments should set out clearly on record why it is necessary, in future, to include the

      1163
      principle of collective authorship and of works which extend far beyond the printed book if we are to do justice to the author and to the creative act. The difficulty with collective works—this arises on a later group of amendments and it is the essence of the argument whether reference work should be included—is that we must accept that there is some natural justice in rewarding people who have provided the impetus for certain creative works.
      It is true that some works of art are wholly individual not merely in creation, but in execution—for example, pictures and sculptures. But it is not so true of anything which demands the preparation of a gramophone record, tape recording or video cassette. These things more and more in future will be the works of which the Bill speaks.
      Many people whose entire income derives from the written word will get very small reward from the Bill as it stands, but their remuneration from it might be increased if the works in question were allowed to include the spoken rendering of their original written work. An example of this is poetry. The late Dylan Thomas as a struggling poet was rarely able to afford the bus fare to get to the BBC to work on his occasional masterpieces there, but he made a certain amount of money—although very little—from records of his poetry, poetry which when published had limited sales, as poetry tends to have.
      Those records, which can now be borrowed from the libraries, are a moving experience and they deserve a wide circulation. Were such a poet alive today, he would be able to profit from the provisions of the Bill. That is an example of the kind of work which ought, in common justice, to be included in the Bill, despite the arguments about a time table and strategy which go the other way.
      My second example concerns the increasing use, particularly in education, of tape recordings of talks, discussions and recorded sections from books. The Open University, which uses this method extensively, lends out these things, presumably having paid something to the authors concerned. I think that the Open University is setting the stage for much more extensive borrowing in future of tape
      1164
      recordings of recorded sections of what was originally written work.
      My third example is in an area of which I have some professional knowledge—the increasing use of the video cassette which derives from what, in the first instance, was the single inspirational act of writing a play or some other work. We have a generation of playwrights, some or whom write exclusively for television, whose income depends on their creative flow being sustained by television.
      There was a rather moving interview recently in one of the Sunday papers with the playwright Dennis Potter. He has written 17 plays for television. He is now crippled by a painful and debilitating illness. It is not clear how long he will be able to go on writing, although he is still a comparatively young man. If the illness forces him to stop work, he will not be able to get anything from the Bill because he has written no books and therefore would have no royalties forthcoming from library borrowing.
      All his creative work through his creative lifetime has gone into the writing of television plays. In future, when we have cassette recording in the home for the individual viewer—that technological change is literally just round the corner—his plays may be borrowed from the library and produce some kind of income for him and such other authors.
      We know that many such creative artifacts have been bought up already by the enormous multi-media cartels, which will use them when the cassette revolution breaks out. We are saying that all such works should be excluded from the Bill more or less for all time. We should put on record that creative work as it becomes an increasing part of the stipends of authorship, should be put back into this legislation at a later stage.
      In future we shall be dealing with a number of authors who do not derive most of their benefit simply from writing books in the sense that we know it now and who will be working creatively for a public which borrows in part their works in the form of tape recordings and video cassettes. In the home of the future there will be shelves of video cassettes as we now have shelves of books.

      1165
      Looking to that future, which is not very far ahead, we can see why "works" should be in the Bill. I regret the exclusion of the word "works". We should therefore put on record that in future "works" ought to be encompassed within the intentions of those who have pioneered and fought for this measure.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Moate: I hoped that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) would restore my faith in the consistency of hon. Members, but my hopes have been dashed. However, at least he had the good grace to concede that he would support the Government reluctantly.
      He argued that the amendment in favour of "works" should stand but said that to vote for it would be wrong. While he satisfies himself that the practicalities of the situation demand that sacrifice, others outside the House will fail to understand why a matter that has been resolved in a different way on a number of occasions should be suddenly overturned without any opposition. It is a matter of sadness that it should happen like this regardless of the significance of the amendment.
      The history of the proposition shows that it is not an issue of total insignificance. In the House of Lords and in Committee in this House it was regarded with considerable importance for the reasons enunicated by the hon. Member for Derby, North. In the Lords it was the subject of an important amendment and extensive debate. The amendment to insert "works" instead of "books" was carried against the Government's wishes by a substantial majority. When it came to Committee stage in this House, the Government were defeated not by just one or two votes but by 12 votes to four—a substantial majority.
      For extraordinary and obstinate reasons, the Government have brought it back and have said that unless they get their way, the whole Bill will fall. The Minister did not use those exact words but I am sure that that is what she meant. If that is true it is an extraordinary and amazing proposition. If it is not true, how pathetic it is for Parliament to capitulate to such an extraordinary threat from the Minister.
      1166
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) voted for "works" in Committee, as did the hon. Member for Derby, North. Now they give in because the Minister says that it is unacceptable. What is the proposition? It is to change the word from "books" to "works". We are told that that would mean adding an extra 1½ per cent. to loans under the Bill. Are we to be told that because the Bill would cover the lending of future sculptures, cassettes or records, the whole Bill becomes unacceptable? I do not believe that and nor should my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
      If that is true, what an extraordinary position it is for the Government to adopt. Are they so totally lukewarm or hostile to the Bill that they are prepared to abandon the whole of it because of the idea of "works" instead of "books"? Even more remarkable is the ease with which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is bowled over by the hon. Lady the Minister, who did not advance one argument additional to those used in Committee.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was not bowled over by the hon. Lady or by her arguments. I merely noted that since we discussed the Bill in Committee further time has elapsed and we are now almost at the end of the Session. Whether the Minister meant that threat or whether she could put it into effect at this stage it is too great a risk to take. I have not changed my views on the merits of the amendment. My judgment is purely practical. We would rather have an imperfect Bill than no Bill at all.
      Mr. Moate: I understand that the Bill is about principles, but the more we progress the more it seems to be about the lack of principles. We had our first vote in Committee at a late stage in the Session and it is not valid to say that time has elapsed to such a degree. Although the Minister did not say so publicly, it was clear in Committee that she had advised her hon. Friends that if the amendment was carried, the chances of the Bill's survival would be undermined.
      Mr. Richard Body: Is my hon. Friend aware that as early as April the same threat was

      1167
      made by the use of the phrase "fundamental objection"?
      Mr. Moate: That demonstrates that whilst the point is fairly narrow and the cost of administering the extension minor, the principle is fundamental. If we are to try to reward—which is the object of the Bill—those involved in the creation of material which is lent by a library, we must ensure that the principle is properly established. That is what the House of Lords was about and that is what my hon. Friend was about in Committee. But suddenly we have this capitulation.
      If the opportunity arises, I shall certainly vote on this proposition. There are 17 amendments linked with it and, unless I am mistaken in my understanding of procedure, the House has to pass each of the Government amendments. If my hon. Friend thinks that he can save time simply by accepting the Government's tank tactics on this issue, he will find that he loses ground rather than gains it.
      I turn to the practicalities of the proposition. The Minister has produced a poor case against it. Her prime argument seems to be that the whole scheme depends on the International Standard Book Numbers but she has never answered the fundamental question about the system. Not all the publishers use the system and there are therefore many books in libraries which do not have an ISBN number. How, therefore, can she say that the scheme will be administered on that basis? If what I say is true, the Minister cannot use the argument to exclude "works" because cassettes or tapes have no ISBN number. She has no case.
      I do not understand why the Minister is making such a meal of the amendment and I fail to understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford has accepted the argument with such alacrity. The hon. Member for Derby, North is right about the long-term effects. There will be greater use of video cassettes in the future and they will be on loan from libraries. It is surely right to establish now the principles that will apply in years to come.
      My hon. Friend said that perhaps at a later stage we could introduce amending legislation. But we are now establishing the principles for a scheme which
      1168
      might not come into operation for several years and we have been told that there is hardly any chance at all of further legislation in this direction for many years. We are establishing principles and guidelines that will operate for decades. Therefore, my hon. Friend is being misled by his own arguments if he thinks that at some future date the principle can be widened to include works. It will be a gross and evident injustice if those who have created the video cassette, those who inspired it in the first place, do not have a lending right.
      I am not sympathetic to the Bill. I think that technically it is very bad. It is financially irresponsible, riddled with nonsense and contradictions, and founded on a dubious principle. But if we are to have a Bill it should be as fair as possible, and to be fair it must include as many authors and creators of works lent out through the public lending system as possible. The hon. Lady told us that "works" represent only 1½ per cent. of the total loans made by the libraries. Therefore, it seems to me right to extend the scheme to include them. The House should stick to its guns. It is pathetic to see hon. Members so easily persuaded, not by the hon. Lady's arguments—because she advanced no new arguments—but by the Government's tactic of saying that the whole Bill will be lost if the amendment is not carried.
      I turn to the definition of "books". It is an extraordinary failure of such a Bill not to include definitions of books and authors. On an earlier occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) said cleverly "A book is a book is a book" and thought that that was a helpful and clever description. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) then asked "What about a magazine?" Only this morning I was looking at a magazine with an ISBN figure. There may be many more magazines with an ISBN marking. Is a magazine with an ISBN marking eligible for registration under the scheme? If the term "book" covers magazines, where does the hon. Lady get that definition from? If there is a definition extending "book" to include magazines it should be in the Bill, or the hon. Lady should give us an explanation. So far, however, there has been no definition of a book.

      1169
      What is much more important is to define "author". I ask the House to consider the extraordinary nature of a Bill that seeks to make payments to authors but nowhere tells us what an author is. The term is widely used, and certainly not exclusively in relation to the authorship of books. I saw the other day that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) was described as the author of most of the present Government's problems. I am sure that the hon. Lady does not intend to include that sort of authorship in the Bill. There are many uses of the term. It is most unsatisfactory that we should have this sloppy drafting in such a Bill. On any more normal Bill it would have been challenged by the Opposition and forced to a vote, and by now we would have sorted out some of these unsatisfactory points. What is the proper definition of an author?
      6.15 p.m.
      To emphasise the importance of the matter, I wish to give a number of examples of total confusion that will continue, if public lending right is ever established, and could cause legal wrangles and great problems for the Registrar, if we ever have a Registrar. I have here a letter to Lord Strabolgi from an author and managing director of a firm of publishers, Mr. Bruce Main-Smith. I have permission to quote the letter. Mr. Main-Smith, whose company is BMS Ltd., gives a number of examples of how the term "author" can lead to confusion. I am opposed to the Bill. Only those who are opposed to it seem to have made practical points about its technicalities. I hope that despite my opposition some of these points will be taken seriously, although the chances of serious amendment to the Bill seem pretty slim.
      Mr. Main-Smith writes:

      "(a) 'Clean To The Finish' is 'written' by the 11 times world champion Sammy Miller. It was however ghosted by M. J. Bashford. And edited by me. And the copyright is the clear, entire property of this Company. To whom do the royalties under PLR accrue? I would say the copyright holder, namely BMS Ltd.

      (b) 'The Keig Collection' contains 600 wholeplate photographs with captions. The photos are under royalty to S. R. Keig Ltd., the world's oldest commercial studio, the captions are by R. R. Holliday and are my entire copyright, and the book is edited by
      1170
      me and published by me. Does a photographer get PLR? The book of course has no author as the word is ordinarily understood since there is no text."

      I hope that the hon. Lady can tell us the answer, because it is her Bill. It is not enough to say that that will be left to the scheme. It is a legal definition that must be incorporated in the legislation.
      Mr. Main-Smith continues:

      "(c) 'The Motorcyclists Encyclopedia' is written by me and published by my Company. The copyright can be transferred at the stroke of a pen to BMS Ltd. but has not been so handled. Who is the author? The author is not named though I wrote it."

      I do not wish to bore the House by giving too many examples, every one of which is a further demonstration of the Bill's lack of clarity on this important point, but there are some examples that I should like to give, as follows:

      "(d) 'Pioneer Motorcycles' was originally written by Harold Connolly, the copyright is vested in East Midland Allied Press Ltd in part, additional material was written by C. E. Allen at my behest and I purchased the copyright from him. Two names appear as 'authors' on the cover. Is the PLR then split? …"

      (g) 'The Castrol Book of Motorcycle Care' was written by me and the copyright sold to Burmah Castrol. Which of us gets the PLR money? No authoriship of the revised edition recently published by Haynes is attributable. Will the library analyst make it plain whether the first edition or the second is the one loaned out?"

      Mr. Main-Smith adds as a footnote:
      "'Author' is most usually defined as someone who brings something into being. Photographers thus are authors. Editors are 'authors superieur' and far more deserving on this definition than writers—editors create, as do publishers."
      There we have a whole range of examples demonstrating the vital need to put a definition of "author" into the Bill. I tabled my Amendment No. 76 in an endeavour to do just that. I do not claim that its wording is perfect. I find no defect in it, but it would be arrogant of me to assume that it was right. I propose simply that
      "'Author' means the person or persons credited in a publication for responsibility for the authorship of that publication".
      I admit that that imparts a new requirement. Every new publication would need to show on the title page who was its author. That would introduce a statutory requirement by the back door, but

      1171
      that is exactly what the Minister is trying to do with the ISBN system.
      To leave the situation as it is, totally unclear, with no definition of what an author is, will cause great problems.
      We touched on this briefly in Committee. I asked what would be the position if there were a dispute as to who was the author of a publication. I had submitted an amendment which suggested that whenever there was a legal dispute about copyright the Registrar need not make any payment until it was resolved.
      Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to take this opportunity to elaborate on the most extraordinary statement she then made. She said that there was no problem. She also said:
      "However, I can set the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest immediately by telling him that books which are subjected to legal proceedings are in any case withdrawn from public libraries."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4th November 1976; col. 365.]
      That may be something that the hon. Lady thinks might happen, but I am assured that it positively does not happen.
      It would be quite extraordinary it whenever there is a clash about authorship—whether it is the photographer, the editor or the ghost write—all the libraries throughout Britain were immediately to withdraw from their shelves the book concerned. But that was the statement the Minister made about copyright, and presumably it is what she thinks will happen with regard to PLR as well. Perhaps she will correct the misleading answer that she gave in Committee.
      More important, I hope that the hon Lady will concede the need for a definition of authorship, because at the moment it is nonsense and she makes it a worse nonsense by saying repetitively that multi-author works will be excluded. It is a very unfair proposition, and I can see no justification in equity for excluding multi-author works from public lending right.
      The hon. Lady has no basis in the Bill for saying that. She is simply relying on the Government's understanding of what the scheme will look like in several years' time. That is a grossly unsatisfactory position, but if the hon. Lady continues to tell us that multi-authors are excluded she ought to tell us why this is so.
      Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Perhaps I might tell my hon. Friend that I am a multi-author. I have a poem in Antonia Fraser's book of Scottish love poems, and as such I am a multi-author. That is what a multi-author is.
      Mr. Moate: It is always helpful to have these simplistic suggestions. My hon. and learned Friend's suggestion rivals the one offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe when he said that "A book is a book is a book." Whether such definitions would stand up in court, as they might have to do, is a rather different matter.
      I am glad that we now have the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) in the Chamber with us, because he was one of those who voted for the proposition that "works" should be included in the Bill instead of "books". That being so, I hope he will demonstrate that he has rather more fibre than others who have simply capitulated in the face of one of the most odd threats I have ever heard from a Government, namely, that the whole Bill will be jeopardised if the Government do not get their way in regard to an amendment which was carried so overwhelmingly in Committee with the hon. Gentleman's assistance. I hope that he will restore my faith in parliamentary consistency and show the necessary resolution to join some of us at least in voting for the rentention of the terms "works" in the Bill.
      Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am so easily tempted that I cannot avoid replying to this obvious provocation. May I assure the hon. Member that we on the Government side jump at the opportunity to show our moral fibre because we have a bit of that old political quality left. I still maintain my argument for the preferability of "works" rather than "books" in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman must wait to see what my decision eventually is on that.
      Mr. Moate: I shall live in hope that the hon. Gentleman as much fibre inside him as he has externally and that he will join us in the Lobby on this issue.
      I conclude by pointing out that the amendment favouring "works" instead of "books" is very much in line with the support given by those who have been

      1173
      campaigning for public lending right, namely, the Writers' Action Group and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain. They, too, urge Members to support the amendment. They say:
      "Writers support the amendment, passed by the House of Lords, of 'books' to 'works'. This will make it possible for cassettes, gramophone records, pictures, scores, etc. that are lent by libraries to be included in the PLR scheme by statutory instrument, without further amendment to the Act, as and when techniques and funds permit. We do not expect works of all kinds to be paid for from the start."
      I am in total agreement with the case made there by the Writers' Action Group.
      Mr. Body: I am rather an intruder, being the only Member who was not on the Standing Committee to take part in the proceedings so far. But I have sought to catch up with what happened and I have read all the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate). Having read them, I am driven to the view that this is a messy Bill and that if the amendment is carried it will make a still greater mess of the Bill and make a mess of the principle of public lending right.
      For that reason, I hope that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—who has made his views very plain on this issue both in Committee and in this Chamber—will vote according to his voice, oppose the Government's amendment and seek to make sure that the Bill continues in its present form.
      I thought that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) was rather pessimistic when he said that if the amendment were not varied the Bill would be lost for good. Did he really mean that the authors and others who have an interest in this—and I should like to think that the principle could be extended to all artists—would be denied the principle of public lending right if tonight the Government's advice is not taken? If the hon. Gentleman believes that, and if that view is shared by his hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, it means that he has very little confidence in his own Front Bench. We know that that confidence is sometimes muted, but the hon. Gentleman would have even less than usual because it would confirm, would it not, that the Government are
      1174
      not really in earnest in pursuing this principle if they are not to—
      Mr. Faulds: I am delighted that I am being drawn in evidence so often, but I wish that Conservative Members would allow me to make my own points, if I wish to make them. The reason for my intervention, however, is to state that the Government Front Bench under the present Prime Minister has my wholehearted support in all its policies.
      Mr. Body: That is very clear, but those who have read the proceedings of the Standing Committee will have noticed that the hon. Gentleman was rather taciturn in his support for the Bill and did not say very much about it. When he had the opportunity to enlarge upon his argument in favour of "works" rather than "books", he might have said more than he did. The important point, however, is that he voted in Committee for "works", and we look forward to having him vote for "works" tonight in order to keep some sense in the Bill rather than make it a messier Bill than would otherwise be the case.
      I am disappointed in my own Front Bench. It is very seldom that I am disappointed. I am normally in agreement with my right hon. Friends whatever they say, and in particular with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) may say. But my hon. Friend is evidently a late convert to "books" rather than "works". Quite obviously, in the last few days something has made him a convert. He voted quite clearly in Committee a few days ago in favour of "works". He was one of the 12 hon. Members who voted for the amendment as against the four who supported the Government. Again this evening he spoke in favour of "works", yet he draws back when it comes to voting. I think that he went so far as to say that he would go into the Lobby with the Government on this issue.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) did not go that far.
      Mr. Body: I am relieved, and I hope that that statement goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) too. I hope he will abstain and

      1175
      not go as far as to support the Government. I hope he will back-track if he is thinking of going that far.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that we did not wish to do anything to prevent the Bill reaching the statute book. From noises that the Government have made, there is no doubt that they would use this as an excuse for dropping the Bill.
      Mr. Body: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), whose judgment I respect, says that there were noises suggesting that the Government intended to drop the Bill. If my hon. Friend is right, those noises must have been uttered in the last few days since the vote which he and certain of my hon. Friends recorded upstairs. Can that be the case? My hon. Friend will be familiar with what was said in the other place as long ago as 27th April, when the Minister with responsibility for the arts canvassed the various arguments in favour of "books" and against "works" and pointed to one very fundamental objection. I suppose that the Minister meant what he said.
      There was not merely a fundamental objection in regard to the amendment moved by Lord Willis in favour of "works" which caused the Bill to take its present form, but the Minister let it be known that a deal had been done between his Department and the rest of the Government, in particular the Treasury. He gave the other place to understand that no progress could be made with the support of the Government on the subject of a public lending right unless the scheme were limited to books that were loaned out. That was said to be the objection to inserting "works" instead of "books".
      The Government felt so little enthusiasm for the principle of public lending right that they sought to allow a scheme with only minimal effect, limited to a sum of £1 million and limited only to one kind of authorship and only to books loaned out. That decision was reached despite all that was done by the technical advisory group and despite all the weighty arguments with which we are now familiar in favour of the principle of a lending right.
      1176
      In regard to that fundamental objection, the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State has been charmingly taciturn and, indeed, almost blissfully mute. She has not gone nearly as far, either on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs, as did her colleague the Minister in the other place. Will she say whether the account given by the Minister in the other place was correct? Is there still a fundamental objection, and is the fact that the Government are in favour of "books" and opposed to "works" simply the result of the deal that was manifestly done between her Department and the Treasury?
      That fundamental objection still does not make sense. We know that the Bill will not be operated until about 1980. If that is an incorrect assumption, perhaps the Minister will correct me in due course. Therefore there is still four years to go before the scheme can be put into effect. Are we to assume that the Government, assuming that they remain in power for four years, will not be able to find any more time? If that is the case, it shows that they have very little fervour for the introduction of this principle. More than that, however, when the noble Lord revealed that the deal had been done he gave the reasons. He said that all Government Departments were short of money and that they had to come to this bargain.
      Are we to understand from the hon. Lady that this situation is to continue until 1980? Does it mean that we must wait for some time after 1980 before there is a satisfactory scheme embracing all public lending rights? It must follow that at a later stage after 1980 we shall have more legislation. However, is that not an untidy way of going about the matter? Would it not be more sensible that the full principle involving a public lending right should be enshrined in an Act of Parliament to be put into effect at such time as is financially convenient to the Government?
      If that is the case, why cannot we have a Bill properly drawn up and considered by this House rather than a measure brought in at the tail end of a Session? Why cannot such a Bill be quietly considered by a Committee and its implications and details then be fully fought out? What will happen under

      1177
      these provisions is that the only beneficiaries will be in a minority when we should be considering artists as a whole—not only authors, but sculptors and painters.
      I hope that the Minister will be a little more forthcoming and say explicitly what kind of bargain was struck. Can she confirm, or does she try to deny, what was said in another place by the Minister responsible for the arts? Can she go on to say, assuming that the Bill is enacted, what further steps the Government have in mind towards whatever works are to be embraced by the principle?
      I join in the criticism directed at the Government because of their failure to define "books". We know that there must be a definition sooner or later. That definition is not in the Bill, but the other place was told by the Minister that it would be included in the scheme. That means that this House is to be deprived of an opportunity of defining "books" and that this matter will be left to others to decide.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: In advance of the scheme, the Government have given an undertaking to publish a Green Paper that will cover this point. They have not yet given an undertaking that they will afford an opportunity to debate the Green Paper in this House, but they would be well advised to do so. It is certain that when the scheme is eventually published it will have to be approved by both Houses. The only thing that remains uncertain is whether the Government will give time for a debate on the Green Paper. The Under-Secretary is not in a position to do that, but my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will be able to apply pressure to make certain that the Government give time for a debate.
      Mr. Body: I gladly echo what my hon. Friend has said, I am not averse to the principle of public lending right, but I am concerned about the way in which the Bill is phrased. What my hon. Friend has said confirms my interpretation of Clause 3, which makes clear to me that in due course—sometime before 1980—the Government will produce a draft scheme to implement the Bill.
      That scheme will be put before this House and we shall have an opportunity to vote on it, but I understand that we
      1178
      shall not have an opportunity to amend it. If we have a Green Paper before that, we may have an opportunity to debate it. We certainly should be given such an opportunity. We shall be able to express our opinions about the contents and be able to say what we think a book is and how it should be defined.
      However, we shall have no legislative right in the matter. We shall be depriving ourselves of that right. By passing the amendment the House would, in effect, be saying that we were handing over to those in the Department of Education who advise the Government the right to say what the definition of a book is to be. That is unsatisfactory. This House is the proper place for the decision to be made. It is most unsatisfactory for this kind of definition—this is a matter which may go to the heart of the principle—to be delegated to the Government rather than decided here.
      There will be a difficulty about deciding what a book is. The problem was highlighted in another place when the Minister with responsibility for the arts said that there were two meanings of "book". One may say that one has written a book, and even though it were only in manuscript form that would be a truthful statement. On the other hand, we can point to a book on a shelf and say "that is a book". That would be an equally truthful statement.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) rightly raised this point earlier. There are numerous manuscripts in libraries which are not in the form normally associated with books. What will happen when they are loaned out? Will they be excluded from the scheme? This is a small point and I do not wish to labour it, but it shows how important it is for the House to define these words rather than leave the definition to officials who cannot be challenged or questioned.
      None of us wishes to be accused of taking too much time. We have a long way to go, but I hope that the Minister will reply to the points I have raised.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. English: The Bill was introduced and supported by interested parties. You may not be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I asked your predecessor in the Chair whether I would have the opportunity of

      1179
      raising this issue at some point. He said that I might be able to do so on one of the amendments. I hope that you will agree that this is an appropriate one.
      It is fairly clear that many hon. Members are interested parties in respect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), for example, have both published books and are therefore interested in the outcome of the Bill. They are also both supporters of it. I know of other hon. Members on both sides who, because they have had books published, have decided that they will not vote on the principle because they do not wish to vote on something in which they have an interest. I respect those hon. Members.
      We should recollect that the Government introduced the Bill into the House of Lords with the word "books" in it. Another place, which passed the Bill overwhelmingly, nevertheless replaced "books" by "works", and in Committee in this House the Government attempted to reverse that amendment. It was appropriate and in accordance with the wishes of the majority of hon. Members that the Government's proposal was rejected by 12 votes to four. Not only people with doubts about the Bill voted to reject the attempted reversal of the Lords amendment; those who support the Bill did the same. They were quite right, because as the Bill stood originally, and as this amendment would make it, money was provided only for authors of books, but it would be taken out of the pockets of every taxpayer, including those who do not or cannot read.
      If we are to have a public lending right, it is surely better that it is applied to all lending. Lending from local authority libraries includes not only books but records, cassettes, paintings and sometimes small sculptures. I mentioned in Committee that in Nottingham, subject to the present restrictions on public expenditure, the county library is prepared to lend toys, as is done in many other places.
      Toys are suitable for lending because the average child takes an interest in a toy for a relatively short time. When a child is no longer interested, the toy can be returned. A library for toys is a per-
      1180
      fect method of buying on behalf of the public and lending to parents.
      It is extraordinary that authors of books should be so arrogant as to believe that they are the only people who have any right to public lending right. Apparently authors claim that this great right, which does not exist in practice in any other country and in Germany exists only in theory should exist for them alone and not for the producers of any other work. It illustrates arrogance on the part of authors and a complete—
      Mr. Faulds: My hon. Friend is exhibiting his ignorance about this matter, because this principle is practised not only in West Germany, where it has just been introduced, but in Denmark and Sweden.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon Friend, who, if I recollect aright, voted for keeping "works" in the Bill, as I have no doubt he will tonight. I am sorry if I was wrong. I was citing the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who had some association with the production of the Bill, who said in Committee that this principle had not been legislated into existence in any place in the world except Western Germany, and had not come into practice there, so that it was not of practical application in any country so far.
      Mr. Faulds: Of course, I withdraw the imputation about my hon. Friend's ignorance, but it is extremely indelicate and unkind of him to advertise the ignorance of the ex-Minister.
      Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney, if he was ignorant—I do not accept the fact—made his own advertisement in the columns of Hansard. I am merely citing what he said in a public proceeding. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) would be the first to support me, I think, because he was one of the 12 who voted against the proposal to delete the amendment made in another place. Whatever our other arguments may be, on this issue he and I are at one.
      I do not dispute that a public lending right should exist. I never have disputed that. I did not vote against it on Second Reading. However, if a public lending right should exist, it should exist for everyone. At a later stage we may come to the question whether it should exist from every library, but I

      1181
      am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would rule me out of order is I raifed that question now. It should exist not only for all loans from all libraries but for all loans of ail sorts of works. That is the point at issue in the amendment.
      I cannot but feel that it has a peculiar aptness. I must add, to defend my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who was one of the architects of the Bill, of which the hon. Member for Chelmsford claimed to be an architect even before my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, that the hon. Member for Chelmsford voted to keep "works" and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney, who no doubt felt other commitments from his past activities in Government, abstained on the whole issue. There was no one except present Ministers of the Crown and some of their lapdogs who actually tried to defend the indefensible.
      I do not always agree, as has been apparent from Divisions last week, with amendments made in another place, but on this occasion it is absolutely clear that their Lordships made an amendment of eminent sense. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree to retain the Bill as it was amended in another place and as its amendment was retained in Committee.
      There is no possible reason, other than that adduced by my hon. Friend the Minister, for putting the word "books" back. The reason adduced by the Minister was one of the weakest I have ever heard. She constantly reiterated it in Committee, but her basic reason has nothing to do with the text of the Bill. If she will forgive me for using the word, she keeps on bleating. She keeps bleating about the existence of a scheme. The scheme has never been presented in the House. Under the Bill, it should be presented to the House eventually.
      A scheme has been prepared by a technical committee, and that says how, if the Bill contains the word "books", public lending right should be implemented. The assumption seems to be that, once a technical committee has decided how something should be implemented, automatically this House is precluded from making any change in what is supposed to be implemented. Because a technical committee says "This is how you can implement a public lending right in relation to books", we are not, there-
      1182
      fore, allowed to put in the word "works" instead. Because the technical committee was, like many technical committees, so short-sighted as not to think of the existence of records, cassettes and other things, both Houses of Parliament must refrain from applying a public lending right to other things lent out from libraries.
      The technical committee has not considered this. I could not care less whether or not a technical committee has considered it, but if a public lending right is just and proper it should apply to everyone. It should apply to the producers not only of literary works but of auditory works, things one can hear as well as things one can write.
      I ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question that I asked her in Committee but to which I never got an answer. The extraordinary thing, taking the most closely analogous case, is that under the Bill, if one writes a book and it goes into a local authority library, one will get a payment once that book is lent out. If one puts the same work on to a tape by reading it out and the tape is then lent out, being an auditory version of the same work, in the way that the Minister wants, it would appear that one will not have a public lending right. What on earth is the sense in that?
      Charles Dickens is reputed by many to have had a very bad English literary style. His novels were produced in parts and he would also read to very large audiences, for which he got a fee—the nearest thing to the modern radio and television broadcast. He went around the country reading his own novels and getting a fee for it. There is nothing wrong in that. However, it appears that if one had the exact equivalent in modern times of literally reading one's own novel, if the author read his own novel on to a tape and that was lent out from a library, there would be no public lending right.
      Rights are not the sort of things that can be eroded in small degrees like this. If a right is to be created, or if it exists, it is a generality. If one cares to say that the argument for a public lending right at all has in large part been that it is immoral and unjust that an author should not get some degree of benefit from the fact that people borrow his books as distinct from merely buying them, if

      1183
      he should have a right to some personal benefit because people borrow his books, why on earth should he not have a right to some benefit if people borrow his cassettes? If he read the exact text of his book on to a cassette, why should he not have that right?
      There is some strange quirk, which I suspect is in the Treasury. Anyone who feels that the word "quirk" applies to those in the Treasury is entitled to think so. Some quirk in the Treasury—
      7.0 p.m.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I hope my hon. Friend is aware that "Quirk" is a surname. As a matter of fact, it is my mother's maiden name.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can assure her that I am aware that it is a surname which, if I recall aright, comes from the Isle of Man. I understand that all surnames beginning with "Qu" come from the Isle of Man. However, I shall not dispute the particular origin or the immediate origin. Indeed, if I went into that it would take me a further five minutes, which I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would not wish me to do. I apologise to the Minister, because I had no intention of bringing her maternity into this argument.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will continue with the main substance of his argument in connection with the amendment.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I was being distracted. Someone in the Treasury whose surname is not but whose nature may be quirkish seems to have the belief that a moral right to payment, on the occasion of the lending of a work, is valid only if the work is written as distinct from if the work is spoken, sung, played, painted, carved or constructed in any other way. I regard that as very weak morality. I sincerely hope that the House will not wish to reverse what its own Committee and the other place decided. It is fairly clear that on this issue anyone who claims to be in support of the Bill—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East and his colleagues who served on the Committee—can hardly say that he is in support of a
      1184
      principle only for some people and not for others.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I shall try to deal as briefly as possible with the points which have been raised. Some of them have already been raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked about the use of international standard book numbers. Again I must say to him, as I said in Committee, that it is our understanding that the great majority of publishers use international standard book numbers despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman managed to find one who does not. If there are books in libraries which are eligible for public lending right but which do not bear international standard book numbers it will be possible, by arrangement with the organisation involved, to assign them numbers so that they may participate in this scheme.
      The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) asked whether the scheme which is under consideration in Germany covered "works". It is my understanding that it is hoped that the German scheme will cover "works", but it is still very much at the stage of being worked out; it is by no means clear that it will be able to do so. Nor is it clear what method is proposed to be used, although we do know that the proposals are differently based from ours. There, they are being based on an extension of the law of copyright.
      Several hon. Members asked for a definition of a "book". Indeed, the hon. Member for Faversham went into the matter of defining an author. The main point is simply that it is the general rule that a word which is not specially defined in statutes is construed as bearing its original meaning. We do not define such a word unless there is some wish either to enlarge or restrict its meaning, as the case might be, or include or exclude some shade of meaning—[Interruption.] I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) does not wish to hear me reiterate views which I have already expressed, but I am a little tired of all the other arguments which many other hon. Members have constantly reiterated in this debate.
      It is the case that under the scheme there will be some definition of "book"—in order to exclude a magazine, for

      1185
      instance. It is not common to define such a term in a statute unless it is the wish to particularly restrict or extend it.
      That also applies to the definition of the term "author".
      The hon. Member for Faversham spoke at some length about his wish to see that term defined in the Bill. He will be happy to know that we do not intend to define it, for all the reasons he put forward, namely, the problems of people such as editors and illustrators.
      It is our hope that, in the years to come, as resources for this scheme perhaps increase, it will be possible to extend the scheme to cover books by more than one author and, ultimately, to cover such people as editors and illustrators. It is because we wish to leave that possibility open for the distant future that we do not wish to define the term "author" in the Bill.
      I would also point out that many of the definitions of the terms that the hon. Gentleman sought to query are covered in the text of the Bill. He used the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) being considered to be the "author of the Government's ills". I would point out that one cannot take the Government's ills out of a public lending library and, consequently, there is no question of any confusion of that kind arising.
      The other point arose in the speech by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body)—
      Mr. Moate: With regard to the definition of "author", can the Minister say what precisely will be the position of the registrar if he is challenged about the legality of giving the PLR to an author when, in fact, that work was ghosted by another author?
      Miss Jackson: It will be up to the registrar to define, as in all cases, whom he considers to be the author of a book. If it is considered to be a multiple-author work, it is not our intention that it should be included in the initial scheme. No such problem can, consequently, arise.
      The hon. Member for Holland with Boston put forward the argument that if this amendment were supported and the Bill retained as it now stands it would be less messy than if the amendment were made, as we seek to do. I cannot accept
      1186
      that argument. I have sought to show the hon. Gentleman, however unconvincing he may think it, that it will be much more messy to leave this provision in the Bill because we have at present no means of implementing it. Not only have we no means of implementing it, but we see no way in the foreseeable future of being able to implement it. We think it more sensible, efficient and conducive to keeping down the costs of this proposal to exclude "works" from the Bill.
      Mr. Body: Surely that is not the view of the technical investigation group which reported on this? It had no difficulty in deciding what were "works".
      Miss Jackson: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The technical investigation group did not consider "works". It considered other matters such as reference books. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West is being unjust to the technical investigation group. It is quite possible that the consideration of "works" was not referred to it. It is my understanding that the technical investigation group did not find a scheme for "works" to be possible. Indeed, we do not see it as possible because of the enormous difficulties that we have already gone over in Committee. I do not wish to delay the House by reiterating this argument yet again. I covered it in my first speech. The operation of the Bill, we think, makes it difficult, if not impossible to include "works".
      I find it ironic to be chided for lack of fervour in support of the Bill. It is a little unfair that those who are the Bill's most fervent opponents criticise the rest of us for not wishing to extend it. I am in little doubt that it is their hope that the Bill would be withdrawn if the amendment were defeated. I ask those who are supporters of the Bill in the genuine sense, and who wish to see it on the statute book, to support the Government's amendments, and to remove the term "works" from the Bill and to substitute "books".
      Mr. Lawson: I apologise to the House and to the Minister in particular that I have not been able to be here for the past hour and a half because I was at an important Committee upstairs. But am glad that I was here able to listen

      1187
      to the latter part of her winding-up speech—and I took it to be that—on this amendment.
      I dissent from the hon. Lady altogether in her suggestion that what we have here before us is a public lending right We have nothing of the sort. We have a subsidy to authors. It would be just the same as if the farm subsidies were to be christened a public eating right. There is no question of a right here.
      The original scheme, of course, was a question of a right. A payment was to be made, and this seems to be perfectly sensible, by every library borrower, which would then find its way to the author as of right. That was a right—an arrangement between the borrower and the person whose work or book he was borrowing. This is nothing of the sort. It is a State subsidy, miles away from public lending right, and the title of the Bill is contrary to the Trade Descriptions Act.
      I should have begun by declaring an interest of sorts. I am a director for the time being of a book publishing firm and I am also a kind of author. I say "kind of author" because I discover from listening to the hon. Lady that I am a multi-author. My friend, Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne, who was formerly the Member for South Angus—soon. I hope, to return to these Benches, where he is greatly needed and where he made such a contribution—and I have just had a book published by Macmillan called "The Power Game", which has been well received in the Press.
      I suspect that very few people will buy that book. It is priced rather highly at £7·95. I think Macmillan feels that whereas publishing is a gentleman's occupation, selling books is rather vulgar. Therefore, the only people who receive it will be those who borrow it from libraries. I think that on a later amendment we go into the question of whether forms of libraries other than public libraries will be involved in this, so that this is very important to my book. It will, no doubt, find its way chiefly into university libraries, which are not public libraries within the meaning of this or any other legislation.
      I discover to my sorrow in a way that the hon. Lady intends to discriminate
      1188
      against me. Because I wrote the book with Mr. Bruce-Gardyne, I do not qualify; I am a multi-author, so I do not qualify for anything out of this. If, however, we had written and published half the book each, we would have done. I do not see the justice in this. It seems very un-Socialist. If one thinks of the Webbs and the Coles—G. D. H. and Margaret Cole—those great Socialist uxorial combinations of authors, one feels that this is a very strange form of discrimination.
      I was slightly relieved to hear the hon. Lady say at least that she intends to go beyond the single solitary author and go perhaps further and include the multi-author, as she rather inelegantly described him or her, in due course. I should like to hear more. I do not know whether she described it when I was out of the Chamber, in which case I apologise for not being here to hear it, but it seems rather strange. [Interruption.] Since my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is muttering from a sedentary position, I would say that one form of interest that I do not have to declare is a typing interest. Why is it impossible to include right from the start, if the hon. Lady were having a proper scheme, books written by two authors?
      7.15 p.m.
      I have another past interest to declare, and this is something which concerns me greatly. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Lady would have the courtesy to pay attention to the hon. Member who is speaking instead of talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. It is intolerable that the Minister never takes the slightest notice of anything that is said and is not even aware that she is being addressed at the moment. This form of discourtesy is a discourtesy to the whole House. Otherwise, I would not have raised it.
      Mr. Ridley: It looks to me like a multi-Front Bench.
      Mr. John Nott (St. Ives): Or perhaps a Government of national unity.
      Mr. Lawson: I think that my hon. Friend is right: we have an incipient Government of national unity. The hon. Lady is still gossiping and chattering away and not taking the slightest notice.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: Since the hon. Gentleman was not here for much of the

      1189
      debate, it is a bit much for him to complain about my behaviour.
      Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Lady had not been gossiping and chattering, she would have heard me refer to that very point a moment ago and explain why.
      What I want to draw to her attention is this. One of the important parts of our literary and cultural heritage is the weekly magazines. I used to be the editor of one of them, the Spectator, and one of the great problems we had on the Spectator, and the problems which were met by the New Statesman and other magazines—magazines, incidentally, of a type which are not to be found in any other country—are that more and more people were borrowing these magazines from libraries—in which I include not just public libraries but university libraries, common rooms and clubs, the House of Commons Library and so on—and not buying a copy. This made the viability of those magazines very difficult.
      It seems to me that, if there is a case for a public lending right on books, there is just as big a case for a public lending right in the case of those political and literary magazines.
      Mr. Moate: I do not know whether my hon. Friend was here to hear it, but the hon. Lady went out of her way specifically to exclude from the PLR scheme magazines, even if they have an ISB number, although it would make them workable in the scheme.
      Mr. Lawson: I heard her remarks to that effect as I was entering the Chamber. I was not convinced. I am seeking slightly to help the hon. Lady first of all by trying to show the necessity that there is for this sort of assistance, if there will be any assistance at all, to authors.
      For example, it is generally accepted that those weekly magazines, the New Statesman and the Spectator, have about eight readers per copy, whereas the normal newspaper will have two or three. This makes a tremendous difference to the whole economics of these weekly magazines. I realise that the hon. Lady says that she is concerned not with other people—editors, publishers, illustrators and so on—but only with authors. But this problem for a weekly magazine can be got round rather simply once she has
      1190
      got over her multi-author hurdle, if I may put it that way.
      Under Clause 1(7)(b), the public lending right if it existed could be assigned and it would be the normal practice in the case of a magazine for the various authors who had contributed to assign the public lending right to the magazine, to the paper, just as in the same way today they automatically assigned the copyright of what they write to the newspaper or to the magazine.
      Mr. Sproat: Earlier on, my hon. Friend made an interesting point which touched our hearts about the financial loss which would be suffered by himself and Mr. Jock Bruce-Gardyne because they were so-called multi-authors. Taking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate)—namely, that an author is an author is an author, if I may paraphrase the quotation of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) from Gertrude Stein—could not an author assign his right as a dual or multi-author to one single person, who for the purposes of the Registrar would be the author who would then be able to take the money and divide it, perhaps taking a slight percentage? In that way, could not my hon. Friend divide the money between himself and Mr. Bruce-Gardyne? Would not that be possible, and could it not be done for magazines as well?
      Mr. Lawson: What my hon. Friend says is perfectly possible. It has also occurred to me that the sums at any time became large, two authors would write under the pseudonym of a single person. Behind one name—John Smith—there would lie perhaps two or three writers. It would be impossible to divine how many there were.
      Although the hon. Lady said that she could not include multi-authors or even dual authors in her scheme, she gave no convincing reason why that should be so. I do not intend to speak for long, because I was out of the Chamber for some time and it would be discourteous for me further to take the time of the House. I have been racking my brains to find a justification for this enterprise. The only justification I can find is that it is a way of channelling funds from the poor to the rich and successful authors. There seems to be some justification in that, not because I am in favour of that principle

      1191
      in general but because the balance of the taxation system has gone so far in one direction that in this small way the Government seek to redress the balance. That is the only crumb of comfort.
      Mr. Peter Rees: As my hon. Friend raised the question of multi-authors, will he tell the House how the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" would be handled in his scheme, particularly if it were taken out in volumes?
      Mr. Lawson: I am not the author of the Bill. No doubt the hon. Lady can tell my hon. and learned Friend the answer to that question. I assume from what she said that as the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" has many authors—indeed, each volume has many authors—it would not qualify. If, however, there was a work which was done in several volumes and each volume was done by a single author, I am not sure whether the volumes as such would qualify as books or whether the whole work would be considered as a single book by many authors and, therefore, would not qualify. No doubt this as been thrashed out in Committee, but when I looked through the report of the Committee's proceedings I did not find an answer to this important point on which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) characteristically put his finger.
      Mr. Ridley: I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) intensely moving. I shall certainly place an order for his multi-authorial book with Mr. Bruce-Gardyne. The value of that order may be more than the value of public lending right would have been had he been eligible for it. I have at least benefited from the debate to that extent, and I am sure that I shall benefit even more when I read the book.
      I apologise to the House for having missed a substantial part of the centre of the debate, having been at the meeting which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby attended. I have had the pleasure of hearing the hon. Lady make two speeches and I thought she would like to know that, for the first time in her ministerial career, she made a convert of me. I was intending to vote with her against the Lords amendment on the ground that it might result in an increase
      1192
      in public expenditure if "works" were substituted for "books", but then she converted me in the opposite direction by saying that if the Lords amendment were made, she would drop the Bill. That would result in an even bigger saving in public expenditure, which is what the House should concern itself with.
      Mr. Whittome is stalking up and down the corridors considering the nation's finances and wondering what severe penalties to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer to inflict upon us. This is not the time for bold spending schemes. This is the time when we should keep our heads down and not engage in public spending, at least until we know the terms of Mr. Whittome's advice about our economic situation. Therefore, my attitude is that this is not the opportune or ideal moment to move the Bill, and the hon. Lady might be wiser to let it rest a little until the economic situation is clarified.
      I cannot for the life of me see why, bad Bill though it is, we should not be allowed to seek to improve it. If we were to substitute "works" for "books", I see the technical difficulties. The brief read out by the hon. Lady contained one or two problems which should be surmounted. But we cannot possibly justify a bad Bill by saying that we are not prepared to deal with all the anomalies it opens up, because otherwise we should not get a Bill at all.
      My hon. Friend the multi-author raised points which need an answer. What he said about political weekly magazines is of great importance. Even Tribune does not find it easy to survive financially and economically. If help is to be given, these magazines are amongst the most deserving cases for help. Again, what my hon. Friend said about multi-authors is valid. For some technical reason they are to be excluded. Why do we pass a Bill which has these defects?
      Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is talking about "works". Does he recall that the greatest work of all, the Bible, is a multi-author work?
      Mr. Ridley: That had crossed my mind but, in view of the time at which that volume was written, I do not think that the authors are within the scope of the Bill. It is an interesting thought that, had

      1193
      the Bible been written in the last five years or so, it would be classified as a multi-author magazine and would not be eligible for any public lending right.
      I come to the question of what is to be included for what is, after all, nothing but a straight taxpayers' subsidy. The question of merit must arise. Some works which will be borrowed from public libraries will be of great merit and low commercial value in the market, whereas many books which are borrowed will be of high commercial value to their authors and of low merit. Some of the more vulgar detective stories which will presumably be eligible for a public lending right will receive subsidy, although hundreds and thousands of copies may be sold throughout the world, whereas a tape, a picture or a work of art which cannot make a profit for the producer and yet may be of great merit will not be eligible for public lending right.
      The Bill is shot with anomalies. All we seek to do by the amendment, which I now support, fortified by the hon. Lady's assurance that she will drop the
      Bill if we are lucky enough to carry it, is to improve it before it gets on to the statute book. Not only are we spending money which we all know we should not be spending, we are spending it in a partial, anomalous and thoroughly unfair way.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House who see this as a device to attract the votes of authors should be ashamed. It is a crude political bribery Bill, and the fact that it costs only £1 million enables some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to ease their consciences. They think that it is all right because it is only a housemaid's baby of a PLR Bill which will perhaps buy a few votes. I dissociate myself from that view, and, on the hon. Lady's firm assurance that she will drop the Bill if we win, I shall support the "Noes".
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 23.

      Division No. 407.]

      AYES

      [7.30 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Archer, Peter

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Marquand, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Ashton, Joe

      Flannery, Martin

      Mendelson, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mikardo, Ian

      Atkinson, Norman

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Bean, R. E.

      George, Bruce

      Newens, Stanley

      Beith, A. J.

      Golding, John

      Noble, Mike

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Gould, Bryan

      Ogden, Eric

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gray, Hamish

      Pardoe, John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Park, George

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hardy, Peter

      Parker, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Harper, Joseph

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Perry, Ernest

      Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

      Hatton, Frank

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cohen, Stanley

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Coleman, Donald

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Corbett, Robin

      James, David

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cowans, Harry

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roper, John

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Ryman, John

      Cunningham, Q. (Islington S)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davidson, Arthur

      Judd, Frank

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Dempsey, James

      Litterick, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Doig, Peter

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dormant), J. D.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Small, William

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McCartney, Hugh

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Edge, Geoff

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Snape, Peter

      Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

      McElhone, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Madden, Max

      Stallard, A. W.

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Magee, Bryan

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Stoddart, David

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Strang, Gavin

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Watkins, David

      Woodall, Alec

      Tierney, Sydney

      Weetch, Ken

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Tinn, James

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Whitehead, Phillip

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Whitlock, William

      Mr. Alf Bates and

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

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Mr. Ted Graham

      Walter, David (Clitheroe)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald

      Henderson, Douglas

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Kinnock, Neil

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Benyon, W.

      Lawson, Nigel

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Body, Richard

      MacCormick, lain

      Thompson, George

      Brotherton, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Watt, Hamish

      Crawford, Douglas

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      English, Michael

      Nott, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Mr. Iain Sproat and

      Hannam, John

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Mr. Nicholas Ridley

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 1, line 9, after 'to', insert 'as referred to by'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
      No. 5, in line 10, after 'authorities', insert:
      'or reference copies of books held by them for consultation on library premises'.
      No. 46, in page 3, line 41, after 'from', insert:
      'or the number of copies held for reference purposes in'.
      No. 52, in page 4, line 8, after first 'public', insert:
      'or as to copies held by them for reference purposes'.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is possibly the most important amendment that we shall be discussing on Report.
      The Bill is designed to do justice to authors. It is not a Bill which increases public expenditure. It merely creates the possibility of an increase in public expenditure. That is a very important distinction. The Bill adds little or nothing to public expenditure at this time, although it creates the possibility of increasing that public expenditure in the future when our economic position has improved.
      But even if that were the case, which it is not, it is not in any way incompatible with a policy of general reduction of public expenditure to have certain areas in which public expenditure is increased. There are arguments in certain spheres for an increase irrespective of the economic circumstances, and the increase may be of such a small nature that it can be carried by other reductions. But this
      1196
      Bill does not increase public expenditure. It is a Bill about a principle.
      If the Bill is to command respect as a declaration of principle, it must do justice to all authors. As the Bill is drafted, it benefits only those authors of books which are lent out to the public, as is declared in Clause 1, by local library authorities in the United Kingdom. It may be that certain books which would be classified as of a reference book type are occasionally lent out. Those are covered by the Bill. But what about books which are not lent out and which can be consulted only in a library? They are excluded from any scheme which could be formed under the Bill.
      The purpose of this amendment is not to say that the scheme must at any given time include these books. That can be done at various stages. But it leaves the way open for those books to be included.
      7.45 p.m.
      I must declare my interest here—and in so doing I stress that I am not advertising—and refer to my own collected edition of the Works of Walter Bagehot, eight volumes of which have been published already and four more of which I hope are to be published next year to mark the centenary of his death. They will be followed by a final volume of letters, miscellany, bibliographies, etc., which will eventually bring what has been described by many people as one of the major works of scholarship of the century to an end. I feel that it is necessary to make that declaration because I might benefit from the borrowing of any one of those magnificent volumes.
      It is extremely important that no class of authors should be treated favourably as such, and this Bill undoubtedly would

      1197
      benefit the writers of fiction as opposed to those who write more scholarly works, and whereas I shall not follow the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) in his now famous assertion that reward should be made in accordance with the length of a book because merit varies in accordance with the length of a book, I think that we should pay special attention to those who spend many years writing reference books. After all, a novel can be written in a morning—certainly it can be read in a morning: perhaps I should modify that; it can be written in a week.
      Here we have a question of principle. I am sure that the Minister will agree with that. Such arguments as she produced against this proposal in Committee were that it was impracticable to have such a scheme.
      I do not want to go into the technical details of this proposal. However, the technical committee, which produced two reports, went into this matter and certainly it did not find that it was impracticable in the sense in which the hon. Lady said that it was. On the contrary, it produced a perfectly viable scheme and made it plain that, with the exception of 19 large reference libraries which created special difficulties, the technical difficulties could be overcome.
      What is more, by the time that this scheme comes into operation, it may be that further technological advances will have been made which will render what I am saying even more compelling.
      Mr. Faulds: I share the hon. Gentleman's surprise that the technical difficulties have been so played up. But I ought perhaps to get it on record that, before the hon. Member prepared a scheme as a Minister and before my right hon. Friend did as a Minister, I was the first person in the Labour Party to prepare any documentation about how to introduce the principle of PLR. I detailed it and costed it. It was on the basis of an annual cost of £5 million for my scheme that my right hon. Friend was able, when he took over the job just before one of the 1974 General Elections, to mention the cost of £5 million.
      But in that scheme of mine there seemed to be a very simple way to include reference books. It was that, on the average usage of most books in libraries, which was running at 6·5 loans
      1198
      per year, it was possible to rate reference books at the same figure, in which case all the talk about technical problems would have been dissolved in a puff of smoke.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: In a puff of white smoke at any rate. I am extremely grateful for that intervention by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). The hon. Member for Putney claims to be the father of the Bill and I consider that I am the grandfather. However, I concede that the hon. Member for Warley, East is the great-grandfather. Obviously, we have all played a part in giving birth to this Bill.
      I agree with the hon. Member about technical arguments. They are the last refuge of the Civil Service. If the Civil Service wishes to oppose something and does not know how to do it rationally, it will produce a technical argument. That is the position here.
      It was my idea to appoint this committee of experts. When I held discussions with various groups of authors, they went on and on about light pens and computers and I felt that I was getting further and further out of my depth. The only way to resolve the situation was to appoint a committee of experts to assess what the Civil Service and the authors' associations were saying.
      The hon. Member for Putney carried that principle into practice. I was very grateful to him for doing so and for following my blueprint to the letter. On that occasion he rose above any petty party political arguments, and carried through the plan which I have left behind at the Department. As a result of our joint efforts, these reports were published and they show that it is perfectly feasible to have a scheme for reference books.
      This is a comparatively minor amendment and I hope that the Under-Secretary, having found us co-operative over the question of works, will be equally cooperative in this good cause.
      Mr. Moate: I have listened to my hon. Friend's persuasive argument closely. If the Under-Secretary says that the amendment is unacceptable, will he vote for it or will he abstain?
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the Under-Secretary will not make any rash assertion. Although this is a minor amend-

      1199
      ment, it is vital. I have every trust in her sense of proportion and balance, which she has preserved throughout these long debates. Rarely does one find an opportunity to champion both a cause of justice and one of technical propriety as well. Not only is it rare: it should be valued. Therefore, I hope that this argument will appeal to the Under-Secretary and that she will be amenable to the voice of reason and tell us that she will accept the amendment which commands the support of both sides of the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that this amendment has been misprinted, and the words to be inserted should be "or referred to by". Accordingly, I propose the amendment in that form.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: Perhaps the first thing I should say is that many claims have been made for the parentage of this Bill. My only claim is to be the pressed midwife at a difficult birth. I do not claim any greater parentage.
      Mr. Faulds: That is a very important role.
      Miss Jackson: Yes. I shall not go into the arguments in detail because we had considerable discussion on this matter in Committee.
      The Government cannot accept the amendment to include reference books in the Bill. We are aware that the technical investigation group looked at the question of measuring reference books by considering a purchase-based scheme and a scheme of stock stamping. But it is our intention that the major proposals of the Bill shall be carried out by measuring the use of books on a loan basis from public libraries, and that is not a principle which can be simply transferred to the use of reference books.
      Apart from the reference sections in ordinary public libraries, there are a number of large and specific reference libraries. Although the expert group looked at the possibilities for measuring the use of reference books in such libraries, it found that it was impossible to do so without undue disruption of their work.
      On the grounds on which we opposed the last amendment, I must ask the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) to withdraw his amendment. We
      1200
      do not accept that the Bill can or should be extended to include reference books in this way.
      Mr. Sproat: That is a very disappointing answer by the Under-Secretary. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was at his most persuasive when moving this amendment and I am sorry that his oratorical talent was insufficient on this occasion.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) raised a very important point when he asked the Under-Secretary whether if the amendment was carried she would believe that it had so chopped up the Bill that it was no longer worth pursuing it. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us what will happen, because there will be considerable difference in the voting strength on this amendment from the last occasion, when most of my hon. Friends voted in her Lobby. On this occasion, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, they will go into a different Lobby from the Government and it is possible that we shall see the amendment carried.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that this amendment was about a principle. But at Report stage in the House of Commons we are not discussing principle. We are discussing details—the nuts and bolts of the Bill. It is precisely the nuts and bolts of this measure to which we take objection. We will not be swayed by the argument that we are discussing merely the principle of the Bill. That argument could be applied to all 14 amendments with which we shall be dealing tonight. We could be told on all of them that we should not go into the details of the amendments because we are considering only the principle of the Bill.
      8.0 p.m.
      I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford when he says that the amendments and the Bill will not add to public expenditure. The Bill says that £1 million will be spent, and I believe that it is wrong to spend that money.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he should bear in mind that we secured from the Government in

      1201
      Committee an undertaking that not a penny would be spent under the Bill until the Government had published a Green Paper, presumably containing a draft scheme, and the Green Paper had received the general approval of both Houses of Parliament. There is no question of the Registrar being appointed until the Green Paper is published.
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) did gallant service in Committee in making the point about the Green Paper. I noticed, however, that the Minister was looking rather dubiously at one or two of the points made by my hon. Friend. Doubtless she will correct my hon. Friend if he was wrong. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Green Paper must be approved before anything can happen, but that does not mean that the Bill will not cause further public expenditure. It increases public expenditure and it increases public bureaucracy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that the Bill would lead to more public expenditure. The Government will no doubt shortly be forced to make cuts, as will the forthcoming Conservative Government, but there will be areas in which public spending will increase. That may be so. I can think of defence and other areas where public expenditure has been cut perilously low. If we accept that, although the global sum must be cut, certain aspects will increase, surely there are higher priorities for increased spending than public lending right. One thinks of the inadequate social services or the inadequate public library service. Surely that is a better way of spending spare money. Surely we would not be prepared to spend money on the Bill while letting our schools crumble into decrepitude. I cannot see a Conservative Government giving priority to a public lending right.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that the amendment and the Bill were concerned with justice for authors. But it is ludicrous to suggest that the Bill carries justice for all authors, because if that were so there would be no cut-off point for a successful author. The average author will get £5. The very successful author, such as Alistair Maclean, will get £1,000. I believe that it is a waste to give the money to authors such as Alistair Maclean who already
      1202
      have a lot. It is also wrong because the ratio by which he outsells other authors is greater than the proportion of £5 to £1,000. The Bill therefore does not give justice to all authors. It gives effect to a bad principle in a bad way at a bad time. My hon. Friends and I will support the amendment in a belated attempt to improve the Bill.
      The amendment seeks to remedy one defect. Writers of fiction will be treated more generously than writers of reference works. What is the value of a great novel compared with a bad dictionary? We could argue that point for a long time. Were the night longer I should be happy to do so, but I fear that we may not have enough time to discuss the amendments already set down for debate, without branching out into other interesting points. Whatever the value placed on "War and Peace" on the one hand and the "Shorter Oxford Dictionary" on the other, the Bill is weighted heavily in favour of the writers of fiction.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford referred to the infamous Putney principle which was set out in a letter of 28th November 1974 by the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who was then the Minister responsible for the arts. It provided that we should weight the principle in favour of longer books. He said that a life's work of 800—pages must be worth more—
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have debated this topic in Committee. The amendment deals with reference books. The remarks by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) have not the slightest relevance to the amendment. I suggest, with the greatest respect, that the hon. Gentleman has been out of order for some time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Chair had better hear how the hon. Gentleman develops his argument before making a decision on that matter.
      Mr. Sproat: My point is precisely relevant to the amendment. Reference works tend to be longer than fiction. The Putney principle specifically provided that a work of 800 pages should be worth more than a mere essay. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, having first denied that he said those words in Committee,

      1203
      has now admitted that he said them but that he had forgotten them.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is totally untrue. He should not be allowed to pursue this fallacious argument in a speech which has nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not understand the word "untrue". It may be fallacious. It is for the hon. Member in what he has to say to justify his remarks.
      Mr. Sproat: I refer the hon. Member for Putney, if he needs any reference from me, to columns 25 and 26 of the Committee Hansard for 26th October 1976 when I first made this point. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should he so keen to deny it, for he wrote the letter when he was a Minister.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins Mr. Hugh Jenkins rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is this an intervention or a point of order?
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am anxious to make progress on the Bill. I respectfully suggest that this issue has no relevance whatsoever to reference books, the subject of this amendment.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Interruptions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) only tend to encourage him. Perhaps we might get on better if he were not interrupted.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was about to say that that is a point of argument rather than a point of order.
      Mr. Sproat: I suggest that, rather than seek to cover up the errors that the hon. Member for Putney attempted to perpetrate as a Minister, he ought to listen to the wisdom coming from these Benches and learn the error of his ways.
      I was about to quote the letter that he wrote on 28th November 1974. However, I shall leave the Putney principle for the moment. I was about to be charitable to the hon. Gentleman in thinking that when he spoke of 800 pages
      1204
      he was attempting to right the balance in favour of works of reference. If he had said that to me, I should have said that I thought it was the wrong way to do that. A mathematical calculation of the number of pages is not the way to assess value.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) is present. Reference was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford to a novel being written in a morning. I should be interested to know whether it was fluent and facile in the best sense of the word.
      Mr. David Walder: If that was said, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) revealed his ignorance.
      Mr. Sproat: I hope that he will read that later in Hansard.
      Mr. David Walder: I hope so.
      Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford then said a week. Even a week is ludicrously fast for any novel of any worth. I believe that I am right in saying that "War and Peace" took five years to write. While it is true that Shakespeare never blotted a line and dashed off "Hamlet" in a very short time, the fact is that it is not possible to consider the value of a work in relation to the time that it takes, its length, or whether it is a reference work or a work of fiction.
      We all have our opinion on whether "War and Peace" is more valuable than a railway timetable. One is a work of reference and the other is a work of fiction. But for the purposes of this Bill, it is only fair that they should be considered alike.
      8.15 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who has temporarily left the Chamber, made a valid point. The hon. Gentleman got round those technicalities which the Minister sought to advance by pointing out that the average number of times that a book was out on loan during a year was six and a half. I am sure that if it were found too difficult for various technical reasons to use another method of estimating the amount of money that authors should get under the Bill, we should say that, as the average

      1205
      loan is six and a half times a year, we should calculate reference books on the same basis. I think that, rather than have nothing, such authors would be satisfied with that half-loaf.
      We have heard from the Minister—we shall hear this many times as the long night draws on—the argument about bureaucratic complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, in a fine phrase, said that bureaucratic complexities were the last recourse of civil servants who did not know what else to say. I presume that the civil servants keep writing it into the hon. Lady's brief because they cannot think of anything else to say.
      The hon. Member for Warley, East indicated how this problem could be surmounted. Quite apart from the Warley solution, technology is advancing and it may soon be possible to find a method by which the number of times a reference work is used can be scientifically calculated. If the will were there, the way could be found.
      This amendment seeks to make it obligatory upon the Government to find a way to make reference books fall within the Bill. Certainly bureaucratic complexities will not be accepted by me on this or any other amendment as a prime reason for throwing out that amendment. That is why I shall not accept what the hon. Lady said.
      The main reason why I accept what my hon. Friend said is that we are dealing with justice. On a previous amendment we sought to argue that the authors of all works—I use "authors" in the widest sense; pictures, records and sculptures—should come within the scope of the Bill. If it is fair for authors of books, it is fair for writers of music.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) made reference to cheap detective novels. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. I thought perhaps that he would like to clarify this point. I do not think that we ought to enter into a debate on the value of literature. If an author gives pleasure and that pleasure is justified by the number of times that his book is taken out of the library, he ought to get a reward for giving that pleasure. If that is the argument, I support it.
      1206
      If we are to deal generously with authors of detective novels, we must also, with even-handed justice, deal with the authors of reference books. That is the principle of justice for which we fought on the previous amendment and for which we fought here.
      I believe that this is a bad Bill. I hope that it will be thrown out by this House or, if not, by another place. Nevertheless, as it is here, I shall do my best to improve it. Therefore, I hope that the House will support the amendment. If nothing else, it will improve a bad Bill by introducing at least some element of justice into it.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who is now in charge of matters for the Opposition, will stay in charge for some little while. Some of us think that he should have been in charge some time ago. Unfortunately that was not to be.
      Some reference was made earlier to his adventitious presence on the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps, after all, the division of arts and books would be a good thing. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman is not permanently on the Front Bench in this respect. If he were, his interventions in this debate would have been somewhat less self-regarded and less self-advertising than those of his hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). There are those of us who would regard the hon. Member for Bristol, West as a vigorous and dangerous opponent. None the less, we would regard him as a less slack wristed opponent and, for that reason, more to be respected than his hon. Friend.
      I shall address myself to the question of references. I understand the view that might be taken that, if it were possible to include reference books in the Bill, it would be a good thing to do. The fact is that the technical investigation group which studied this matter with great care did not find an accurate means of doing so. The best method that could be used was guesswork.
      We have tried to avoid guesswork in the Bill and in the Green Paper we shall be introducing a scheme under the Bill. This was one of the problems of the purchase writing business. This scheme

      1207
      is based on an accurate survey. If we are conceding a right to authors, we cannot reward them on guesswork. There is no cut-off and no figure of £5 or £1,000 in the Bill.
      I hope that my hon. Friend will seek to persuade hon. Members opposite not that what they have been saying is wrong in principle, because everybody would like to include reference books in the ultimate rewards, but, in the light of her arguments to withdraw the amendments and allow the House to proceed with the Bill.
      Mr. David Walder: This is the only one of the block of amendments that I can definitely support. I suspect that one will never achieve accuracy for loans of reference books. The only thing one knows about reference books is that they are present in a library. Perhaps one can track the loan habits of a work of fiction, but who can tell whether a book of reference is consulted by someone who enters a library to borrow a book?
      The authors of reference books should be rewarded by the presence of that book in libraries. Presumably their presence indicates that they are in demand and presumably if a book of reference is never used it will be removed from the library or not recorded.
      The other difficulty is that of how one defines a reference book. Usually the definition is made by the library. A reference section in one library may not be so labelled in another. If hon. Members look in the House of Commons Library they might find books classified as reference books which would not be so classified in other libraries but lent out. If a reference book is present in a library and presumably therefore used, the writer should receive the same benefit as the writer of a work of fiction or non-fiction.
      Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) made an effective point. I wish that he had been a member of the technical investigation group, because he managed from his own experience and wisdom to reach the same conclusion as that group, although no doubt it took longer and more public expenditure was involved.
      In responding to my hon. Friend's argument I quote from the technical
      1208
      investigation group which on page 11 of its interim report states:
      "First, we are of the opinion that any system which provided for the counting of consultations of books in reference libraries would disrupt the work of the libraries to an unacceptable degree. Secondly, we consider therefore that the inclusion of reference books in a loan based scheme would need to he based on either:

      (i) an annual census of books in the reference sections of the sample libraries …

      (ii) recording purchases of books for use in all reference libraries, or a sample of them".

      That is the point which was made by my hon. Friend.
      I do not understand why the Government are so determined to maintain as inviolable a scheme which has not yet seen the light of day. They are determined to declare that it is a loan-based scheme which must be unsullied by any other scheme. Why is it so impossible to accept what the technical investigation group said? My reading of its analysis of the subject is that it suggested that there should be the original loan-based scheme for works lent by the library in addition to a purchase or stock scheme for reference works. The Government have suggested that that is unworkable, unacceptable and administratively difficult. But the group's report does not bear that out.
      The Minister owes a better explanation to the House, the country and authors about why she is not prepared to accept the introduction of a greater element of justice into the scheme. The whole Government case is based on the technical investigation group report and yet now they ignore or refute its findings and refuse to accept them.
      Paragraph 48 of the final report states:
      "Bearing in mind what we said earlier in this report, that an initial PLR scheme would not be immutable and could be refined in the light of experience, we recommend that consideration of the problem of eligible authors whose books are to be found only in the 19 very large reference libraries in the United Kingdom should be deferred until further data are available, possible after a PLR scheme has been in operation for some time, and that pending such reconsideration the deeming' procedure suggested in paragraph 47(a)(i) should be adopted. In the meantime we do not consider that a decision on whether a PLR scheme should be purchase based or loan based need be delayed."

      1209
      Paragraph 47(a)(i) suggests that one method of dealing with reference books in reference libraries would be to carry out an annual census of stock in sample libraries. I could give other quotes from the reports of the group to demonstrate ways of getting round the difficulties that we all acknowledge to exist. They are difficulties that can be overcome and the technical investigation group produced solutions to the problems. It thought that ultimately there would be a way of making public lending right payments to the authors of reference works. The interim report even gave a method of dealing with the 19 large reference libraries, which the hon. Lady implied presented an insuperable problem.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I repeat what I have said over and over again. We do not argue that it is impossible to include reference books. We argue that the scheme should be based on use, on loans, because that is the fairest way.
      The Bill says that the scheme is for books which are lent. Proposals for putting reference books into the scheme have been advanced, but we do not consider them satisfactory. We consider that they would mean expense and difficulty out of all proportion to any benefit they might confer on anybody.
      We have heard these quotations innumerable times and they have been refuted innumerable times in the same terms. It wastes the time of the House to go over the same ground repeatedly.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Moate: It is the hon. Lady and the Government who are wasting the time of the House and those who have an interest in the Bill. There are obviously very few hon. Members interested in the Bill, to judge by the vast expanse of empty Benches on the Government side of the House. There is a slightly bigger representation on this side of the House. If the Bill is making heavy weather, that is largely because of the total lack of interest in it by Labour Members.
      The hon. Lady and her Government are wasting the time of Parliament by categorically refusing to listen to any of the arguments. They have refused to accept any amendments. The hon. Lady
      1210
      is right to say that we have quoted before extracts from the report of the technical investigation group, but she is wrong to say that she has refuted them. I shall continue to quote from page 11 of the interim report, because it refutes what the hon. Lady says about the cost. The group states:
      "these large libraries"—
      the 19 major reference libraries
      "might be sub-sampled, providing certain practical difficulties of access in some cases could be overcome. The operation might involve an annual count of about 100,000 books at an additional annual cost estimated to be of the order of £20,000."
      Is the hon. Lady telling us that £20,000 is an excessive sum to introduce the 19 major reference libraries into the scheme? The Government propose to spend £400,000 of taxpayers' money on administering a scheme that will give £600,000 on top to the authors. The Bill will increase public spending and involve an extension of the bureaucracy, but the Government refuse to give the benefits to writers of reference books because, according to the interim report, it would cost an extra £20,000 to introduce the major reference libraries. The Minister has not answered that point.
      The hon. Lady should say why the Government have been so adamant in refusing to listen to any arguments and to accept any amendments. The only other Bill that I can remember to be fought so hard, with the Government resisting any amendment hour after hour, day after day, week after week and month after month was the European Communities Bill.
      Why should that happen on this Bill? The hon. Lady obviously thinks that it is very important, but I do not think that even she will equate it with a matter such as the European Communities Bill. Yet the Government have adamantly refused to accept any argument about the question of works, not books, and about the inclusion of reference works. Was the Bill perfect when it arrived here, so beautifully drafted that the hon. Lady will not accept even a minor amendment?
      These remarks are particularly relevant to this amendment. We play around with the word "justice". The case for giving justice to the writers of more scholarly

      1211
      works should be accepted. The Government have adopted an extraordinary attitude. I do not accept that, broadly speaking, the Bill is about recompensing authors for something they have lost, but if we are to provide £1 million to pay them, the money should go to all authors. It has been made painfully clear that the Bill is only for some authors. I do not think that authors and authors' groups throughout the country, which have been campaigning for the Bill, have understood how bad a Bill it is.
      Seventy per cent. of the books lent by the local library authorities are works of fiction. I have no intention of disparaging works of fiction, whether they are fine or poor. I am not saying that they are less important or less good literature than more scholarly works. They do not represent the balance of literature in this country. Seventy per cent. of the books lent by the public libraries are novels, and all the other authors of more serious and more scholarly works, who have a much greater claim to compensation—if that is the way in which we are talking—are to be excluded.
      Many of those who write complaining about the low level of their income and saying what a struggle it is to produce books requiring much research and years of study and work, are people whose books will end up on the reference shelves. But the hon. Lady excludes them from the Bill. What sort of justice is that? It really is a most extraordinary proposition.
      I emphasise once again that the technical investigation group did not say that it was impossible. It said that there were difficulties, but made it clear that they could be overcome. Perhaps that would take time. It may be that it would take one, two or three years to produce a workable scheme. But those practical difficulties could be overcome in that time.
      The hon. Lady and the Government have said that we are not to have a scheme for some years to come. It has been said that there will be several years of consultation and discussion and waiting for the money before the Green Paper—
      Mr. English: White Paper.
      Mr. Moate:—is introduced, and then the draft scheme. At any rate, there will be a consultation document at some time, followed by a debate on it, and then ultimately perhaps a scheme will be introduced. But that is several years hence. Why, if that is the case, is the hon. Lady so determined to exclude reference works?
      It is important for all authors to note that we are not simply saying that for the moment or for the time being only we arc excluding reference works. The Bill is likely to contain the principle of any scheme that is in existence for many years to come. It is the Bill that limits the scheme, and I hope that authors will understand that the Bill will prevent authors of works of reference from being allowed into the scheme.
      The hon. Lady acknowledged in Committee that the principle was inequitable. I think that she said that in equity it would be right to include reference works. But they are excluded and cannot be introduced into the scheme, and no one has told us the reason for this.
      The hon. Lady has all the time in the world in which to work out administrative techniques. But even if reference works were to be included now, there would be no obligation for the eventual scheme to include reference works. But accepting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and his hon. Friends would mean that any future Government could amend the scheme in such a way as to include reference works when the practical difficulties have been overcome in a satisfactory way.
      I think that the hon. Lady owes the House a much better explanation for introducing a Bill that discriminates against many authors and is in favour of some authors. No doubt the writers of novels would be glad of extra payment, but so would be writers of more serious works.
      We now have a situation under the Bill in which not only British but overseas novelists will benefit. Instead of its being a Bill which makes a payment to British authors who actually need the cash, it is more like a Harold Robbins benefit Bill.
      Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is pinching my words.
      Mr. Moate: I borrowed the hon. Gentleman's words and willingly give them back to him so that he can use them. But a substantial proportion of the money will go to overseas authors. The Bill gives most of the benefit to novelists and, as I have said, not only to British novelists but to overseas novelists.
      There will be great resentment on the part of serious authors who suddenly discover that most of their works are being held on the reference shelves and are not being lent out. Whether such books go on the reference or lending shelves is a matter for the librarian. In times of financial stringency when libraries are unable to buy large numbers of a publication they may say "We shall put that work on the reference shelves since it is the one we can afford because the library will want it for reference purposes." Therefore, by a whim of the librarian an author could be deprived of his public lending right.
      I hope that the Minister will say why she has refused point blank to consider any minor adaptation of the loan-based scheme. I see nothing impracticable about such a scheme embracing the sampling of reference books. The fact that she has decided to proceed with a loan-based scheme is unfair.
      Why are all those who apparently support the principle of the Bill so totally disinterested in whether justice is done to writers of serious works? Where are those supporters tonight? Admittedly, one or two of them voted with us in Committee on this matter, and indeed on one occasion there was a tie. One or two Labour Members joined us in supporting that proposition but, apart from that incident, there has been total disinterest on the part of all those who are supposed to be so interested in justice for authors. They support a Bill that is unfair to thousands of authors and excludes many serious writers.
      The Bill is also unfair to those who put many years of scholarship into their works. Those Labour Members do not appear to care. They arc prepared to see this very bad Bill go on the statute book.
      Our amendment, which seeks to extend the public lending right to reference works and not just books lent through public
      1214
      libraries, does not in any way increase public expenditure. One of my main objections to the Bill is that, despite the assurances received by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), it proposes to increase public expenditure. I regard the issuing of a post-dated cheque for a period of two or three years as an act of irresponsibility. To go on handing out post-dated cheques must be regarded as a grossly irresponsible action. But in proposing to extend this Bill to reference works I emphasise that we are not proposing any increase in public expenditure. The limit is £1 million.
      Mr. English: Not in the Bill.
      Mr. Moate: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the figure of £1 million is in the Bill.
      Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will agree that there is provision in the Bill for that figure to be increased.
      Mr. Moate: I accept that, but as the matter now stands the Bill provides for expenditure of £1 million, and if the Government seek to increase that figure it will have to be done by statutory instrument.
      Mr. English: But not by another Bill.
      Mr. Moate: The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that it would not be done by another Bill, but, instead, we would have a one-and-a-half hour debate on the proposal to increase the figure from £1 million to perhaps many more millions.
      At present it is a £1 million scheme and it is a nonsensical scheme because half of that figure will go on administration. The rest will produce, on average, a miserable £5 per author. That figure might be reduced since it has been decided to include foreign authors. Certainly if we include reference works no doubt that £5 figure will diminish, and I accept that. But it is such a small figure on average that it cannot have much relationship to authors, particularly to those who are struggling to make a living. If one were to ask authors "Should reference works be included?", they would almost unanimously say "Yes, because the present Bill is unfair''.
      8.45 p.m.
      We have been talking about the establishment of a principle. If we asked

      1215
      authors whether they wanted an unfair principle—bearing in mind that this is the only Bill they are likely to get for donkeys' years hence—or a fair principle involving a minor financial sacrifice for authors. I am sure that the overwhelming response would be that we ought to extend the Bill to reference works because that is a fair principle.
      I hope that it is understood that in supporting the amendment I am not suggesting that public expenditure should be increased. I should prefer that the Bill did not proceed at all, because that would mean very considerable savings in public expenditure, if not this year, then certainly in years ahead.
      On the sheer merit of whether money should go to novelists or to scholarly, more serious authors, it is difficult to describe different categories of author without appearing to imply some preference for one or other or suggesting that one type is better. No hon. Member would wish to do that. Although it is true that many novelists are struggling hard for survival and it is extremely difficult for them to obtain sufficient income to live, it is nevertheless also true that there is a greater chance of making a lot of money from a successful novel than there is from writing scholarly works of reference.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: Except "Erskine May".
      Mr. Moate: If it is true that "Erskine May" is making a great deal of money, I am delighted. It is a very worthy cause, but it is not directly relevant.
      The really successful novelist will benefit most from the Bill. Assuming that there is a cut-off level of £1,000, that amount will go to those authors who might also get film rights for their books and make a great deal of money. I know of an instance when several hundred thousand pounds were paid for the film rights of a British novel.
      The Bill suggests that the people who stand a chance of making a lot of money should get an extra reward, but that the person who writes a reference book—and knows he has no chance of making a great deal of money—will get no payment. It astounds me that a Government who profess such egalitarian motives
      1216
      should introduce a Bill which gives £1,000 a year to rich, successful authors who already stand a chance of making hundreds of thousands of pounds from film rights, while the struggling scholar will get nothing.
      This proposal is grossly unfair, incorporates real injustice, and involves increased public expenditure at the expense of the electors, taxpayers and ratepayers in the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Yet they are blindly going to vote for one of the most unfair measures ever put on the statute book. This is a very sad state of affairs and I hope that hon. Members opposite will surprise us. There are only four or five here who may be persuaded by argument and there are another 100 outside on the payroll vote who will troop through and do their duty, but I hope that this very worthy amendment will be carried by the House.
      Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell me where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is? Is she ill? We all understand why in Committee the Under-Secretary was unable to give us any assurances on any amendments. She is a junior Minister. Only a Cabinet Minister can give such assurances. We assumed that on Report the Secretary of State, the sponsor of the Bill, would have the grace to turn up. Is she ill? Is there some good reason for her not turning up? I take it that there is not. The Secretary of State has a great reputation, and she preserves it by keeping out of trouble when there is trouble. [Interruption.] Government Whips are supposed to be seen and not heard, but my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) says that what I have said is not very nice. I do not think that it is very nice. It is a discourtesy to the House for a Cabinet Minister in charge of the Bill not to appear.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: That may or may not be so, but it has nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I would confirm that.
      Mr. English: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, this matter has been mentioned by the Opposition, who have been attacking the

      1217
      Under-Secretary—I think unjustly—and
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Now that the matter has been brought to the attention of the House, perhaps we can deal with the amendment.
      Mr. English: The point concerned is an example of hypocrisy, just as the absence of the Cabinet Minister responsible is also an example of hypocrisy.
      Here we have a Bill designed to convey a great principle. What principle does it convey? It says that if one takes a book 10 yards from a book stack, for example, in a reference room in a public library, there is no public lending right. However, if one takes the same book 20 yards outside the door or from another book stack—it may be the same book; there are plenty of books that are in reference rooms and in the lending-out part of libraries—there is a public lending right. That is the great issue of principle, the great public lending right.
      As I have said, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) have been arguing in the public prints as to who is responsible for the Bill as between each other. As far as I am concerned, let them both be responsible. They both claim that they are responsible for a principle. What a strange principle it is. The basis of the principle is that if one borrows a book in one way there is a public lending right, but that if one borrows it in another way there is not such a right.
      There are other aspects of the Bill to which we shall come on later amendments. One has to borrow the book from a local authority library and not from a private library. One has to borrow in the ways specified—basically by whom? It is by the Under-Secretary, by the Treasury or by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke). However, there is no principle involved.
      The basic morality behind the Bill is undiscernible. Such morality as there is says that all that exists is a public lending right whereby those who cannot read or those who can read pay their taxpayers' money in order that those who can read and who borrow only from public libraries may enable some taxpayers' money to be paid towards this.
      1218
      It has been said that probably more of the books that are loaned out—to use the phrase of the Bill—are fiction than books loaned in, if one may coin that phrase, for reference purposes. Presumably, books borrowed for reference purposes are more normally non-fiction. Therefore, what the Government and the Opposition Front Bench are in effect saying is that authors of non-fiction are worth less in terms of the public, in terms of the opinion of the country at large, than authors mainly of fiction.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: No. The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents us. The whole point of what we are trying to do now is to bring justice to the generality of authors.
      Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I accept that this amendment was moved by the Opposition. He will also accept that the Opposition Front Bench voted in favour of the Bill on several occasions, not only in Committee but on Second Reading. Generally speaking, the Opposition Front Bench is in favour of the Bill, and I would imagine that even if the amendment were defeated the Opposition Front Bench would be voting for the Third Reading.
      Mr. Robert Cooke Mr. Robert Cooke indicated assent.
      Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman nods his head. I take it that I have made my point. This is a perfect example of the Back Benches against the two Front Benches. People sometimes talk about the great national coalition. Good heavens above, the only two things that the great national coalition has done recently is to pass the Public Lending Right Bill and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It did not do it under this amendment.
      Mr. English: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it is something that you will allow me to return to on. Third Reading.
      In this particular case I would accept that the amendment is moved by both factions of the Opposition—the Front Bench and its Back Bench. It is a justifiable amendment. In Committee there was a tie on this very issue.
      What possible justification can there be for saying that there is such a thing as a

      1219
      public lending right and that authors deserve some extra money and then saying that only some should get it? Like the rest of us they want more money, and they may deserve to be paid extra money for their books being borrowed. Everyone asks for more money. People do so in factories, in the British Medical Association and elsewhere. I have no objection to authors being as greedy as the rest of us and wanting more money, but in this authors' benefit Bill, if we may describe it as such, they are being given more money at a time when everyone else is subject to an incomes policy. They will be given that money only if their books are borrowed across the doorstep of the library. If their book is only taken from the shelf and looked at in the library, they will not be given the money unless this amendment is carried.
      That is the great issue of principle. It is absolutely remarkable. It is the great issue where only Germany has passed the law and no one in the world has applied it. We are saying that that principle does not apply if people only read books.
      Karl Marx, it is said, wrote his books in the British Museum Library and borrowed an enormous number of books from the shelves of the British Museum in order to do so. One is told that the references alone in the works of Marx number thousands. Had a public lending right existed at that time, no author of those books would have been paid under the Bill as it now stands. If Marx had taken one book home, which one cannot do from the British Museum Library, that would have instituted a public lending right in respect of that book. I might add that if Marx had taken the book home, because it had come from the British Museum, which is a Crown library set up by statute with a set of trustees, public lending right would not have existed. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I continued with that point.
      Here we have this great principle that authors are entitled to extra money while other people are restricted to an increase of £4 per week. That is what the Bill says. It is no good the Minister saying that the Bill is not coming into force yet. There is nothing in the Bill which
      1220
      says that it shall not come into force this year. The Bill merely says that it must not come into force until a scheme has been approved by the House of Commons, but that could be the week after Royal Assent.
      9.0 p.m.
      According to the wording of the Bill, all authors are entitled to more money because their book is lent. That is the great principle. But the principle does not apply if books are only read. It applies only if they are taken across the doorstep of the library. Some people spend a lifetime consulting works of reference and writing books which may influence the world, but if they read them sitting in a library no public lending right will be created.
      Mr. Lawson: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps like to enlighten the House about the unfairness which is meted out to the authors of reference books who have spent their lifetime compiling and writing these reference books and who, because reference books will not be taken over the portals of the library, will get nothing out of PLR? Many works which fall into this category and many others will spring readily to the hon. Gentleman's mind.
      Mr. English: I think that several hundred people spent a large part of their lifetimes constructing the Oxford English Dictionary. I believe that its first edition was in 24 volumes, and it has grown in terms of supplements since then. No one would dream of carrying 24 volumes home, but is there any reason why the trustees—I think that they are trustees—of the Oxford English Dictionary should not get some additional income? Of course there is, because the idea of the Bill is only to deal with a few individual vested interests.
      The moment that people co-operate, they will not be covered by the Bill anyway—theirs will be multi-author works. The idea is not to deal with co-operative works, which would include most reference books, but to pay off a few greedy little individuals who, when other people's incomes are restricted, want extra money.
      If two people jointly write a book, they will not get any money. If 200 people write a great work of reference, an encyclopaedia or a dictionary, because it is a work of reference they will get no

      1221
      money. The real point of the Bill is a simple public relations sop to a few vocal and greedy individuals. It is intended not to implement a principle but only to pay off people who might otherwise write nasty articles saying how nasty are the two Front Benches for not supporting this proposal.
      Mr. Lawson: I shall not intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech a third time, but has it occurred to him that this proposal is contrary to Government policy, and particularly contrary to the policy so ably enunciated by the Secretary of State for Energy, who is very much in favour of workers' co-operatives? If a workers' co-operative were to write a work, they would be discriminated against because it was a co-operative work. Surely that is a strange thing for this present Government to be introducing at this time.
      Mr. English: I am sure that I should be ruled out of order if I ventured into those waters. I would only offer the hon. Gentleman the thought that if the Institute for Policy Studies of a well-known right hon. Gentleman on his Front Bench also wrote a co-operative work, it would not get any money either. I do not think we need go into that further to suggest that a great many textbooks and works of reference are purchased and borrowed out least and that, therefore, their authors, although they may have spent their lifetime producing them, get a very small amount in copyright and will get little under this Bill.
      One of the reasons adduced by A. P. Herbert for a public lending right was precisely this point, that it is easy to write a work of fiction and sell millions of copies. The man who has the copyright can become a millionaire, as Harold Robbins has done. He may emigrate to a tax haven and collect his money. The man who spends his lifetime creating a work of reference might in the ultimate have done more for humanity but will get less in copyright because perhaps his book will survive for centuries after he is dead.
      There are still people who look up works like the "Acta Sanctorum". The hon. Member for Chelmsford probably knows that the "Acta Sanctorum" was begun in the seventeenth century. It started with 1st January and has slowly
      1222
      worked its way through the calendar. Its most recently published volume was for November, I think. It is not yet finished. It is a co-operative venture, not only among people who are now living but among people who have been dead for three centuries. No one will get any money out of that under the Bill. It consists of dozens of volumes, but that, under the Bill, is irrelevant because the Bill is not designed to deal with any work of that character. It is designed to discourage co-operative effort and to discourage works of great length or even of sheer physical weight—works that cannot be carried out of the library. Whatever their quality or virtue in the eyes of humanity, there is no public lending right for them.
      The ideal public lending right under the Bill applies to a little paper-back book put into a hard-back cover for library purposes. That book is written by the man who does not need a public lending right because he is a millionaire living in a tax haven. The man who needs a public lending right, the person who produces a work that is not often borrowed from a public library, will not get it because the Bill so dictates. If the Government accept the principle that they claim to accept under the Bill, they should in all conscience accept the amendment.
      Mr. Body: I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He should have gone a little further. He spoke of just a few greedy people getting more, but they will not get more until 1980. We are legislating now for something that will take place in 1980 although we have ample opportunity to consider a more detailed and more carefully drafted Bill between now and 1980 which would clear up some of the many anomalies that have been brought to light.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, West could have been more explicit. Essentially, it is novelists who will gain from the Bill—not the good novelists. The hon. Gentleman spoke about Harold Robbins, who lives in California. He will get the equivalent of a bottle or two of gin, but the second-rate novelist will gain.
      I gather that the Under-Secretary of State spoke only for two minutes when

      1223
      she moved the amendment. Perhaps when she replies she will enlarge on her earlier comments and tell me whether I am right in saying that 70 per cent. of the books that are purchased by public libraries are novels. Therefore, the great majority of the authors who will benefit from the scheme will be novel writers, not those who have written more serious books, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
      I appreciate that he is only the hind legs or the fore-legs of the donkey with Mr. Bruce-Gardyne. My hon. Friend is one of the more serious contributors but he will not benefit. We hope that his book will appear in public libraries, but we know as a fact—not doubt the hon. Lady will contradict me if I am wrong—that 70 per cent. of the books in public libraries are novels.
      Authors fall into three classes, two professional and one amateur. There is the one class of professional authors who make it their full-time occupation to write books and who earn a good livelihood by so doing. There is Harold Robbins, but there are many others. They do not need the support of the Exchequer as proposed by the Bill. They do not need any further supplements to their income.
      The second class is represented by the second-rate professional authors who are trying to earn a living full time but who are failing to do so.
      Thirdly, there are the amateurs, and no one can be more of an amateur in this respect—I use that work in its truest sense—than my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), who in his spare time has produced a book that adorns my bookshelves and I hope always will, a book that I dip into regularly. The amateurs produce a book and they are not concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friend is not, with the rewards of authorship. My hon. Friend is an amateur like thousands of others who have produced a book. They believe they have a book inside them worth producing and they get on and do it without any thought of financial reward.
      The Bill is concerned with the middle group, the second-class professional author. He is someone who owes an
      1224
      enormous debt to the present public library system. Let it be realised that 40 per cent. of the books that are sold go into the public library system. It must be within the knowledge of every publisher that the norm is to produce a print of about 2,000 books. If such a print is produced, one may be assured that at least 1,500 copies will go into public libraries and that the remaining 500 will be distributed to reviewers and outlets such as Smiths.
      That means—any publisher will confirm this—that hundreds of books have seen the light of day that would not otherwise have appeared. There can be no serious doubt about that. I suggest that there are a large number of novelists who are producing second-rate books. I use the description "second-rate" carefully, because they are second rate in the judgment of the public, who are not buying their books and who read them only through the public library system. Those books are seeing the light of day because of the enormous patronage that the public library system provides for the second-class author. It is that sort of author and that sort alone who will stand to gain some further benefit from the Bill. That is completely wrong.
      I go along with the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West. If we are to have some justice in the Bill, works of reference should be included. We should embrace serious books which have taken many hours and sometimes years to produce. Few copies of such books may be printed, yet they are to be found in the public libraries and they are made use of by students, research workers and serious readers. The people who will use them will not contribute directly or indirectly towards any public lending right.
      9.15 p.m.
      There is a world of difference between the writing of a work of reference and the writing of one of these second-class novels, which we hear from the novelists themselves can be produced in a fortnight and sometimes in a month. Why should they and their works be included in this scheme but not those who have set out to undertake perhaps months or years of research and who have spent many hours producing a valuable work of reference which will be appreciated by many people—a work which will be

      1225
      one of love, because anyone who produces such a book does not earn a livelihood by writing it? The injustice will be with them.
      Very few of these works give anyone a livelihood, yet these are the very authors who should be brought into the scheme. They are the very authors who are excluded. They can be included only if this amendment is accepted.
      On this occasion, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in hoping that the Government will accept this amendment. We heard from my hon. Friend how the technical investigation group had considered how books of reference could be included. Those of us who have read the report of the proceedings in Committee must feel disappointed at the Minister's failure to reply to my hon. Friend.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford quoted the report of the group in which it showed how there were two schemes which could be used to enable works of reference to be included. He quoted at length and explained cogently how the Minister was at least mistaken in her assertion that the technical investigation group was reluctant to recommend the inclusion of works of reference.
      I hope that the Minister will enlarge upon her reasons for rejecting the views of the technical investigation group. It has suggested two schemes whereby works of reference could be included. I submit that one of those schemes should be considered by the Government. If that is not possible, the hon. Lady should explain why it is not.
      Ms Maureen Colquhoun (Northampton, North): I must apologise to the House for not being present earlier in the debate. During the day I have been in my constituency dealing with an important matter.
      It had been my hope to stand aside from the debates on the Bill. However, having listened to the claptrap that has been spoken on this amendment, I feel that I must make a contribution to the debate.
      I hope that the amendment will not be accepted. I cannot see that a work of reference is a work of creativity, as a
      1226
      novel is. It has been said that novelists—and not very good ones at that- will gain from the Bill. However, authors have always suffered. They suffer from publishers. They suffer from librarians. In the House of Commons they suffer from Members of Parliament. Never have novelists been more maligned than when hon. Members decide what is first-rate and what is second-rate without laying down some kind of criteria.
      I suggest that in the case of novels it is a question of creativity and of whether people wish to read them.
      Mr. Body: That is exactly the criterion I gave. The first-class novelist has such a popular following and has such sales assured that the kind of help offered by the Bill is no help at all. On the other hand the public library system, by buying 70 per cent. novels, provides a quite good livelihood for those who are not assured of a popular following elsewhere.
      Ms Colquhoun: I do not think that is a criterion of creativity. It is disgraceful that novelists who do not earn a living from writing should be called second-rate. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what writers face in this country.
      As the wife for 28 years of an author and writer, I know that my family would not have eaten at all if it had been left to the money earned from books and novel-writing. Yet it is this kind of writing which should be encouraged. I felt I had to come here today to say to Opposition Members "You poor darling dodos, you do not know what you are talking about when you stand up and label novelists as first or second-rate according to this criterion of yours."
      Mr. Lawson: I have much sympathy with the points that the hon. Lady makes. I agree that one can learn far more about the state of society from a novel than from any Government blue book. But many important and worthwhile books are not novels. We are concerned here with the discrimination involved. For example, there is a copy of "Erskine May" at Mr. Speaker's elbow. That is hardly a novel, but it is a work of some importance.
      Ms. Colquhoun: I take the hon. Member's point but I do not entirely agree with him. I do not want to go into the

      1227
      games played with " Erskine May " in this House.
      I do not think that the criterion of capitalism—making a lot of money out of a novel—means that it is either good or bad. It is entirely a question of creativity and a matter of individual judgment.
      The public library system in this country has not helped authors. It has helped publishers. One can talk about second-rate publishers in cases where certain publishers have stifled the creative talent, but that is another debate. It is about time this House did something for authors and novelists. Many authors who are struggling to write have to earn a living in Fleet Street and journalism with some of the trashy papers. No doubt they would prefer to have peace of mind and sit at home writing a novel. Anything that will help these authors deserves support, and it ill becomes the House of Commons to set up barriers between first and second-class authors, judged on the criterion of capitalism and whether they earn enough money for their publishers.
      One of the reservations I have about the Bill concerns the libraries. Although the Bill is better than nothing, I presume that in future it can be amended. One of the things about libraries is that they have librarians who select books. This mitigates against authors, and against first-time novelists in particular. There should be a careful examination of the power of some of these officials to decide which books to buy. I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. It has nothing to do with the public lending right or creativity.
      Mr. Robert Cooke: I think that I can detect a closure when one is in the offing, and I hope that the Minister will ask leave of the House to reply to a number of the questions which have been asked and which deserve an answer.
      My purpose in speaking is to get the whole of my party into the Lobby with me. I include the critics of public expenditure, of which I am certainly one, and those who take a slightly different view on this matter. The Bill does not provide for public expenditure now, and nor is it the post-dated cheque that one of my hon. Friends described it as. In some people's eyes it may be a cheque, but there is no date upon it.
      1228
      Let me quote what the Minister said in Standing Committee. She said that the Green Paper would come first.
      "It is our intention to publish the Green Paper at some stage when … there is a prospect of sorting out the details."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 4th November 1976; c. 379.]
      That should go far enough into the future to satisfy any of my hon. Friends who are doubtful about incurring public expenditure.
      I asked the Minister shortly afterwards whether what she said was a categorical statement that there would be no expenditure under this matter until the Green Paper had been published and discussed. The Minister's reply was a plain, straight-forward "Yes", also to be found at column 379.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) made a very good point in asking just what was a reference book. A book might be a reference book in one library but not in another. In one library such books might be put in the reference department while in others they could be lent out quite freely.
      I shall not repeat all that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) said earlier—[Interruption.]—in spite of an invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) who, I gather, missed the earlier speech. I am sorry that he missed it, and I am sure that when he reads it in Hansard he, too, will be sorry that he missed it. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby will be able to make a contribution on one of the other amendments, and that he will be able to work in them the speech he was unable to make on this amendment.
      There is a real injustice in the Bill if the life's work of those who produce reference books is not to be rewarded by its provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford went through the whole question in great detail in Committee as reported in columns 197–200 of Hansard for 2nd November. It was clear from what he said that there were a number of ways in which the writers of reference books could be fairly rewarded. It could be possible for £7,800 for all purchasing points of library authorities to send clerical records of book purchases to the Registrar. On that basis it would

      1229
      be possible to reward the writers of reference books.
      9.30 p.m.
      One of my hon. Friends said that every book was lent out from a public library on average about six-and-a-half times a year. That figure was generally accepted by the House. If we want to reward the writers of reference books who have worked so hard and long, why not give them double by assuming that their books are nominally or notionally lent out twice six-and-a-half times? There are plenty of ways of rewarding these excellent people who toil away without any reward of public lending right.
      Why is there no definition in the Bill of the phrase "lent out"? I am not at all sure that the Bill, even without this amendment, would allow a scheme to be produced which could reward the writers of reference books. If the hon. Lady cannot give us the answer here, perhaps she would ponder on this matter and give us the answer between now and Third Reading. Perhaps she could get her experts to look into this matter. I believe that the phrase "lent out", not being defined, leaves us a loophole to produce a scheme by which we could reward writers of reference books. If a book is taken off the shelf by an assistant and handed
      to a customer, that could easily be construed in law as being "lent out".
      Having made a number of suggestions and encapsulated the ideas of some of my hon. Friends, I hope that the Minister will address herself to this problem and give us some hope that the Government will at last see the light of day and accept this reasonable proposal.
      Mr. Speaker: The question is, That the amendment be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
      Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not at least a courtesy to the House that the Minister should reply to the debate? If she is not prepared to reply, is it possible for you to allow me to catch your eye to take the time which you, in your mind, had allocated to the Minister and which she does not wish to use?
      Mr. Speaker: I must be honest. I had it allocated any time in my mind. I as in the process of putting the not was in Question.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 125.

      Division No. 408.]

      AYES

      [9.32 p.m.

      Beith, A. J.

      James, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Biggs-Davison, John

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Body, Richard

      Lamont, Norman

      Silvester, Fred

      Bottomley, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Brotherton, Michael

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Spence, John

      Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Sproat, Iain

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Moate, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      English, Michael

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Faulds, Andrew

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Page, John (Harrow West)

      Mr. David Walder and

      Grist, Ian

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Mr. Nigel Lawson.

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Hannam, John

      NOES

      Archer, Peter

      Coleman, Donald

      Flannery, Martin

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Concannon, J. D.

      George, Bruce

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Corbett, Robin

      Golding, John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cowans, Harry

      Gould, Bryan

      Bagler, Gordon A. T.

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hardy, Peter

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Crawford, Douglas

      Harper, Joseph

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bean, R. E.

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Hooley, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Dempsey, James

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Doig, Peter

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Buchan, Norman

      Edge, Geoff

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Carmichael, Nell

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lamble, David

      Cohen, Stanley

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lamond, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Perry, Ernest

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Stoddart, David

      Litterick, Tom

      Richardson, Miss Joe

      Strang, Gavin

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Thompson, George

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Tierney, Sydney

      McElhone, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Tinn, James

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Madden, Max

      Roper, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Magee, Bryan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Marquand, David

      Ryman, John

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Maynard, Miss Joan

      Sandelson, Neville

      Weetch, Ken

      Mendelson, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv ME)

      Whilehead, Phillip

      MiIIan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Whillock, William

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Newens, Stanley

      Small, William

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Noble, Mike

      Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

      Woodall, Alec

      Ogden, Eric

      Snape, Peter

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Pardoe, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Mr. Alf Bates and

      Park, George

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Parker, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 10, at end insert:
      and by such other libraries as may from time to time be stipulated by the Secretary of State'.
      Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:
      No. 47, in Clause 3, page 3, line 41, leave out from ' from' to end of line 2 and insert' libraries '.
      No. 48, in Clause 3, page 3, line 44, leave out from 'any' to 'and' in line 46 and insert:
      "library lending works to members of the general public including such as may form themselves into a group or body wholly or in part for the purpose of borrowing books from libraries '.
      No. 50, in Clause 3, page 3, line 46, leave out 'and' and insert:
      (b) any collection of works held by any other library which the Secretary of State may stipulate under section 1 of this Act; and'.
      No. 58, in Clause 3, page 4, line 15, after 'authorites', insert:
      'or to any other libraries which the Secretary of State may from time to time stipulate under section 1 of this Act'.
      No. 77, in Clause 3, page 5, line 40, at end insert 'or set up any other statute'.
      Mr. St. John-Stevas: The amendment is pan passu with the other two that we have been discussing this evening. None of them involves any increase in public expenditure. None of them involves any immediate extension in the scope of the Bill. The amendment seeks to increase
      the powers of the Minister so that when the scheme is formulated it will be possible to include libraries other than the libraries defined in the Bill.
      No one is saying that when the first scheme comes out every library should be included. But there is a very close definition of "library" in the Bill. It is contained in Clause 3(4). It reads:
      "For this purpose, 'library'—(a) means any one of a local library authority's collections of works held by them for the purpose of being borrowed by the public; and (b) includes any such collection which is taken about from place to place."
      In other words, it confines the Bill to local libraries, and there may well be a place in future days for extension to other libraries. There may be a case for including university libraries, for including certain reference libraries, and for including school libraries.
      It would be possible to include reference libraries providing that the books were lent out. The very prescient point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke) is that reference books, despite the defeat of the amendment—which was so nobly supported from both sides of the House although not in sufficient number—may well be covered by the Bill. We shall have to let the High Court decide that in due course.
      I hope for the Under-Secretary's sake that she does not find herself in the same position as her former boss, the present Secretary of State for Defence, found himself over Tameside. This does not oblige the Secretary of State in any way to increase the number of libraries covered by the Bill. It is an enabling

      1233
      clause. I am sure that the point is not lost on the hon. Lady and that she realises what is involved.
      I dare say that we shall have the same arguments trotted out with no regard to logic or relevance, but we get used to that in this House and it is part of the penalty of being a Member. Nevertheless I still hope, without any great expectation, that the hon. Lady may have changed her mind. My hopes are always greater than my expectation, but it may come about that one's expectations are greater than one's hopes. That would indeed be a revolutionary situation.
      However, I resign myself to hearing those same arguments again delivered by the hon. Lady in those mellifluous tones which have, if not persuaded us, occasionally soothed the irritation we feel at hearing arguments which have already been demolished by the Opposition put forward once again by the Minister in a departmentalise, with which we have become all too familiar. I hope that, as the night wears on, the hon. Lady will become more co-operative. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear Hear."] Perhaps I could have phrased that a little more felicitously. I look forward to hearing her say that she is prepared to accept this amendment.
      Miss Margaret Jackson: I wish to assure the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) that I am deeply resigned to hearing him and his hon. Friends repeat their argument. It is a resignation which has been singularly well fulfilled this evening.
      We debated this amendment in Committee at great length. On this occasion the proposers of the amendment are happy to leave the discretion to the Secretary of State. I thank them for their confidence in my right hon. Friend. But, as they are aware, we have already explained our reasons for confining the Bill to books lent out from public libraries. I shall reiterate those reasons briefly, even though hon. Members have heard them before.
      Mr. Lawson: When?
      Miss Jackson: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, but I gather that he read what went on there.
      Mr. Lawson: Will the Minister give way?
      Miss Jackson: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has developed a habit of popping in and out of the Chamber in an effort to speak when he thinks that the Opposition are running out of speakers. If he is prepared to stay here the whole time and to be as bored as the rest of us, I might be prepared to give way to him.
      Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Lady give way on a constitutional point?
      Miss Jackson: No.
      Mr. Lawson: Then will she give way on a non-constitutional point?
      Miss Jackson: No.
      In the meantime there are a great many other types of library, but most of them fall into one of two main categories—the private and commercial libraries and those in educational and academic institutions. Even among those libraries it is possible to argue that there is no coherent group other than public libraries. Each has a somewhat different aim and approach. To bring them within the scope of the Bill would probably necessitate a different approach to each of the institutions involved. It would certainly necessitate an approach to the general groups, and that would be a different approach from that adopted in the Bill.
      Indeed, the technical investigation group did not examine either of the two main categories, and a great deal of research would have to be done to obtain sufficient information about each of them. It is possible that it would have to be handled on an individual basis. In any case, since most organisations are restricted to limited membership or to particular institutions, they fall outside the scope of what is designated as a public lending right.
      However, the major point, as was said at length in Committee, is that the Bill deals with a sample of public libraries and with books loaned by them. To extend the scheme in any of the ways so ingeniously proposed by some hon. Members opposite would complicate it, make it more difficult to operate and much more costly.
      Some hon. Members argued in Committee—though they have been more reticent on this point on the Floor of the

      1235
      House—that the cost of administering the scheme was a major factor in their discontent. There is no question that extending the scheme in the way proposed in this amendment and others would incur substantial extra costs for little if any extra gain.
      On those grounds, I ask the House to reject this amendment as it has rejected the others.
      Mr. Body: Could the hon. Lady enlarge on the extra costs involved? She said in Committee that it would be extremely costly and she has repeated that argument tonight. We accept that, but we are not in a position to judge what the extra costs will be. There must have been some calculations made by her Department or the technical investigation group. Can she give us some information so that we may form a judgment about the costs?
      Miss Jackson: One of the reasons which led us to conclude that there would be substantially increased costs is that there is little information available from the group or the archives of the Department about these libraries, the job they do, the scope of their operations and how they would be affected. All that research work would have to be done before we could even consider bringing them into the scheme, and such investigations are costly.
      Most hon. Members have avoided dealing with this point so far tonight, but it is accepted that the cost of administering even the limited scheme which we propose will be 40 per cent. of the money which is likely to be available. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) will see the unwisdom of extending it further.
      Mr. Lawson: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye. It proved a little harder on a previous debate and I am glad that it was easier this time.
      Until the speech we have just heard from the Under-Secretary, I thought of her as one of the abler members of the present Administration, but I have seldom heard a more pathetic and inept speech
      than that which she has just produced in an attempt to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas).
      I do not blame her personally; it was clear to all hon. Members in the Chamber that she was devotedly reading the brief given to her by officials. I counsel her, however, to remember that there are occasions when perhaps it is better to speak from the heart—this is something which you well understand, Mr. Speaker and which the hon. Lady may come to learn—instead of going through the arid, jargon-filled briefs which mean little, ii anything, and which sound appalling.
      The hon. Lady appealed to us at one point by saying that if the amendment were approved—and she had no other argument—it would increase the administrative expenses of the scheme. It is right that we who support the amendment should address ourselves to this point. In a sense, the hon. Lady understated her case. She said that the administrative expenses would be 40 per cent. of the money which came from the central fund.
      Mr. English: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Lawson: I shall certainly give way to the hon. Member who is Chairman of the General Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee. I am happy to sit as a member of that Sub-Committee under his chairmanship.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will realise, of course, that his point is even stronger than he has made it, in that in Committee the Under-Secretary refused an amendment designed to restrict administrative expenses to a mere 40 per cent.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the Public Lending Right Bill [Lords]
  may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[[Mr. Bales.]
  The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 9.

  Division No. 409]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Archer, Peter

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

  Bates, Alf

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Atkinson, Norman

  Bean, R. E.

  Ashton, Joe

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Berth, A. J.

  Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

  Hooley, Frank

  Roderick, Caerwyn

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rodgers, George (Chorley)

  Bollomley, Peter

  Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Roper, John

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  James, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Buchan, Norman

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ryman, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Cohen, Stanley

  Jopling Michael

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Coleman, Donald

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

  Lamble, David

  Short, Mrs Ranée (Wolv NE)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Lamont, Norman

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Cowans, Harry

  Lawson, Nigel

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Small, William

  Crawford, Douglas

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough

  Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Litterick, Tom

  Snape, Peter

  Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cryer, Bob

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallard, A. W.

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Madden, Max

  Stradiing Thomas, J.

  Dempsey, James

  Magee, Bryan

  Sirang, Gavin

  Doig, Peter

  Marks, Kenneth

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marquand, David

  Thompson, George

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Mendelson, John

  Tierney, Sydney

  Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Urwin, T. W.

  Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

  Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

  Moyle, Roland

  Weetch, Ken

  Flannery, Martin

  Newens, Stanley

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Forrester, John

  Noble, Mike

  Whitehead, Phillip

  George, Bruce

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Golding, John

  Page, John (Harrow West)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

  Gould, Bryan

  Pardoe, John

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Park, George

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Gray, Hamish

  Parker, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Perry, Ernest

  Woodall, Alec

  Hannam, John

  Rees, Rt Hon Meriyn (Leeds S)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-

  Hardy, Peter

  Richardson. Miss Jo

  Mr. David Sloddart and

  Harper, Joseph

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr. James Tinn.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Robinson, Geoffrey

  NOES

  Benyon, W.

  Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

  Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Moate, Roger

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Brotherton, Michael

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Mr. Michael English and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mr. Richard Body.

  Qustion accordingly agreed to.

  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [LORDS]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Lawson: I am delighted that the House has decided that we should continue this debate, if only because I was on my feet and I shall be able to complete my contribution, although my train of thought has been somewhat arrested. I think I was saying that the Minister had raised the question of the administrative costs. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has pointed out how all over the place she was when she had refused in Committee to accept a particular limitation, not a very narrow or restrictive limitation, on the administrative costs.
  1238
  The hon. Lady said in her speech that the administrative costs would be 40 per cent. I think that the 40 per cent. came from the estimates in the report of the technical investigation group, which said that it would cost £400,000, and the fact that the main clause of the Bill is to put £1 million of taxpayers' money into the Central Fund. I think that it would have been right for the hon. Lady to point out—she will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think I am—that the estimate of £400,000 administrative costs, even if it were correct and given in good faith, was in 1975 pounds. Therefore, in present money the administrative costs would be nearer £500,00 than £400,000, whereas the £1 million remains where it is. Therefore, the administrative costs can be even higher as a percentage of what is available to be distributed and, therefore, what is left over for the authors is even less.

  1239
  But we must look at this more closely. We must look at two different aspects which the hon. Lady rightly raised. The first question is: what are the administrative costs, and is it sensible for us to go for a more costly scheme in the interests of equity and fairness and other values which we hold dear—for example, including the other libraries, which we regard as being of the first importance? The second question is: who is to bear the costs, not merely the administrative costs but the costs of the whole scheme?
  It is not surprising the hon. Lady is so sensitive on the question of administrative costs when under this scheme the costs have to be paid for by the taxpayer whether he likes it or not, irrespective of whether he borrows a book and whether he can read a book. It would be different—this is a lesson that the hon. Lady might learn—if the thing were financed, as it should be, from library charges. Not now, but later this evening, we must get at the great myth that the free public library is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be assailed, assaulted or eroded.
  We must deal with that because it is at the core of the Bill. Had the hon. Lady said that this would be financed from library charges, fines, dues, subscriptions and so on, so that the whole scheme would be self-financing, an extra administrative cost for the sake of equity would be supportable. Indeed, the amount available to the authors would have been more. In the long run, authors would get far more if what they got was dependent upon what people were prepared to pay as a modest charge for borrowing library books than if they had to depend on the good will of a Scrooge-like Treasury, as they must under the Bill. Authors would do far better, the scheme would be self-financing and there would be no excess of public expenditure. I am concerned that there should be no increased public expenditure.
  10.15 p.m.
  The hon. Lady said that to extend the libraries covered would increase administrative costs. One thinks first of the Library of the House of Commons, of university and college libraries throughout the country which are particularly dear to the hon. Lady's heart—
  Mr. Ian Gow: Will my hon. Friend direct his mind to a crucial element in the amendment? As it stands, the discretion is vested in the Secretary of State. Does not my hon. Friend think that it is important to divest the Executive of powers of this kind and to stipulate in the Bill exactly which libraries would have the additional powers to charge?
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is on to a very good point. I did not draft the amendment. Although I shall support it because it is an improvement on the Bill, I agree that the amendment is defective in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
  Because of the inherent vagueness, the libraries that the Secretary of State happens to favour can be included and those which he disfavours can be excluded. That is why the hon. Lady was able to say that, although there will be extra administrative costs, it is impossible to say what they will be. It is also impossible to specify the libraries. That is a slightly circular argument, because if the Secretary of State is to decide upon the libraries one would think that the junior Minister representing the Secretary of State would be able to say which libraries they will be. Alas, precision is lacking in the amendment because that information was not forthcoming. Nevertheless the amendment represents an improvement to the Bill.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is not present. His contributions to our debate are so good that we are always sorry when he is not here.
  Dr. Keith Hampson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will glance to his left.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the only part of the House we know.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford is perhaps with us in spirit but not in any other sense. Because I wished to take part in the Report stage, I read the Committee's proceedings with great care. What made those proceedings less interesting was that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made so few contributions to the debate. That is a matter of great regret to me, knowing as I do the deep interest he has had in this subject over a long time.

  1241
  The Under-Secretary chided me earlier and said that she had made all these remarks. I attempted to intervene but she did not give way. That is her right, and I do not complain. It is important for the hon. Lady to realise that many Members—indeed, the overwhelming majority—were not members of the Committee. It is unacceptable for her to say that because she made certain remarks or gave certain explanations in Committee she need not make them on the Floor of the House. In fact, they should be made on the Floor. That is the purpose of Report—namely, to enable the arguments to be deployed on the Floor of the House. For the rest of the evening's debate, let us make it clear that something that was said to a small coterie in Committee must be uttered on the Floor if the hon. Lady wishes the point to be made.
  Mr. Body: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the hon. Lady to make perfunctory remarks? In an earlier debate she spoke for only two minutes. From what one could gather it was a good argument, but we never heard what it was.
  Mr. Lawson: It is clear that the hon Lady is ineffably bored by the briefs she is being served. I cannot blame her, but she has a duty to perform. This is an important Bill and she must conquer her boredom, which I concede is natural boredom. If only she will try to speak from the heart, maybe she will be able to become a little more enthusiastic and will find it possible to speak longer and more fully.
  There are various other libraries that are meant to be included if the amendment is carried. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford alluded to reference libraries. This is worth exploring because there seems to be some lack of clarity about whether reference books are included. It has been said that this will be a matter for the High Court to decide. Surely that is an expensive way of settling a simple issue. If the hon. Lady will settle it for us clearly this evening, she will save a lot of expensive litigation.
  Miss Margaret Jackson: Perhaps I am getting a little absent-minded in my old age, but I understood that we had settled that issue when dealing with the previous amendment.
  Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Lady thinks that, she is becoming a little deaf in her maturing years. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford quite clearly mentioned that arising from the previous debate there was a lack of clarity about the position of reference books. Maybe the hon. Lady is becoming confused. There are reference books that are consulted in libraries and there are reference books that are taken out of libraries. Are reference books included? I distinctly heard it said that that would be a matter for the High Court to decide. When that was said, the hon. Lady did not utter a word of dissent. There is confusion, and it is part of her function to clear it up. I hope that she will do so.
  Animadverting to reference libraries, which it is said will be included if the amendment is carried, we come back to the issue that I developed on an earlier amendment—namely, magazines. Surely serious magazines should be accepted. Many of them, such as the New Statesman and the Spectator—the latter is a better magazine but I am prepared to put it in alphabetical order—are to be found in reference libraries, in reference sections of public libraries, in university libraries or in the House of Commons Library, the libraries that we are talking about in the amendment.
  The hon. Lady said earlier that magazines would not be included. She said that they are not books although she could not give us a definition of a book. I must point out to her—she probably does not know this—that many ordinary working people talk about books when they are referring to magazines. For many printers, compositors and others who work in the printing trade, it is the custom to refer to a magazine as a book. The confusion can be put right only by a definition that the hon. Lady has so far failed to provide for the House. She has proceeded in a rather cavalier manner.
  Having announced at an early stage that she was about to give us the definition of a book, the hon. Lady later announced that there will not be such a definition because it is not possible to make one. That was not a very satisfactory answer, especially after the expectations which she had aroused in

  1243
  our breasts that she was about to unburden herself of a definition of "book". As I say, this is rather important because among different social groups the word "book" has different connotations and different meanings.
  It is astonishing that there should be this discrimination between the so-called public libraries and the libraries of our universities and other institutions and the Library of the House of Commons. The argument that an author should have some recompense for books of his which are borrowed but not bought must apply with equal force if those books are borrowed from university libraries, technical college libraries, school libraries, the Library of the House of Commons, the Library of the House of Lords or whatever it may be.
  It is astonishing that the Minister has given us no argument to justify the distinction which she draws except the one of administrative convenience. That is not good enough. We in this House are concerned with matters of principle. It is no good the hon. Lady saying that it is administratively inconvenient to include these other classes of library and, therefore, that the authors of books which are borrowed from them should not be included.
  1244
  The Minister should address herself to matters of principle instead of getting bogged down in the boring and almost irrelevant matters of technical convenience which her advisers serve up to her. She should also reflect on the origins of the public library. The origins were not to entertain. I have no prejudices against entertainment, but the origins of the public library were to instruct, to improve, to educate and to edify. They were very serious and high-minded origins. By discriminating now in favour of the public library but against the academic library, the university library the school library, the technical college library and the libraries of our great institutions of learning, the Minister is turning the whole matter on its head and saying that the purpose for which public libraries were originally introduced, constituted and set up should be actively subverted by the Bill.
  If the Minister accepts the amendment, she will go at least some way towards redressing the balance and towards keeping in tune with the high-minded principles—principles which we should not sneer about today—which led to the public library movement in the first place. It is a movement which I am sure the Minister and her right hon. and hon. Friends feel is still worthy of support.
  Mr. Gow: I have no wish to prejudice the outstanding career which awaits the Under-Secretary, but I find myself in substantial agreement with her remarks. Unusually, I find myself in respectful disagreement with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), for reasons which I shall explain. I am opposed to the principles behind the Bill because, at present, any measure which adds to public expenditure and which increases the number of people employed in non-productive work should be rejected by the House.
  As it stands, the Bill at least has the merit of being more restrictive of manpower and of money than would be the case if the amendment were accepted. I have a profound objection to the amendment because, if passed, it would confer more power on the Executive, without any element of parliamentary control. We would be giving the Secretary of State a further element of patronage. It would enable the Secretary of State to say that if a certain library lent a book there should be a public lending right, whereas if another library lent it there should not be that right. I am suspicious of increasing the power given to the Executive to make decisions which are not subject to parliamentary control.
  10.30 p.m.
  Clause 1(1) states that the public lending right will be payable when works are lent by local library authorities. This, again, is a sign of the times. If we look at the definition clause, we find that it imposes a restriction to libraries under the control of local authorities—in England and Wales on the one hand, in Scotland on the other, and in Northern Ireland in the third case. There is a perpetual concentration on libraries which are under the control or approval of local or central Government.
  Mr. Lawson: I am not quite clear which side my hon. Friend is on. Will he support the amendment on the ground that we are trying to widen the scope beyond that of local authority libraries?
  Mr. Gow: That is an important point which I shall answer presently. My anxiety is that the Secretary of State will use the discretion conferred on her
  1246
  by the amendment to go beyond local library authorities to libraries which are in one way or another under the control of Ministers. I do not want to give that power to the Secretary of State, and I do not approve of exclusivity of local authorities. One could say that I am arguing against both the Bill and the amendment.
  In singling out local authority libraries as the sole bodies from which there should be derived a lending right, the Government are predictably giving preferential treatment to libraries within what is colloquially called the State sector. I am wholly opposed to any measure that will add to public expenditure at this time, but if we are to add to public expenditure it is quite wrong to say that authors will receive the public lending right only if their books are borrowed from libraries in the public sector. Equally, to extend this, as the amendment would, is wrong too, because it would vest discretion in the Secretary of State. Far too many discretions are already vested in the Secretary of State, and it is time that this House began to assert its rights of control over the Executive.
  When we vote on the amendment in a few hours' time, I shall vote against it. If the House votes for it, it will provide a greater opportunity for increasing public expenditure. If the Secretary of State were entitled to extend the provisions of subsection (1) to further libraries, the cost to public funds would be even greater.
  Mr. Lawson: I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Whatever happens, the amount of expenditure under the Bill is limited to £1 million. Although the Secretary of State can by Statutory Instrument increase that sum with the approval of both Houses of Parliament, that applies equally whether or not the Bill is extended to cover other libraries.
  Mr. Gow: I accept that, but the possibility of using up the £1 million annually is increased if the number of libraries in respect of which the money is payable is increased. If the number of libraries is restricted, it is possible that the entire amount will not be used.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: We obtained the sum of £1 million in 1973 when I was

  1247
  the Minister responsible. Thanks to the tall in the value of the pound, I imagine that that sum has depreciated by 30 or 40 per cent. There has, therefore, already been a heavy reduction in real terms. My hon. Friend should allow for that when he is concerned about public expenditure. There would be a case for an amendment to increase the sum by 40 per cent., and the Government would introduce it if they wanted to give the Bill the same priority as the Conservative Government gave it.
  Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is developing a most dangerous argument. I find myself in profound but respectful disagreement with him. One of my anxieties is that if we agree to £1 million today, a subsequent Secretary of State—even my hon. Friend, who in most other respects is eminently sound—would increase it. My hon. Friend fails to understand that the Government are borrowing £1,000 million a month, £250 million a week, £35 million a day. My hon. Friend says that we should make an exception in the case of the public lending right. But in public finance we need to show an iron resolve, and we must ensure, even with the authors, who may have been hard done by, as with all other claimants on the public purse, that consistency of purpose which it 13 essential to follow if not only authors but the nation generally are not to be put into bankruptcy.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was most impressed by the Churchillian tone of my hon. Friend's remarks. However, he must realise that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has already made it plain that the principle of cutting public expenditure is subject to exceptions. One exception is national defence. The others are national security and care for the needy. Authors may well come into that last category since they are one of the least-well-off sections of the community. But surely, just as during the war an exception was made for the arts, there is a case in these grave economic crisis that the arts should be afforded special treatment.
  Mr. Gow: I do not wish to act as umpire between my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Who am I to assume that role?
  1248
  As I have been asked for my view on the matter, I shall not flinch from giving an answer. My answer is that when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) made that very moving and powerful oration at the Conservative Party conference last month, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford will have listened and which was subsequently endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he made it clear that the three areas of public expenditure which would be sacrosanct when my right hon. Friend formed her first Administration, would be external defence, internal security and those in the community who are in real and dire need.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford should not plead his special case, because herein lies the real danger to the economic purity of the next Administration. My hon. Friend knows about purity. Indeed, he is a pure man. The economic purity of the next Administration—I choose my word carefully—depends on our not succumbing to special pleading. If authors fall into the category of those in special need, defined by my right hon. and learned Friend, they will be protected under that category, not by virtue of the fact that they are authors.
  Therefore, without wishing to embarrass the Minister, I shall be voting against the amendment and in favour of the clause unamended while at the same time disapproving of the whole principle of the Bill.
  Mr. Body: We have 11 more debates ahead of us.
  Mr. Lawson: And Third Reading.
  Mr. Body: And Third Reading. Therefore, perhaps we should make shorter speeches if we are to get tomorrow's business.
  I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has cottoned on to some of the facts behind the Bill. Does he realise that nothing will happen until 1980?
  Mr. Gow: Yes, I do.
  Mr. Body: My hon. Friend must agree that before then the pound will have continued its inexorable downward slide.
  Mr. Gow: Does my hon. Friend agree that before 1978 is out there will be another Administration on the Government Benches? Does he further agree that the moment that becomes a possibility, let alone a reality, the pound will rise dramatically?
  Mr. Body: No, because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. We are dealing with an amendment. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would confine himself to the amendment.
  Mr. Body: But this is germane to what we are discussing, Mr. Depnty Speaker. As a monetarist, my hon. Friend will surely agree that there will be a two-year time lag, so that whatever is done in 1976 will be reflected in 1978. Even if we had a new Administration now which included my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and others, they could do nothing to prevent the continuing decline of the pound certainly for the next year.
  The cost of administering the scheme will mount up because, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is aware, the Bill proposes that there should be 35 to 40 civil servants or officials to administer it, and it is unthinkable that from 1978 onwards they would be paid as little as they would be paid now. One can therefore forecast that the cost of administration will be not the 40 per cent. assured to us by the Minister but a figure in excess of that.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the amendment.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You did not have the privilege of being in the Chamber when the Minister, in her opening speech, rested her case on the administrative costs involved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I regret that I did not hear the Minister, but I would still like the hon. Gentleman to keep to the amendment.
  Mr. Body: We are concerned about whether we should limit the scheme to public libraries. I do not have to convince you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the
  1250
  whole of the cost of the public library system is borne by public funds. The taxpayer and ratepayer pay the whole of the revenue needed for the public library system.
  In the interests of the authors we must ask whether we can be sure that by 1980, when the scheme comes into operation, the public library system will be in as healthy a state as it is today. It is possible that there will be a dire, I will not say economic Armageddon, but a financial crash. If that happens, the public library system will be one of the branches of the public sector the future of which will be in danger. The public library system will be one of the first candidates for the surgical cuts that will be necessary in the event of such a financial crash.
  Mr. Lawson: Unless there are charges.
  Mr. Body: As my hon. Friend says, unless there are charges. I look forward to the day when there are charges in the public library system. Those who use public libraries are, of course, literate and are usually those who are fortunate in being among the better educated, and yet they will get the advantage of expenditure made available by the taxation of both the literate and the illiterate. Every ratepayer and taxpayer will have to contribute to a system of which only a minority will be beneficiaries.
  I suggest that by 1980 we might well see a severe cut-back in the public library system which might open up opportunities for the libraries which have gone out of business in your lifetime. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could give a long list of such libraries, which would include Smith's, Boots and Mudie's, as well as many other lesser chains in different parts of the country which have been driven out of business by the public library system. Harrods has survived, but most commercial libraries have gone out of business—a matter of regret to many of us. There may be an opportunity for them to come back into business. If they do, the books they buy and the authors whose works they acquire will be outside the scheme.
  To start preparing in 1976 for a scheme for 1980 when conditions may be different is wholly wrong. The Minister must give thought to that. She would be very bold if she said we could be sure that

  1251
  by 1980 the public library system would be buying books of the same kind as now and that the same authors would be benefiting from their patronage. That is not unlikely, but I think she would agree that it is less than probable.
  Therefore, I urge the hon. Lady to a course that would enable the Bill to be wider. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that the amendment would give still more patronage to the Secretary of State, giving the power to select whether Harrods, Mudie's, Boots or whatever else should be included, to say "I like you. You are a good chain of libraries. We shall include you but exclude another." That is a kind of patronage that the House should not give to any Minister. But the amendment has a great deal of merit, and I hope that the hon. Lady will consider it sympathetically and give a reply different from the one she gave in Committee.
  Mr. Moate: I support the amendment. I entirely accept the criticism of it made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), but I feel that it is an acceptable compromise. In Committee I tabled an amendment seeking to include all libraries. That did not mean that one would have immediately to incorporate all libraries within the scheme, but it would have enabled the scheme to be drawn up with the possibility of taking a sample from all libraries. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was on a par with the one now before us, providing this power of discretion to the Secretary of State. There was a Division in Committee, resulting in a tie, and the matter was resolved by the Chairman's casting vote. That is why we are again debating the question.
  Despite my inclination towards the more comprehensive amendment and my reluctance to give discretionary power to the Secretary of State, I felt it right to compromise with my hon. Friends and produce an amendment that we genuinely thought might be acceptable to the Government. I am very disappointed that once against the Under-Secretary has rejected the proposition.
  1252
  It was suggested earlier that the hon. Lady was bored with the proceedings. I think that she referred to the tedium of hearing the same speeches over and over again. If she is bored—I have some sympathy with her—it is to a certain extent a self-inflicted boredom. I suspect that she is bored because she knows that she could be doing many better things with her time, dealing with more important matters relating to education. I suspect that she is bored because she has been told to say "No" to every amendment and is prepared to offer no significant contribution to the debates. It is not her fault but the fault of the brief she has been given by the Secretary of State.
  Is it surprising that the hon. Lady is bored and unresponsive when she has been told to say "No. There must be no amendments, no matter what the merits of a particular proposition might be"? Some might say that that is consistency. I would say that it is repetition to the point of tedium. I am surprised that the hon. Lady is even awake to listen to her own arguments, if that is the right word for the case that she puts.
  The amendment is important, and the reason why we had a tie in Committee, after an extensive debate, was that it was regarded as a fairly fundamental matter. The fact that we debated these matters at length—although two or three hours on a matter of this importance is not particularly long—is an indication that this is an issue relating to the fairness of the scheme.
  On previous amendments we have argued that the scheme is very unfair to a large number of authors. It has been argued by some of my hon. Friends—I think from the wrong viewpoint—that it is unfair to certain libraries because they might be excluded from the scheme. I ask them—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who momentarily is not with us—to reconsider that point. I would say to my hon. Friend that it is not an advantage to the libraries to be included in the scheme. The fairness of including them lies in the fact that they would then have to share the burden of administration, which as the Bill stands will fall exclusively on the local library authorities.

  1253
  What seems to me to be grossly unfair is that this burden should fall solely on the public sector and not be distributed equally among all libraries. That is certainly one argument in favour of extending the Bill to cover all libraries, or at least to allow the Secretary of State to include other libraries when she thinks fit. But the real fundamental argument in favour of the amendment, and against the Bill as it stands at present, is that the Bill produces a grossly distorted sample. It is unfair to all authors if one restricts the Bill solely to the local library authorities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne argued that it would increase public expenditure if the scheme were extended to include libraries other than those at present covered by the Bill, namely, the local authority libraries. I think, with respect, that he was wrong on that point. The Bill is quite absolute in its present limitation of £1 million. Obviously it would be nonsensical if the whole £1 million went on administration, although, nonsensical as it might seem, we might get to that situation. Nevertheless it is limited to £1 million, and we are primarily concerned with getting a principle on to the statute book.
  One could extend that argument ad absurdum and have the whole £1 million spent on administration, but the authors would not worry because at least they have the principle on the statute book. Who knows, but the time we get to 1980–81 the salaries of the 20 to 25 staff, plus the registrar, might be up to that level, and the Government would still be adhering to the limit of £1 million. If the value of the pound has dropped by 40 per cent. since my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford secured the £1 million, as he proudly proclaims. I have no doubt that the staff and administration costs will have gone up by 40 per cent. Therefore the scheme looks somewhat nonsensical.
  I do not think that we should make the scheme less fair because of the possibility of the administration costs going up by a small percentage. It would be merely a small percentage to extend the scheme to cover other libraries.
  The hon. Lady has made a great point about the cost of administration. She says that it would be virtually unwork-
  1254
  able to extend the scheme to cover libraries outside the local authority system. She then tells us that the technical investigation group has never investigated this. I find it extraordinary that the Government base their whole scheme on what the technical investigation group has reported. They say that at last they have a practical working scheme because the TIG has produced the answers.
  11.0 p.m.
  When we come to analyse the scheme and ask whether the group has considered other libraries, we are told that it has not done so because it would be impracticable. But if the Minister has come to the conclusion that a scheme is practicable enough to bring forth a group report, how can she then say that it is impracticable if she has not asked anybody to make a proper study of the possibilities?
  I wish to emphasise how defective the Bill is since it relates only to local authority libraries. The Minister said in Committee that there were 6,500 public library service points, plus about another 6,000 library service units for hospitals, old people's homes and the like, giving a total of 12,500 outlets. She then said " Although we have 12,500 library service points, it would be impossible to extend the scheme to cover the few hundred other major libraries outside local authority systems." She did not say why but implied that they were one-off libraries.
  Mr. Nott: Some private libraries in my constituency concern themselves with a whole host of interesting matters relating to local history and local mythology—matters of great importance to the people of Cornwall. But is it being said that those matters are not to be taken into account in deciding whether an author should receive something out of this odd Bill, which I am seeking to understand, and that only public libraries which concern themselves with novels of the cheaper kind are to receive income from the Bill? Is that the case? I was not a member of the Committee, but I am trying to understand the Bill.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has concisely summed up the defects of the Bill. He is absolutely right. The arguments which he applies to local specialists also

  1255
  apply to some of the greatest libraries in the land. A little earlier in our discussion the Bill was described as the "Harold Robbins Benefit Bill". The fact that it is limited to public libraries and district libraries emphasises this point. We have been told that 70 per cent. of the lendings by local libraries relate to works of fiction. We do not intend to disparage fiction or to deny the rights of fiction writers to their proper reward, but that is not a fair reflection of the literature of this country.
  The Government are adamantly refusing to allow other libraries to be introduced to bring in the more serious works involving a great deal of research in order to ensure that there is a fair sample. The fairness of the sample is all-important to a scheme based on a sampling system of libraries throughout the country.
  We have been told that the Bill seeks to bring justice to authors, but each time we put forward a proposition to make the system fairer the Government say that we cannot change the Bill. Indeed, the Government have not accepted one amendment. They are so convinced that the scheme is perfect that even when we put forward an amendment that will not cause any increase in public expenditure they still say "No.".
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman should not blame the Minister personally. As I have said before, junior Ministers cannot accept amendments and the senior Minister responsible is too frightened to be here.
  Mr. Moate: The last thing I wish is to be unfair to the Under-Secretary. The hon. Gentleman is right. She represents the Government, and I apologise if I have attributed to her all the faults of the Government. That is too great a burden to place on any one person's shoulders. But, sadly for the hon. Lady she represents the Government's view on this extraordinary Bill. I suspect that deep in her heart she regrets it, just as many hon. Members regret that we have this legislation at all. They and the nation regard it as lunacy that, at a time of crisis in our affairs, we should spend time debating a Bill which proposes to increase public expenditure.
  1256
  I am concerned about how we spend that money if, unfortunately, we have to spend it.
  Mr. Nott: I understand that Harold Robbins, to whom my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) referred earlier, was outside the scope of the Bill because overseas authors were not to benefit. Perhaps I am wrong, but if overseas writers, those who spend a great part of their lives writing important works on local history and all books in private libraries are not to benefit, who is to receive the available money?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should look at the amendments before asking a question of that sort.
  Mr. Nott: I understand that the amendment is concerned with whether public libraries should be the only ones which are to be relevant to the Bill. I was trying to ascertain who would benefit from the money available after the deduction of administrative expenses.
  Mr. English: More than 40 per cent.
  Mr. Nott: If books taken from private libraries, including learned works on local history, are excluded, who will receive the remaining 60 per cent, of the funds?
  Mr. Moate: It is not easy to gain enlightenment from this curious measure, but it is clear that the specialist writer on Cornish folklore would not benefit. If his work is lent by a public library, he might get a few pence. The figure is minute.
  Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong about that. If he is talking about Cornish writers who dealt with aspects of Cornish life in that way, the name of Leo Walmsley immediately springs to mind. His whole career and his pecuniary difficulties over many years give an absolute denial to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Moate: If that author's books are being lent through public libraries, he will receive public lending right. The report of the technical investigation group made clear, however, that specialist writers in regional terms would get trivial amounts—perhaps £1 or £2 a year. A Welsh fiction writer was the classic case quoted. However, if a writer has no books in

  1257
  the public lending library and they are in private libraries, he will get nothing.
  As things stand, the Government much prefer to give taxpayers' money to Harold Robbins, living in California or wherever he might be, and not to the much deserving author living in Cornwall and doing a lifetime's research into his specialist subject.
  It will be hard to correct the fundamental follies of the Bill, but one way in which we could improve it is by extending it to include other libraries. I emphasise that we are not trying to pin down the Under-Secretary to saying that the provision must include all libraries. All that the amendment seeks to do is to enable the Secretary of State, at her discretion, at some time in the future and if she thinks fit, to extend it to other libraries. It is not often that Opposition Members seek to give discretion to a Socialist Secretary of State. When we do so, she rejects it.
  Mr. English: The Secretary of State is not here to reject it.
  Mr. Moate: We are talking about an enabling provision. At some time in the future a scheme will be drawn up. Presumably, in the course of time it will need amendment in the light of experience. Therefore, one does not want a rigid scheme laying down a rule that this could apply only to public library authorities.
  I want to emphasise the question of the burden of administration. The Undersecretary knows that many libraries dislike this measure and that many librarians have objections to this proposition, largely because of the administrative burden involved. Why should it apply only to the district library authorities, and not, for example, to Harrods? My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston mentioned the existence of Harrods' commercial library—and a very good library it is, too. However, it is extraordinary that the Under-Secretary has such a preference for the private sector, and not a discrimination against it, inasmuch as she says that all the poor large district libraries will have to work this wretched system and have a legal obligation to make these returns but Harrods' commercial library and any other commercial libraries that may exist are
  1258
  exempt. That is unusual favouritism for the private sector.
  Perhaps this means that the Undersecretary is trying to encourage the growth of commercial libraries. If she is, she should know that they are excluded by the Bill. What an extraordinary proposition. Perhaps we shall see an increase in commercial libraries. I have heard it said that certain large organisations are considering establishing a new private enterprise lending library system, partly because many of our local public lending library authorities are having their budgets cut and are unable to provide as many books and as good a service as they used to provide. Perhaps there is an opportunity for Smith's or Boots to start up a library again. However, if that happens, perhaps the Undersecretary will say that if an author has his books purchased by Smith's and Harrods and then lent out they will not be included in the sample. I do not understand that, because those books are subject to the ISBN, so there would be no problem about putting them on the computer.
  It is hard to drag answers from the Under-Secretary. Perhaps that is because she does not have any. I suspect that that is part of the truth and that her civil servants are so disillusioned by the Bill, that it is so actively disliked in her Department and by anyone concerned with educational matters and that it is so detested by all and sundry connected with it that they are not anxious to feed the hon. Lady with effective answers. I suspect that even the draftsmen who had to draft the wretched thing deeply regret the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) ever got into a position of making this commitment on behalf of their respective parties. I hope that the Minister will tell us why she felt it right to exclude Harrods and Boots and the other private libraries which might exist. What puzzles me particularly is not only the exclusion of commercial libraries but also the exclusion of some of the great British libraries.
  11.15 p.m.
  I turn from Cornish folklore to the other end of the scale and refer to the British Library. I have with me a booklet about the British Library. I would like to feel that by accepting the amendment

  1259
  the hon. Lady would include the British Library in the scheme. The booklet starts by asking
  "What is the British Library?"
  I suspect that the hon. Lady would probably have to ask that question. Perhaps her Department has not heard about the British Library, otherwise it would have included it in the scheme. The Department must be ignorant of its existence, otherwise it could hardly have left it out.
  We are told that
  "the creation of the British Library may well prove to have been the most exciting development in library services in the twentieth century. It has been the culmination of years of effort by librarians, scholars and much maligned Government Departments to provide the nation with a great library having comprehensive facilities".
  It is so great that the hon. Lady does not want to acknowledge it in the Bill. Here we have one of the greatest libraries in Britain, perhaps one of the greatest in the world, and the hon. Lady in effect disparages it by saying that she does not want to include it in the public lending right system.
  We ought to extend the size and scope of this library. For example, we are told that in the Reference Division
  "the total number of books is now nearly 8 million".
  Miss Margaret Jackson: In order to refresh his memory, if the hon. Gentleman turns to the report of the Committee stage he will see that I am not ignorant of the existence of the British Library, because both he and I discussed it when we discussed this amendment at some length.
  Mr. Moate: I am glad that the hon. Lady remembers. I am glad that she has again contributed to our discussion. I wanted to come back to some of the things she said in Committee which undermine her whole case in respect of the amendment.
  I wish to press on and refer to the Reference Division, where
  "the total number of books is now nearly S million".
  The hon. Lady does not want to include those 8 million books. They do not matter. The authors of those 8 million books do not count. There is no justice
  1260
  for the authors of those 8 million books. They do not matter because it is administratively inconvenient for the hon. Lady, To condemn the British Library because it is a one-off library, as the hon. Lady did in Committee, is a rather strange argument.
  We also have the Department of Printed Books. Here we learn that
  "the musicians' library is one of the most extensive sections of printed music anywhere in the world, amounting to more than one million items".
  What pity we did not include "works". Here is a classic example, because that fabulous collection is available to the people of this country yet the composers will get no money from public lending right.
  I turn to the Lending Division, which is perhaps more relevant to the Bill as it stands. In 1974 the Lending Division received 2 million requests for loans or photocopies, 84 per cent. of which were satisfied from stock and 10 per cent. from elsewhere. The division also acts as the national centre for medlars. I presume that that does not refer to any Socialist inspectors set up under the present Government. "Medlars" is a computerised medical literature retrieval service. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is a fruit".] In this case it is not a fruit. It runs short courses aimed at promoting the use of this literature and it is responsible for the translation service of Russian and oriental languages. I do not think that that is the definition of a fruit, but it is certainly a definition of "works".
  The hon. Lady said in Committee that the British Library lend the books only to other libraries for the use of their readers. She said:
  "In so far as books from the British Library are lent out through other libraries, they would attract public lending right."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28th October 1976; col. 152.]
  The hon. Lady was wrong. In so far as they are lent to other local authority libraries, they might attract public lending right. It is no good the hon. Lady shrugging. I understand that a substantial proportion of the loans from the British Library goes out to the private libraries to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was referring.

  1261
  The specialist libraries—industrial, university and educational—are the principal borrowers from the British Library. The hon. Lady misled the Committee.
  Mr. Lawson: Has my hon. Friend dealt with the Armed Forces' libraries both at home and overseas?
  Mr. Moate: That matter was not raised in Committee and we have not so far discussed it. I presume that there are many library outlets for members of Her Majesty's Forces both at home and abroad. Will the hon. Lady tell us whether they come within the scope of the local library authorities? The size of the Armed Forces is declining steadily—we shall not hold the hon. Lady directly responsible for that—but their numbers are still substantial and I imagine that there are many readers of fiction among them.
  Will the hon. Lady seriously say that the authors of books lent to the forces are not to receive any public lending right? If so, perhaps she will tell us why. Perhaps she will cheer us by saying that they are included because forces" libraries come under public library authorities, or that she is ready to accept the amendment.
  I want the House to consider a range of other libraries, but before detailing them I want to turn to a vast area of book buying and lending that is excluded by the Bill but would be included if the amendment were accepted. I refer to educational books. If the case is that authors are deprived of book sales because of State purchases and individuals being able to borrow books over and again, that argument applies more fundamentally to education than to public libraries.
  I am thinking not merely of colleges of education and their libraries but of educational books purchased through school libraries. Copies of a novel that is a set subject in a national examination could be purchased in bulk by a school and used over and over again by successive generations of schoolchildren.
  Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend has not referred to medical libraries. Medical students may take out of a medical library an important book on anatomy that is fundamental to their studies. Would books taken out of medical libraries be
  1262
  ignored for the purposes of public lending right?
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has not understood. The Government have a fundamental objection to more serious works, and books on anatomy would come into that category. Had they not such an objection they would automatically have accepted the amendment. They show a preference for novels. Perhaps those in the Department of Education read novels all the time.
  Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has not mentioned the Library of the House of Commons.
  Miss Margaret Jackson: Yes, he has.
  Mr. Ridley: I quite understand that Hansard is a multi-author publication, but there are many other books in the Library.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friends are being immensely helpful. I have not yet covered a great many libraries. Indeed, there are many more.
  Mr. Nott: Will my hon. Friend deal with medical libraries before he deals with the House of Commons Library? I made a serious point and I ask him to deal with it before he turns to the point that was raised rather intemperately by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).
  Miss Margaret Jackson: Perhaps the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) will ask his hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), who has intervened for the fourth or fifth time, to go away and read the Bill. If he does so, he will not have to ask his hon. Friend so many questions.
  Mr. Moate: That is not the helpful intervention for which I had hoped from the hon. Lady. The Bill does not answer the questions that my hon. Friends have asked. It is most confused. We have heard about justice for authors—that is what the Bill is supposed to be about—but every time we examine the Bill in detail we find that it is grossly unfair and that there will be injustice for many authors. It is not surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives is confused.

  1263
  It would be helpful if the hon. Lady would give us—
  Mr. Nott: The facts of life.
  Mr. Moate: I was going to say anatomical details, but if my hon. Friend wishes to refer to the facts of life, so be it. The major medical libraries are vitally important institutions. Presumably their books are used for reference purposes or are loaned internally to medical students or those studying medicine generally. No payment will be made to the authors of such works. Presumably that is because the Government place a higher value upon the reward that Mr. Harold Robbins or any other such author receives than upon the reward of the serious writer of a medical work. That argument applies to many other libraries.
  Mr. Gow: If one is a Russian professor of anatomy whose works are being lent out by a local authority library in the United Kingdom on the one hand, or if, on the other hand, one is a United Kingdom professor of theology who is letting out his books in a NAAFI library in Dusseldorf, is my hon. Friend telling the House that the Russian professor of anatomy will be entitled to public lending right and that the English professor of theology will not be so entitled?
  Mr. Moate: If I have followed my hon. Friend correctly through that maze of logic to the precise end, assuming that he is not a multi-author and assuming he has an ISBN, I suspect that the Russian author would receive public lending right and that the British author would not. That is one of the many nonsenses in the Bill.
  I turn to some of the more serious omissions. I reiterate that the hon. Lady gave a misleading answer in Committee. She said that British Library lendings would attract public lending right to the extent that the books went out to other libraries. Presumably that was what she hoped was the effect of the Bill. In making that answer, she recognised the justice of the case for ensuring that lendings from the British Library attract public lending right for their authors. That, however, is not the position.
  I hope that the hon. Lady will tell us what percentage of lendings from the British Library goes out through the local
  1264
  library authorities or to the hundreds of other institutions in the United Kingdom. If the bulk of the books goes to private libraries or institutional libraries, it is grossly unfair that the authors should not receive public lending right on the lendings from our great British Library. I cannot understand why it should be so difficult to include the British Library in the system.
  11.30 p.m.
  I have dealt with the commercial libraries, and the Government have yet to explain why they have been excluded—that is, libraries which may exist already or which may be created in the future. I have dealt with the British Library. I have touched briefly on education matters. But I was diverted from the problem of books sold by publishers through the education system. In those cases, equally the publishers must be deprived of subsequent sales, because books are used in schools over and over again. I should like to see the Bill contain some provision so that, at a later stage, the Secretary of State could extend the scheme to include school libraries and school books purchased through the local library authority acting as agent, as often is the case.
  I quote an example. A Mr. David Holbrook wrote to The Times the other day challenging what I said about expenditure on public lending right, my argument that this was no time to make a State handout to authors and that the £1 million suggested as the original sum to pay to authors might soon be extended to £4 million, and my comment that this was at least one economy that we could make. I stand by every one of those statements. Mr. Holbrook went on to describe his considerable literary achievements and to emphasise the financial difficulties that he had to face, with which I sympathise. But I am sure that it has often been the case throughout the ages that even authors of great merit have had financial struggles. I do not think it right at this time to use our library system as a scapegoat. Mr. Holbrook went on to say that he had some 30 books to his name, some of which had sold tens of thousands of copies all over the world and were used daily in the teaching of English and in the education of teachers.
  The point is that the books which he has produced, in literary terms successfully

  1265
  but in commercial terms not so success-fatly, have obviously gone into the education system. Obviously, in terms of those sales there will be no benefit to him from the Bill. First, the scheme as it is proposed will exclude the education system totally. Secondly, the Government are not even taking powers to allow the legislation to include education libraries at a later stage. Therefore, if there is any case for public lending right for the public library system, surely there is a strong case for it to apply to the education system.
  In practice, I do not think that there is a case for either, because, through its expenditure on public libraries and on books for the education system, the State is the greatest benefactor of authors and of the publishing profession. The lion. Lady told me recently in a Written Answer that the taxpayer, though these various media, supported British publishers to the tune of 40 per cent. of their total home sales. If the taxpayer buys 40 per cent. of the products of publishers, I do not accept that authors can say that the State of depriving them of income.
  That deals with education and the ordinary range of school books. But there are many other education libraries. In Committee, we heard about the study done some years ago of 134 colleges of education. I calculated that there were between 6 million and 7 million books in those libraries, none of which would be eligible for inclusion in the sampling of public lending right.
  Then we have the university libraries. We have some of the most famous in the world, and presumably they buy a large number of volumes to maintain their stocks. For some odd reason, the Government say "We do not want to include these fine university libraries."
  It is extraordinary that the hon. Lady and the Government Whips should be prepared to whip through a Bill that will exclude some of our greatest libraries. That is an insult to the libraries, to our universities and to the authors who supply the books. It is an insult to authors that the Government should propose to place on the statute book a Bill so riddled with anomalies, contradictions and unfairnesses when we "cave heard hardly a word of argument from the Gov-
  1266
  ernment against an amendment whose merit is overwhelming.
  Mr. Lawson: Is it not a significant factor, of which the whole House should be aware, that the hon. Lady has had not one word of support from her Back Benchers on this very important amendment?
  Mr. Moate: That has been the pattern throughout these debates. During the Second Reading debates there were not even enough Members to maintain a quorum. Government supporters were so uninterested and apathetic that the Government Benches were devoid—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Member will return once again to the amendment.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening to my hon. Friend and I think that he hardly strayed from the straight and narrow until being slightly diverted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I was suggesting was that the time had come when the hon. Member should return to the amendment.
  Mr. Moate: I was just adding emphasis to the point that I was about to make. I was about to comment on the lack of argument from the Government side about the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has said, the Government have not had a word of support on the amendment from their own Back Benchers.
  Mr. English: The hon. Member will be aware that both Front Benches support the Bill but that, although both Chief Whips could presumably have tried to bring in their troops, between May and October both of them were unable to bring 100 Members to force the closure on Second Reading. That is an illustration of the popularity of the Bill.
  Mr. Moate: I shall not pursue that, but it must be self-evident. I should probably stray out of order if I pursued that line. There may be arguments against the amendment, but I think that there is a strong case for it. However, we have heard hardly a word of argument from the Government. They cannot

  1267
  believe that the Bill was so perfect when it was introduced that no argument is required.
  Mr. Nott: The House is listening with rapt attention to my hon. Friend's interesting speech, but I must put my question to him again. He has not dealt with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and subsequently by myself about the Armed Forces' libraries and medical libraries, and I should like my hon. Friend to get back to the question.
  Can he explain why it is—reasonably enough, the hon. Lady said that I should read the Bill; I have done so—that someone who has written a book on anatomy and who has devoted a great proportion of his time and energies to doing so should effectively be excluded from the benefits of the Bill simply because that book is not taken up by the libraries? I revert to the question that I asked half an hour ago. Is there any justification for people who devote their time and lives to writing books of this nature being so excluded?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Clausewitz "On War".
  Mr. Nott: My hon. Friend mentions Clausewitz "On War". After all, that is a book taken out with great frequency from the forces' libraries. In sergeants' messes, Clausewitz "On War" has been a popular book for a long time. Perhaps Clausewitz is no longer available to benefit, but why should authors of similar books be denied the benefits of the Bill when Harold Robbins will benefit?
  Mr. Moate: I do not deny the relevance of the question, but, without being immodest, some of us on these Benches have tried to make up for the lack of fervour on the part of our Front Bench in opposing the Bill. I think I shall have to adopt the role of Government spokesman and my hon. Friend the role of Opposition spokesman, and then perhaps we would have a more constructive debate. We are not getting answers from the Under-Secretary. We want clear, helpful and concise answers.
  Mr. Cow: In order to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) surely it is neces-
  1268
  sary to know the date of the death of Clausewitz. Under Clause 1(6) the lending right is payable only until 50 years have elapsed since the end of the year in which the author died.
  Mr. Moate: That was a most helpful intervention. No doubt if I were the Government spokesman my PPS would now be running off to get me the date of death.
  Mr. Lawson: Surely this is immaterial. As Clausewitz is dead, he is unable to register the book for public lending right.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has foxed me on that one. But I am sure that the Under-Secretary is totally familiar with the intricacies of the Bill, although she has managed to conceal her knowledge from us in recent weeks. I must, however, move on if we want to preserve tomorrow's business, which I believe is important.
  I turn to the exclusion from the Bill of Government libraries. I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain why they have been omitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has got it wrong. He thought that it was wrong to show a preference in treating different libraries in different ways. Any burden that is imposed should be imposed fairly and equally on all libraries. At the moment. Government libraries are excluded. Why should the Minister secure that favour for her Department? Her Department has a very important library with 183,000 volumes, but it is excluded from the Bill.
  Mr. English: What is the number of borrowings? It is upon that that the public lending right will be based.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. Moate: If the Government had done their job properly they would have referred the matter to the technical investigation group, which could have considered whether Government libraries should be included. It could have provided the number of lendings.
  Mr. Lawson: How many of the 183,000 volumes are by multi-authors? Such books would be excluded from the Bill anyway.
  Mr. Moate: I have not done a personal analysis of these volumes, but, again, that

  1269
  is the sort of question that the group could have answered.
  It is not good enough for the Government to say that the whole scheme is based upon the group, that Government and private libraries cannot be included because that would be impractical and that the matter has never been considered by the technical investigation group.
  Mr. Gow: Is the Department's library included in the schedule to the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, which is referred to in Clause 5(2)(a), or has my hon. Friend overlooked that?
  Mr. Moate: The answer to the first question is "No". The answer to the second is that I may have overlooked it.
  Other libraries which are excluded are the House of Commons and the House of Lords Libraries. Our Library gives us magnificent service in terms both of research and of the provision of books. I hope that the Under-Secretary is listening. If she is getting fed up, she deserves to be with this lousy Bill.
  Can the hon. Lady tell me about the inter-lending arrangements? Will a book borrowed by the House of Commons Library through another library or through the British Library attract public lending right? I do not see how it could, since the House of Commons Library will not come under the category of a local authority library. If I am right, how can the Minister justify that situation? If I borrow a novel from my district library, it will earn the author a public lending right payment, but if I borrow the same book from the House of Commons Library—I suppose that it might get it from the same source—it will attract no such payment. How can that be fair to authors?
  I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies she will explain the position regarding inter-lending arrangements through the House of Commons Library. Will she tell us about the great industries which have substantial libraries? Will she also tell us about the British Broadcasting Corporation's library of over 100,000 volumes?
  Mr. Ridley: Has my hon. Friend considered the library at Transport House which is full of interesting volumes? I think that the hon. Member for Wake-
  1270
  field (Mr. Harrison), who is about to make a highly intellectual contribution, probably browses in the library at Transport House. Why should not authors who have books there receive public lending rights as well?
  Mr. Moate: I am not particularly enthusiastic about the library at Transport House, but I should imagine that the books there, if I may be excused an unintended pun, are well read.
  I understand that the BBC's library has 140,000 volumes. All the great learned institutions in London and elsewhere have substantial libraries.
  Mr. English: I hope that in the light of his earlier comments the hon. Gentleman will not forget the library at Conservative Central Office as well.
  Mr. Moate: There are plenty more. There is the Prison Service. Is that covered? Many London clubs have substantial libraries. Presumably they would be regarded as quasi-commercial.
  Mr. Nott: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to comment on paragraph 22 of an interesting document entitled "Public Lending Right", which is probably relevant to the amendment. I hope that the House will forgive me if I read from this document, but it is relevant to the amendment. Paragraph 22 states:
  "Another variety of Optical Character Recognition font, known as OCR B, was not tested because suitable portable equipment for recording this code is not yet available in the United Kingdom, although it should be in two or three months' time. This font is similar in appearance to numerals as normally printed, is more aesthetically pleasing than the other codes tested and would be preferred by both publishers and booksellers."
  That is paragraph 22 of the final report of an investigation of technical and cost aspects. Perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on where that relates to the amendment. I shall not read any further for fear of displeasing the House.
  Mr. Moate: Its relevance escapes me. and I do not have the interim report with me. Therefore, I find it difficult to relate it to the amendment.
  Mr. Lawson: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) was reading from the final, not the interim, report. I think that what

  1271
  he probably intended to read was the recommendation in paragraph 4 of Part 1, "Introduction",
  "that the use of local authority computer based systems should be exploited wherever possible."
  Perhaps that explains why local authority libraries are singled out in the Bill.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is on to a very serious point.
  Mr. Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman should address the House.
  Mr. Moate: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I, through you, ask the hon. Gentleman to desist from making comments from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Peter Hardy: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) may have addressed the House from a sedentary position, but the point he made was valid. All that we are having at the moment is a private conversation between the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) and the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who has been speaking for far too long. It seems to me that the House should be addressed and that the hon. Member for Blaby should conduct his conversation with his hon. Friend at least in your direction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) should be so defective in his knowledge of the Bill. I was intervening in the pertinent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and I apologise if my eyes strayed for a moment away from the direction of the Chair. But I am sure that if they had strayed too far or too long you would have called me to order.
  Mr. English: Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said that he thought the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) was engaging in a private conversation. But I have been unable to hear the hon. Member for Faversham properly because of a series of private conversations around me.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that it would be for the benefit of everyone if we allowed the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) to make his speech in his own way.
  Mr. Ridley: This is a serious point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was intervening in a speech, but the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and for Pontefract and Castle-ford (Mr. Harper) were conducting a prolonged, loud and seated conversation about how they were bored at having to discuss the Bill at this time of night and how they might terminate it. That is intolerable. It is wrong for hon. Members to complain about a public debate on this side of the House. Will you please ask the Whips, if they wish to conduct a private conversation, to do so outside the Chamber so that we may get on with consideration of the Bill?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There have been a number of conversations in different parts of the House. I suggest that hon. Members should rivet their attention on the hon. Member for Faversham.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has raised an issue of fundamental importance. I do not wish to speak at great length because we have a great deal of business to complete and we are all anxious to protect tomorrow's business.
  Sir Timothy Kitson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House does not yet know what tomorrow's business is. We do not know whether we shall be dealing with tied cottages or the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. Why should my hon. Friend try to protect something of which we have no knowledge?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Faversham will deal with the amendment, and then we can make progress.
  Mr. Moate: Perhaps the Government's confusion is the explanation for their delaying tactics. Perhaps they are playing for time and the only reason for the Bill is that they need the time to sort themselves out.
  I wanted to deal with the computer base of the scheme. If the scheme is

  1273
  to work at all and the Registrar is to conduct his duties with any degree of efficiency, it will only be because of the use of computer techniques and of the ISBN code. Unless the numbers can be fed into the system, the scheme will be a wash-out. If The base of the scheme is as I suggest, I do not understand why it is so difficult to include all the other libraries, particularly reference libraries. The books in those libraries have ISBN numbers. Why should it be so difficult for the hon. Lady to accept an amendment that allows the Government to include the British Library, which would enter its 8 million reference books and 2 million loans a year with the ISBN numbers and register them? I cannot understand why the hon. Lady is making such a meal of the matter.
  12 midnight
  The matter has been spelt out at such length because if the Government insist on restricting the scheme to the district library authorities they will have a very unfair sample of authors. They know that to be true, but they do not care. If they insist on bringing to the House a Bill which is said to be concerned with the principle of justice for authors, let us be sure that we are giving justice within the limitations of the proposition. The hon. Lady knows that it is an unjust measure. She admitted that there was inequity. Her only defence is the practical difficulties. We have had no explanation why those practical difficulties are so significant.
  Limiting the scheme to the district libraries means that 70 per cent. of the !endings affected are novels. Why is the hon. Lady showing prejudice against the writers of more serious works and a preference for the successful novelists, who stand a chance of making a great deal of money from film rights, although admittedly many do not? The hon. Lady is showing a prejudice against those who may have devoted a lifetime of research to more scholarly works of a type that might be found in greater numbers in the many libraries she seeks to exclude.
  The matter was discussed at some length in Committee, where many Labour Members were persuaded to abstain or to join us. I very much hope that on the merits of the case the House will accept the amendment so ably moved
  1274
  by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
  Miss Margaret Jackson: The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said so often in his lengthy speech that he expected me to respond that I feel compelled to do so now. Through the pages of the Official Report of the Committee proceedings I followed his speech as point succeeded point and question succeeded question. I was surprised that he should so frequently ask me tonight whether I was aware of points he had raised in Committee and the answers which he had received there, but presumably the hon. Gentleman's memory is defective. Perhaps he did not have the advantage of having the Official Report before him, as I did.
  Like several of his hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman seemed to have lost the capacity to distinguish between arguments with which he disagreed and arguments which had not been advanced. It is easy to lose that capacity on such an occasion. Although my case may be one with which they disagree, it is inaccurate for hon. Members to argue that it has not been put. For example, I say to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), who seems to pop in and out of the Chamber and then complain about what he has missed—
  Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
  Miss Jackson: I shall not give way now.
  Although I have spoken briefly and, I hope, succinctly, I have tried to convey the essence and purpose of the argument every time I have spoken. If I have not spoken at such length as the hon. Members for Faversham and Blaby have done, it is because I believe that it is necessary to put a point in only one way. I may be doing hon. Members an injustice, but I expect them to grasp it rather than expect it to be repeated 10 times in different ways.
  Mr. Lawson: If the hon. Lady had been listening, she would have heard that my complaint on this occasion was not about what I missed but about what I heard from her.
  Miss Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has complained about both matters. However, I shall not bother to pursue it. It is not terribly significant.

  1275
  There has been complaint about confusion whether reference books were included in the Bill. The matter is relatively simple. The scheme that it is proposed to establish by the Bill is confined to books which are lent from public libraries. If reference books are borrowed or loaned from public libraries, they will be covered by the scheme. If they are in the reference section and are not taken out on loan, they will not be covered. This is a matter which is included in the Bill, and it has been dealt with over and over again. I accept that hon. Members may think that this is illogical and wrong, but to argue that this is not the point which has been covered over and over again is a terminological inexactitude.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: To qualify, does a book have to leave the library premises, or can it merely leave the reference department for some other department in the library? Where is the definition in the Bill?
  Miss Jackson: A book has to be in the premises and has to be registered as having been taken out of the library on loan. I doubt whether such circumstances would exist as the hon. Gentleman envisaged, although he may be acquainted with them.
  The hon. Member for Faversham, with great assistance from his hon. Friends, made a list of libraries—the Armed Forces, commercial libraries, the House of Commons Library and so on—which he purported to say were in ignorance of whether they are covered by PLR. They will not be covered by PLR. It is the purpose of the hon. Gentleman's amendment to seek to extend the Bill to cover them, and we are resisting it.
  I have already explained that there is very little similarity between one of these libraries and another, that in our view it would be well nigh impossible to deal with them on the sample basis that we are proposing to use as the basis for the scheme, and that, therefore, we do not propose to extend the Bill in this way.
  Mr. Nott: I take the point that it is not felt feasible to include a number of private libraries in parts of the country in which I am interested, but in Appendix B to the orange document entitled "Pub-
  1276
  lic Lending Right", in which the whole matter is stated, it is said that the Wilton Rural Mobile Library stops for 20 minutes per fortnight. Is it really suggested that that library, which stops for 20 minutes per fortnight, is a more representative sample than private libraries in my constituency, which, I assure the hon. Lady, are much more important in many ways than the public libraries which, as I understand the position, are to be taken as the basis for the Bill?
  Miss Jackson: It is the intention of the Government in the Bill to confine the operation of the scheme to public libraries. We propose to do this through the local authority libraries and to reimburse the local authorities for their expenses. Although the hon. Gentleman says that the private libraries in his constituency are a matter of some significance, I think that this is not the case over the country as a whole. We are seeking to confine ourselves to what we consider will be practicable and reasonable and able to be operated efficiently, and to base the case for a scheme on a sample of libraries which will be typical of the whole structure of public libraries in the country. That is why we are excluding such considerations from the Bill.
  We have dealt with the point fully on the Floor and in Committee, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.
  Mr. Sproat: I thought that the Minister might at least have afforded us the courtesy of seeking to reply to this debate since she did not do so on the previous occasion. She did not answer the central question which has been put time and again. It is no use saying "It is our intention to limit the Bill to public libraries", because we already know that. Our question is why is the Bill so limited when it is clear that such limitation will give an unfair balance and will distort the situation in regard to the sort of books and authors to be rewarded by the Bill's provisions?
  The Minister said that one of the reasons for confining these provisions to public libraries lay in the title of the Bill, in that it was a Bill relating to a "public" lending right. I am amazed that the word "public" appears in the title of the Bill. I was under the impression that the Bill was to include the words "public lending right" because

  1277
  it envisaged a reward for authors in respect of books lent to the public and had nothing to do with public libraries.
  Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Does he realise that the Bill refers to "local library authorities" and that the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), in an excellent speech, and the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) became confused probably because of the title of the Bill? It has nothing to do with lending from a public library. There are public libraries founded by people such as Andrew Carnegie, and certain local authority libraries might not necessarily lend to the public.
  Mr. Sproat: That was my understanding in Standing Committee. That was why I was so astonished when I heard the Minister seek to justify the limitation in the Bill to public libraries because public " was a word contained in the Bill. If the hon. Lady had waited until other hon. Members had spoken she would have saved herself another speech, since I presume that she intends to reply to our points at the end of this discussion.
  The House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) for his comprehensive speech, but I feel that a must seek to fill in one or two lacunae which he left untouched and which relate to an essential point of principle in the amendment.
  I take it that the Government's principle underlying the amendment is the same principle of justice for a wider section of authors as we have been attempting to insert by our previous amendments. For example, we debated whether the Bill should cover "works" and not "books" because, although this is a bad Bill, we believe that it would introduce more fairness if it were extended to authors and paintings, records, sculpture and so on. Similarly, in this case we feel that if we are to limit application of the Bill merely to local authority libraries we shall be given a distorted view of the borrowing picture.
  It is ludicrously unfair that authors such as Harold Robbins or writers from the Soviet Union should be able to siphon off up to £1,000 of taxpayers' money. We are trying to balance that unfairness by extending the payment to authors
  1278
  whose books may be frequently borrowed from libraries to which the Bill does not apply.
  This is a mild amendment. It does not say that the Bill must apply to all libraries, but merely that the Secretary of State of the day may stipulate which extra libraries should be taken within the scope of the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said that the amendment extended the patronage of the Secretary of State. He is right, but we believe that the disadvantages which would accrue from an extension of that patronage would be outweighed by the increase in fairness for authors who would be brought within the scope of the Bill.
  We know that 70 per cent. of all books borrowed from public libraries are works of fiction. We have nothing against novelists, but we do not think it fair that 70 per cent. of the £600,000 which will be left after £400,000 has been spent on setting up a bureaucracy, should be siphoned off to novelists, some of whom may be living in the Soviet Union or the United States.
  We think that the balance is unfair and we seek to right it by bringing into the Bill libraries where the preponderence of fiction may not be so great.
  In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham mentioned various libraries. I shall not repeat them all, but let us consider the position of school libraries from which many types of books are frequently borrowed. For example, pupils are rightly encouraged to read the modern classics.
  There is an argument—which I do not accept—that this borrowing deprives an author of sales. Whether or not this is so, such authors will certainly be deprived of a reward in recognition of the pleasure they give to pupils.
  The Government have made no attempt to justify these books being excluded from the Bill. We are merely told that this is how the Bill was drafted and this is how it will stay. We do not accept that. A number of hon. Members have advanced reasons for the inclusion of such books, yet the Under-Secretary makes no attempt to answer them.
  With school libraries we know that year by year the same books are used

  1279
  by pupils in class, and it must be so. It must be that if there is a principle of reward for pleasure or instruction that authors give, such principle applies to school books; indeed, particularly so, because certain school text books remain text books for years and years. The only benefit that the author gets is the one-off royalty for one copy sold that may last for years in a school library.
  I am very sorry that the hon. Lady has not even chosen to look at this very important section of the argument. She may have looked at it to her own satisfaction, and then rejected it. She has not looked at it in the sense that we mean, which is to look at it and to give us reasons for rejecting it.
  I am no a member of a commercial library, although I have wandered through Harrods' library on one or two occasions. I do not want to repeat the very good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham. However, he mentioned that it may well be that if people were paying for their books, the principle on which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is so rightly keen, and which I tried to introduce in Committee—that is that those who use libraries should be the people who pay for them; the principle that operates at Harrods—this would influence libraries on the sort of books on the shelves. It may be that it is a very different sort of book on the Harrods shelf from that on other library shelves, let alone that on the shelves of private libraries to which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) referred.
  Here we have a totally new consideration thrown in.
  Mr. Lawson: Does my hon. Friend also agree that if people had to pay a small charge for libraries, they would not follow the present practice, when one is given six tickets for a local authority library, of taking out six books at a time, thus depriving others of the ability to take them out? If one had to pay a charge one would take one book at a time and read one at a time, which would be less of a strain for the local authority
  1280
  resources about which the Under-Secretary seems concerned.
  Mr. Sproat: That is a good point. A further point is that if one does not pay for one's books per item and therefore takes out six at a time, which one would not have taken out if one had to pay for them, if the six books are taken from a sampling library they would weight the sample in a quite different way from the sample being taken from Harrods, because people would not take them out if they had to pay for them.
  A wholly different concept is injected. So far the hon. Lady has seen fit to ignore it. I am sorry about that. It is a very valid point that the commercial considerations make a great difference to the sort of books that are taken out.
  I shall not go into the question of Forces' libraries or medical libraries, although they are very relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) may want to go into those matters. I do not want to take up every possible argument that may be deployed on the Bill. However, I want to draw the attention of the House to another sort of commercial library—for instance, the London Library.
  I have no interest—if it is an interest—to declare with regard to this point. I am not and never have been a member of the London Library, but I have visited that library and I have been delighted by the range of books there. It is a wonderful library. But, again, why should that not come within the scope of the Bill?
  Again, there are quite different sorts of books. I do not speak from a wide experience of the London Library, but it probably has more learned books and more scholarly books in many ways than a local authority library would have. That is not to complain about the local authority library or to praise the London Library. It is dealing with different sections of the public. Because of that it necessarily stocks its shelves with the works of different authors or, at least, authors in different proportion. That proportion ought to be recognised in the general computation which is made when it comes to rewarding authors under the Bill. [Interruption]. If the hon. Member

  1281
  for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) wants to interrupt let him stand up and do so, otherwise perhaps he will have the courtesy to keep quiet. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) knows perfectly well that interruptions from a sedentary position are out of order.
  Mr. Moate: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The remark of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), which was distinctly heard on this side of the Chamber, is a more serious matter. From a sedentary position we distinctly heard the hon. Gentleman make some remark about "Goebbels" in his comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). That is a disgraceful remark and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. Member for Keighley said. If he did say what the hon. Member for Faversham has alleged, I am sure that he will withdraw it.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): I was, in fact, pointing out to my colleague that when a debate was held on social security scroungers the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) failed to appear and I was pointing out that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South was making a lot of garbled remarks at the present moment.
  Mr. Sproat: It did not sound like "garbled" to me and many other hon. Members. But if the hon. Gentleman has not got the courage or the guts to say what he said, so be it.
  We now return to the amendment. The hon. Lady has made a number of references to the cost of this and other amendments. Normally that is an argument that would weigh heavily with me. One of the reasons I have opposed the Bill as a whole is precisely that it increases public expenditure and public bureaucracy. But, as my hon. Friends have said, if we can to a small extent improve the fairness of the Bill by widening its scope through this amendment, we are prepared to consider that the cost—if it is an extra cost—is well spent.
  I do not see why inherently it should be more expensive to insert another sort
  1282
  of library into the sample. There is no reason why it should be more expensive for the London Library to run this scheme than for a local authority library to run it. The cost would be fairly equally disposed between them. In any case, we have not had an estimate of the cost of applying the scheme to other libraries. We know that the TIG did not even look into this question. The argument about public expenditure is rather a double-edged weapon in this context.
  The problem of expenditure could be completely overcome if we were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, which I myself made in Committee—namely, that those who use the libraries should make a contribution towards the running of the libraries. In that case we need not worry about the way in which this scheme was run because libraries would be self-financing in this scheme just as they are in others. If we widened the scope of the Bill by accepting the amendment, we should spread the cost on to private as well as public backs and save the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money by allowing private libraries to make up some of the cost.
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is talking about the cost to local library authorities. I understand that library functions are to be devolved under the Government's proposed devolution programme and that expenditure will be from a block grant allocated by Westminster. Will the amendment have the effect that the Scottish Assembly if it so wishes will be able to ensure that libraries do not get the funds and thereby deprive Scottish authors of the benefit? There will be administrative muddle if the Scottish Assembly has full power to decide whether to spend the money on libraries or something else.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend, with his characteristic acuity, has put his finger on a very important point. He will be surprised to hear that the question what would happen under the Bill were a Scottish Assembly ever to be set up was not considered in Committee. It is so unlikely that a Scottish Assembly will be set up that it is too hypothetical a question to fall within the scope of the amendment. Public libraries in Scotland

  1283
  might be in an even worse position after the setting up of a Scottish Assembly than they are now. There would be even less money available from public funds. because some would have to go to authors.
  My hon. Friend, who comes from Glasgow, is no doubt an assiduous reader of the great Glasgow author Mr. Alistair Maclean—a very rich man, as he deserves to be. Yet the Scottish Assembly could be paying out money to Mr. Alistair Maclean who, having been born in Scotland, is living in Switzerland. So there will be even less money for those projects which my hon. Friend holds so dear to his heart.
  Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend is right in saying that this matter was not referred to in Committee, yet it is obviously of considerable importance. It would be wrong for us to allow the Bill to proceed without knowing the Government's intentions with regard to this legislation and their devolution proposals, especially as the library powers are planned to be devolved. Would my hon. Friend suggest that the hon. Lady should advise the House on the technical position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It would be helpful to the House if hon. Members who have already taken part in the debate tried to restrain themselves from making speeches by way of interventions. When making their contributions they should cover all the points on which they wish to be satisfied.
  Mr. Sproat: It is important to know whether there is to be a Scottish public lending right and a Scottish registrar for Scottish authors. The definition of a Scottish author would be interesting. In Committee we discussed the definition of a British author. To our amazement, the hon. Lady could not tell us whether a British author was someone who lived in the United Kingdom, someone who had a United Kingdom passport, or someone who was born here. We do not know. If we do not know who is a British author, how shall we know who is a Scottish author? Is a Scottish author someone who was born in Scotland and is living in London—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The amendment refers to—
  1284
  "such other libraries as may from time to time be stipulated by the Secretary of State".
  If the Secretary of State stipulates certain libraries, certain funds have to be made available. Such stipulations could not be made under the devolution proposals without the authority of the Scottish Executive: Is the "Secretary of State" the Secretary of State for Scotland? If he had this power of stipulation, would it not be subject to the overall right of the Executive, which has full power to carry out delegated legislation and to make a delegated stipulation? If such a stipulation could be made, it would have no meaning in the event of the devolution proposals going through.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend makes a shrewd point. He indicates the confusion that could arise in the context of the Scottish Assembly. Throughout our debates on the Bill we have assumed that Scottish public libraries would be getting their money from the Department of Education and Science in London. My hon. Friend shakes his head in dissent, but we should be grateful if that means we shall get more money for Scottish libraries.
  The question that the hon. Lady must answer is whether the stipulation that will no doubt come into force when we carry the amendment will be assigned, to use a word which was much in use in Committee and which has been used on Report, or whether it will remain with the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  My hon. Friend will remember the extraordinary incident the other day when the right to rate oil rigs in the North Sea, something which surely should have been assigned to the Scottish Assembly, was retained for the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps that is the sort of arrangement to which the hon. Lady wishes to return. My hon. Friend used the word "muddle". He is right. Muddle, worse muddle and worse muddle compounded is what we shall get if we are foolish enough to try to impose a Scottish Assembly on our present legislative problems.
  The words "legislative problems" take me to my next point—namely, that once again the hon. Lady has been advancing the argument of administrative inconvenience in attempting the refutation of the amendment.
  Mr. Lawson: If my hon. Friend looks at Appendix B of the public lending right report he will see that the difference between the Tate Central Library and the Wilton Mobile Library is far greater than the difference, for example, between the Bodleian and the London Library. If one difference can be encompassed surely the other can.
  Mr. Sproat: That is a shrewd point. The introduction of the Wilton Mobile Library into our considerations—it was first raised as a point of ridicule—raises a matter of real substance. If it is possible to work out what is being done with a library that stops for only 20 minutes every fortnight, if we can make allowance for that, why not make allowance for a library that has stood in the same spot for 600 years? The refusal to do that is what is ludicrous.
  Mr. Gow: I wonder whether my hon. Friend has directed his mind to the provisions of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955. An important matter to which my hon. Friend should direct his attention is whether the proposed Scottish Assembly would have power to override the key sectors of that Act. I raise this issue because the document entitled "Public Lending Right: Final report of an investigation of technical and cost aspects" was produced on 17th October 1975 whereas, as Mr. Deputy Speaker will remember, the Government White Paper on devolution, which was written by the former Lord President of the Council, appeared after the report was presented on 17th October 1975. My hon. Friend may have overlooked that the White Paper followed the report. Has he directed his mind to the effect of some of the more obscure subsections of the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955 and whether the Scottish Assembly, when set up under the provisions of the Government's White Paper—you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we have not yet seen the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What Bill?
  Mr. Gow: We have not seen the Devolution Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is out of order to discuss the Devolution Bill.
  Mr. Sproat: Perhaps I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest by saying that he
  1286
  is correct. I had overlooked the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955 and its relevance to this matter. If he will give me a copy, I shall hasten to consider it, possibly with a view to future amandmeats. But my hon. Friend makes the shrewd point that it came out in 1955 whereas the TIG report came out in October. The whole thing is a mass of ad hoc additions, with one thing piled on another, making no sense, and a Scottish Assembly would make even more nonsense out of what is already a nonsense. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.
  The Minister has yet again advanced this argument of administrative inconvenience. It is no good her saying that. We are prepared to believe that it is administratively inconvenient. No one doubts that. But we say that we do not care tuppence whether it is administratively inconvenient if this is a principle which in justice we should accept. That is the essential point.
  It is no use her coming before us on every amendment and saying "It is administratively inconvenient". That is not enough. She might as well nothing as say that. We are advancing argument after argument. Either the hon. Lady says "This is what the Government have decided", with no attempt to say why, or she puts forward this tired argument that it is too complicated administratively and that the bureaucracy will be too difficult.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby has made some outstanding contributions to the debate, widening it from Clausewitz to the Wilton Mobile Library. But he made a very pertinent intervention when he spoke of libraries currently outside the scope of the Bill which possibly housed books "of a better kind". Once we begin using words like "better", we are on very dangerous ground.
  Earlier, we had to say that "War and Peace", a novel, somehow was better or not better than the Shorter Oxford Dictionary. These are semantic morasses into which we would do well not to, tread.
  What is more, when my hon. Friend talks about the "better" books in these libraries, it may be that they are more expensive, in which case the authors of

  1287
  them will already have had a higher price. But it is dangerous to talk about "better" books and to say, perhaps, that the Bodleian contains better books than the public library of Auchtermucht.
  Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend is trying to categorise certain volumes. In which category would he put the two books so far published of the former Leader of the House and the volume entitled "The Governance of Britain"? Would he put those in the better or the worst category?
  Mr. Sproat: I can deal with "The Governance of Britain" immediately, but I am not sure what are the two volumes of the previous Leader of the House.
  Mr. Gow: I refer to the memoirs of Mr. Richard Crossman. The literary executor is the present Leader of the House.
  Mr. Sproat: Is he? I did not know that. I must admit to having read only the version of Mr. Crossman's memoirs that appeared in The Sunday Times.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will be good enough to show me how his argument in any way relates to the amendment. I cannot relate it and I have been puzzling about it for the past two or three minutes.
  12.45 a.m.
  Mr. Sproat: I am sorry if the lack of clarity with which I have been advancing my argument has disguised the fact that it is totally relevant to the amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There have been so many interruptions to lead the hon. Member astray. Unfortunately, the hon. Member has too easily fallen for them.
  Mr. Sproat: How often in life, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Lawson: As my hon. Friend has attacked me, and I do not resent that, may I clarify the position? I do not believe that the Bill should distinguish whether books are better or worse. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is certainly not a matter for legislation. I was merely expressing a personal opinion and I think that as hon. Member we are entitled to express a personal opinion.
  1288
  I think that we ought to have opinions on the quality of literature in libraries.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not see the relevance of this line. The very valued friend of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), Aristotle, would not agree with him on this occasion. I see nothing in the amendment about books; it refers to libraries.
  Mr. Lawson: We are talking about different categories of libraries and there is a suspicion that different categories of libraries might contain different categories of books.
  Mr. Sproat: I agree with my hon. Friend about the relevance of this argument to the amendment, for different sorts of libraries will contain different sorts of books. If the Bill is confined to public libraries, as it would be without amendment, 70 per cent. of all the books involved will be fiction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby used the word "better". I took him up in a perhaps overly sharp way to say that it was dangerous to talk about "better". We must have subjective opinions of our own, but it is always dangerous to base legislation on subjective opinions.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is talking nonsense. Surely he will agree that there is such a thing as a dirty book, but we are talking about public libraries. Does he know of any dirty public libraries?
  Mr. Sproat: No, but I do not know whether my hon. Friend is talking in metaphorical or literal terms. Many public libraries, particularly with public expenditure cuts, are not as clean as they might be. With the recent strike of school cleaners in Inverness, no doubt those libraries are not as clean as they should be.
  I do not like disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) because I value his opinions on so many matters, particularly on the Scottish Assembly, about which he is absolutely right.
  However, perhaps I may return to the difference between libraries. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby made the

  1289
  comment that there would be different books in different libraries and we should take account of them—the Bodleian, the Wilton Mobile Library, the local authority libraries.
  I shall not mention all those omitted by my hon. Friend. He mentioned the library of the Department of Education and Science. I imagine that there are more books in that library than there are in many others. This is that Department's Bill and one assumes that it will have more books than most. But I dare say that the Treasury has a number of books in its library, as has the Department of the Environment. No doubt the Foreign Office has hundreds of books in many different languages.
  The Library of the House of Commons has been mentioned, with its natural emphasis on history and constitutional law and so on. Why should the author of a work on the constitution be deprived of a fair reward simply because the Bill is applied only to local authority libraries? Why should he be unfairly treated?
  I have had no answer from the Under-Secretary to any of these questions. The whole issue could be settled easily if we could find a way of getting those who use libraries to pay for the privilege. Those who borrow books should pay for them—perhaps 5p or so each time, or perhaps a £10 annual subscription.
  The orginial purpose of the public libraries was not to provide entertainment, yet today about 70 per cent. of the books borrowed are taken out for entertainment. There may be a wealth if instruction in them—life in pre-revolutionary Russia is richly described in "War and Peace", and there is instruction also on life in Russia in the stories of Chekhov. But most people do not read Chekhov for instruction. They want to be entertained. But why should the taxpayers pay for the entertainment of members of the public? They do not pay for football or cricket matches, and they do not subsidise opera or concert-goers.
  The whole purpose of public libraries has been turned upside down, and this amendment seeks to put the situation right. Instead of the whole of the public lending right going to mainly fiction, a balance would be restored so that books
  1290
  of scholarship, history and law would benefit as well. It is quite wrong that authors who provide mostly instruction, rather than entertainment, should be refused reward for their works out of the public lending right.
  Mr. Gow: Could my hon. Friend draw from his own experience and tell us which countries provide a public lending right in accordance with the Bill and which provide it in accordance with the amendment?
  Mr. Sproat: That question should be directed to the Under-Secretary. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives kept asking about books of medical anatomy, and he directed his questions to the Under-Secretary. I do the same. I have not borrowed books from a public library in any country other than the United Kingdom, so I cannot say what happens elsewhere.
  Sweden has been mentioned tonight in this connection. Certainly West Germany's Parliament passed a Bill of this nature, but it had the sense not to implement it.
  Mr. Ridley: Is it not possible that the Germans have not implemented their scheme because they are having to save the money it would cost in order to lend it to us so that we may implement ours?
  Mr. Sproat: That is a good argument. One might ask whether Saudi Arabia has a public lending right which it cannot afford to implement because it is lending us the money instead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne referred to the university libraries. We are proud of these libraries at Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Cambridge and Oxford. But there are other such libraries. They are at Heidelberg, Rome and Paris. Why have these countries not implemented or put forward such a Bill? These questions must be directed towards the Minister. I hope that she will accept the amendment.
  Mr. English: The extraordinary thing about the amendment is that the Government have spent three hours resisting being given the mere power to extend the Bill to libraries other than local authority libraries. The amendment does not actually extend the Bill to non-local authority libraries.

  1291
  The Government are resisting the amendment for two reasons. First, I strongly suspect that they cannot move the closure because they have lost their majority. That is a purely technical reason.
  Mr. James Hamilton (Vice Chamberlain of the Household): My hon. Friend should not say that.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) is making sedentary interjections in a foreign language. That is intolerable. Will the hon. Gentleman rise to his feet and tell us what he was saying?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Like the occupant of the Chair, the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) is short of stature. He actually was standing.
  Mr. English: The more important reason why the Government are resisting the amendment is that they do not want anyone in the future to apply the Bill to the libraries described by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and others. This is extraordinary. I do not blame the Under-Secretary. She does not have the power to accept the amendment. But where is the Secretary of State? She could accept this mere power, but she is not here.
  The Bill could not have been drafted or constructed by other than a middle-class author in Hampstead. Excluded from it are libraries owned by the Crown. That covers the Civil Service and Armed Services libraries. University libraries are excluded, but local authority libraries are not. We shall all be taxed when anyone borrows a book from such a library. But no taxation will arise on borrowings from libraries owned by the Crown or the universities. Residents of Kensington and Chelsea who belong to Harrods library will give rise to no taxation by their borrowing. The public lending right is generated only in respect of the overwhelming mass of the citizens who go to the local authority libraries.
  1.0 a.m.
  The Minister, whether through fault of her own or not, finds it impossible, after three and a quarter hours of discussion, to accept an amendment which merely
  1292
  gives her power to add these other libraries. It does not state that she must. only that she could.
  The Government, or whoever drafted the Bill, are determined that we must not tax the middle-class author when he borrows a book from a university library or a Civil Service library. Apparently we must tax only the people who read, but do not write, books.
  Mr. Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said that he supported the amendment. I can see arguments on both sides. There are a number of questions the answers to which will help me to resolve my attitude to the amendment. In fairness I should point out that some of the questions relate exclusively to the situation in Scotland.
  I have a high regard for the Under-Secretary of State, but it would help me and the House if a Scottish Minister were present, because he would have some understanding of the special problems of Scottish local authorities. We are talking about local authority libraries, which means local authority libraries in Scotland and in England. The law and library administration in Scotland are totally different from the position in England. Therefore, it will be an outrage if we do not soon have a Scottish Minister present. I should like the Lord Advocate to be present as well, because there are a number of legal matters which I want to raise.
  I am distressed that the Minister does not appear to regard this as a significant point. The hon. Lady may feel that we have had a long debate. However. I hope that she will not take the view that because an argument comes from a Scottish Member it can be ignored. Sometimes Ministers give the impression that, because a question comes from a Scottish Member, it can be turned aside lightly and ignored.
  The Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton), is a most conscientious Member. I think that he will agree that when an amendment has Scottish aspects, a Scottish Minister should be present. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Member for Bothwell is on the Bench, but it would help if there were a Scottish Minister who

  1293
  could answer the points that I wish to make.
  Obviously the Government do not want to accept Amendment No. 6, because it could widen the scope of the scheme. There has been a great deal of talk about university libraries. There is almost an obsession about universities on both sides of the House.
  One change which I have noticed since I have been a Member is that the Opposition are becoming dominated by Members who have gone straight from school to university, from university to the research department of ICI or a merchant bank, and then to the House of Commons. In the same way, we are seeing more teachers and lecturers coming in on the Government side. These are all people with experience of universities. But about 96 per cent. of the population have no direct experience of universities. That includes those who serve meals in and deliver the milk to universities.
  It is all very well to say that universities are used to running libraries. But what about some of the more popular libraries? My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) will know that the Missions to Seamen run effective libraries which are widely used. They do not have the same number of obscene books as some of our public libraries.
  Mr. Ridley: How does my hon. Friend define an obscene book?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend knows exactly what I mean by an obscene book. There are far too many of them and it is time there were fewer. One does not find them in the seamen's missions and if more libraries were like those, our libraries would be better.
  The amendment concerns the power to extend the Bill to other libraries. We have no indication of whether it will apply to libraries run for no profit. Some of the most successful organisations before the war—and we must be careful about referring to before and after the war, because some younger hon. Members do not think in such terms—were the commercial libraries.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the Committee Hansard. In Committee my hon. Friend
  1294
  the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) drew the attention of hon. Members to the many highly successful commercial libraries, including Smiths. Boots and Mudies.
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend often surprises me, not only in this context. He is a good guy but he does and says some funny things. There is no point in hiding that—I am not being critical of him.
  Mr. Gow: To which hon. Member is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) referring—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) or my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke)?
  Mr. Taylor: I was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West is an able person who speaks with common sense. I wish that we had more like him. I was referring to my hon. Friend who is the Shadow Minister. He sometimes says things which astonish me. I do not always want to be associated with him, but in the Conservative Party we try to stick together.
  If we consider extending the Bill to commercial libraries, there is a danger of discriminating against the big boys, the type of organisation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West referred. For instance, Sir Hugh Fraser is boss of Scottish Universal Investment Trusts. That is a big company, as we know from the balance sheets. If we extend the Bill to commercial libraries, the big boys will be picked out.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford deplored that the commercial libraries have ceased to exist, but he mentioned them to indicate that the pendulum might swing back. He did not mean that the big boys would be singled out, but that people with a small beginnings would be brought within the scheme.
  Mr. Taylor: There is a tendency to think of Harrods, Smiths and Boots when talking of commercial libraries. But Boots ran its libraries as a means of getting people into the shops. The library was always on the top floor and to get there to borrow a book customers

  1295
  had to walk passed the razor blades and toothpaste.
  It is a great mistake for Governments to put more and more burdens on the big firms simply because they have the administrative organisation to cope. I should be very unhappy if under Amendment No. 6 the larger firms with the big share capital were to be told "You can meet the extra administrative cost" and the local shops with libraries were treated differently. Where is the equity? Surely an author is an author and a book is a book. Whether a book is in a one-man store or what used to be the Boots library, the principle is the same.
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend keeps referring to Amendment No. 6. I see nowhere in that amendment discrimination against multi-national conglomerate libraries compared with the small shops. Where does my hon. Friend find it?
  Mr. Taylor: I find it in the discretion given in the words
  "such other libraries as may from time to time be stipulated".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford specified the big boys in his speeches in Committee. He did not talk about what happened in his High Street.
  Mr. David Walder: My hon. Friend seems to have a prejudice in regard to what he calls the big boys. I understand the Bill to be intended to be in the interests of authors. My hon. Friend is the author of an extremely funny novel, "Hearts of Stone". The big boys might be better at handling it than the small library in the High Street in Chelmsford. Does not my hon. Friend think that it might be a good idea for them to make a contribution to him?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Walder) reminded me that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) did not declare an interest in this matter.
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry if I made an error, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I thought that when one had put one's interest in the Register of Members' Interests, that was enough.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is still the practice of the House for an hon. Member taking part in the debate to declare his interest.
  Mr. Sproat: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us, including me, have declared an interest in that we would benefit from the Bill, but have said that we were nevertheless against it.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: What is the point of order?
  Mr. Sproat: It is a serious matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you wish us to declare our interest on every amendment, or is it sufficient to declare it on Second Reading and, as in my own case, in Committee?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is being facetious. One declaration of interest will cover all the amendments, no matter what time of night or early morning we take them.
  Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you think that those of us who hope one day to publish our memoirs—"Twenty Years as a Cabinet Minister", or whatever the title may be—should declare our prospective interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It all depends on the Member and his importance. My ruling would be guided by the importance of the Member and the success which his memoirs might achieve. In the ordinary Member's case, I do not think that he needs to declare his interest.
  1.15 a.m.
  Mr. Ridley: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Supposing a Member had written a book which was not accepted by the public libraries but was only in private libraries such as are referred to in the amendment, would he have to declare an interest?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker.Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course. It is obvious that he must, because he would be speaking to an amendment which, if accepted, might enable him through his book to achieve some substantial revenue.
  Mr. Taylor: I always declare my extensive interests, but I was rather reluctant to do so in this instance because I thought it might be regarded as a form of advertising. We have not only a large

  1297
  number of Members present but there are also the people in the Strangers' Gallery.
  Mr. Lawson Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Taylor: I wrote a novel called "Hearts of Stone" which was published—
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cathcart must not refer to anyone in the Strangers' Gallery.
  Mr. Taylor: I was not thinking so much of the Strangers' Gallery as of someone in the Official Box who, I think, has just woken up and appears to be reading a book.
  The novel to which I referred sold very well and was serialised in the Scottish Daily Express. I hope that those who read it enjoyed it. I enjoyed writing it, and it is because of this that I have a passionate interest in authors. But my interest in authors and in my book is as nothing compared with my interest in having workable legislation. My fear is that if we accept the amendment there will be a danger that we shall not have workable legislation.
  We have a good number of big boys, and some small ones like my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—that is, in size. But I am talking here of the size of business, of course, and there is a danger to which Governments are prone. They put more and more burdens on firms which have not the administration to cope with them.
  My fear is that, given this discretion, we might very well find that the Government would specify those commercial libraries with a turnover of more than a certain number of books, or with a share capital of so much. That would be unfair, because it would not be just to the authors. Sometimes we find small libraries and shops in small streets or in narrow streets—
  Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is harping on commercial libraries but there is nothing in the amendment confining it to commercial libraries. Had he been able to be here for the whole of this interesting debate he would have heard that a great deal of it has been concerned with libraries which are not commercial libraries at all but which are in the public sector—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) is usurping the function of the Chair by declaring whether something is in order. That is the duty of the Chair. What the hon. Member for Cathcart is trying to establish is that if the amendment were carried, it would be the larger firms, which have the administration, as opposed to the smaller firms, which lack the administration, which would be included. The larger firms would be allowed to carry on.
  Mr. Lawson: The university libraries and so on are not in the commercial sector at all.
  Mr. Taylor Mr. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cathcart is looking at his watch. I hope that it has not stopped. I remind hon. Members that Christmas is a little way off still and that it is a bit too early for the pantomime season.
  Mr. Taylor: I found your own guidance to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with respect, far more helpful than the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby, which are usually helpful but on this occasion have tended to draw me off my precise argument on the amendment. I would remind my hon. Friend that we are talking about Amendment No. 6, which I regard as a narrow amendment.
  I wish to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby that there is no indication in the amendment whether it includes commercial or non-commercial libraries. If it applies to commercial libraries which make profits, that could have a significant effect on the tax revenue. It is a matter about which the Government must think carefully. If these provisions were to apply to commercial libraries which make profits and pay taxes, what would be the allowable costs in such an exercise?
  I do not know whether the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science can say anything about Scottish legislation in this regard, but I hope that at least she knows a little about tax law. Would this be an allowable expense, and would it thus reduce the amount of revenue available to the Government? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby knows these things. He knows all about sums, deficits, liquidations and all the rest of it, and I am sure

  1299
  that he is aware of the danger of reducing Government revenue in taxation terms, if the amendment is accepted in an unthinking kind of way.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is making a shrewd point, and I hope that the Minister will answer it. But does he not agree that the problem of the reduction of income to the Treasury could be obviated if the Government were to introduce a scheme whereby those who used local authority libraries had to pay something towards them? The matter would then be self-financing, and there would be no question of the Treasury losing money. It could be done by paying a small sum per book—as happens, say, in Harrods library.
  Mr. Taylor: Although I am seeking information from the Government, I appreciate that Amendment No. 6 is not a Government amendment but an amendment tabled by some of my hon. Friends. Therefore, I am entitled to ask them whether they mean to include commercial libraries and whether they have considered the tax implications.
  I am grateful to see on the Government Front Bench the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who obviously has taken time off from his devolution duties to come to answer some of my points. I have two simple straight questions to put on the Scottish aspects of Amendment No. 6. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will be aware that Amendment No. 6 does something which on the face of it appears to be simple. Clause 1(1) says:
  "In accordance with a scheme to be prepared and brought into force by the Secretary of State, there shall be conferred on authors a right, known as public lending right, to receive from time to time out of a Central Fund payments in respect of such of their works as are lent out to the public by local library authorities in the United Kingdom."
  The Bill uses the phrase "United Kingdom", and some day in this Chamber we might talk not about the "United Kingdom" but something quite different. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will rethink some of his obsession with the principle of devolution.
  The Government use the phrase "local library authorities" but the amendment seeks to substitute the words
  1300
  "and by such other such libraries as may from time to time be stipulated by the Secretary of State ".
  Is the Secretary of State mentioned in the amendment the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
  Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), whose amendment this is and who I wish would return to answer some of these questions, could tell my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that "Secretary of State" means any Secretary of State. They all act one for the other. It could even be the Secretary of State for Social Services if that pleased my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Taylor: That intervention makes me very much less happy about the amendment. I should be very concerned if it were proposed that the Secretary of State for Social Services should stipulate Scottish libraries—that is a real tongue twister.
  The amendment refers to the Secretary of State stipulating other libraries, but would the recommendation of stipulation be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Education? This may seem a small point of no great significance, but on page 5 of the Bill there is a definition of local library authority. Those of us who regard ourselves as British may think that this phrase can have only one meaning, but, like so many other things, it is deceptive.
  I have found that many subjects, including, for example, the Common Market when studied, lived and experienced, are very different from the promises of those who advocated them at first. The vain promises of politicians and economists have often produced something totally different in reality.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have listened patiently, but I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman is indulging in a bit of filibustering, and I shall not stand for that. Let the hon. Gentleman look at his watch. These points have already been made.
  Mr. Taylor: I have not even started on these points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I do not see how it can be said that I have already made them.
  Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Not long ago you said to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) that it was still early and that he should not hurry. Now you are telling him to look at his watch.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cathcart was asking hon. Members not to intervene because he was anxious to get on. Perhaps he felt in need of a drink of some kind.
  Mr. Taylor: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in all the time I have been here—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a teetotaller. I was referring to a glass of water.
  Mr. Taylor: I have always treated the Chair with very great respect and I have a very high regard for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when you referred to me—a leading official of the temperance movement—as needing a drink—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise if the hon. Member thought for a moment that I was referring to a drink in the ordinary sense of the word. I know that he is an absolute teetotaller. I was referring to a drink of water.
  1.30 a.m.
  Mr. Taylor: I am particularly grateful for your apology, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I accept unreservedly and without qualification. I apologise for having to continue for a little longer.
  It is clear that the Minister responsible—at present, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment—is finding great difficulty in following my argument. That is why I am speaking rather more slowly than usual. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland had the responsibility, I am sure that we should be progressing much more quickly. He has not only a sharp mind but the further ability of knowing very thoroughly the difficulties of Scottish administration.
  "Local library authority" means different things in Scotland, in Northern Ireland and in England. For England it means
  "a library authority under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964."
  That is clear and we all know what that means. It is the Act of 1964 that applies
  1302
  to England and Wales. For the purposes of this amendment, if one wants to know what a library authority is for England and Wales, one looks at that Act.
  Library authorities in Northern Ireland are quite different. There it is
  "an Education and Library Board within the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972."
  In Scotland, however, we have a quite different definition. That is
  "a statutory library authority within the Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1955."
  If there were any change in Scottish library legislation, if we had, for example, a Public Libraries (Scotland) Act 1979, presumably the new definition would go in there.
  My point is that if the change were made in the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 in 1979, there would be no problem. We would have a simple amendment at the back of the Act. At the back of all these things there is the small print—the consequential amendments. They are rather like a football pools coupon with lots of lines going up and down and across, involving lots of lines being altered in consequence.
  If we were to change the English libraries legislation in 1979, there would be no problem. We would simply have a consequential amendment. If we wanted to change the Northern Ireland libraries legislation, there would be no problem if we still had direct rule. A change would be made in this House and it would be consequential.
  However, what will happen in 1979 in Scotland? If there is new libraries legislation in 1979 in Scotland, it will not be made at Westminster. Hon. Members interested in Scottish libraries will not have a say in the matter. They may not be here. It may not even be this colour of paper. It might be red. It will not be a Bill like that before us at all.
  Mr. Gow: Why does my hon. Friend assume that the Devolution Bill, if ever we see it, will become law?
  Mr. Taylor: All I am saying is that the Government have said that this is what they intend. My hon. Friend and others, and probably public opinion and common sense, may lead us in a different direction. But what we expect a Government to do in considering an

  1303
  amendment such as this is at least to do some thinking and forward planning.
  If we have a new Scottish library law made in 1979, not here but somewhere else, one cannot, on the basis of a White Paper, have a bit at the back of the Scottish law which would amend a British public lending right Act.
  The simple point is that the moment one has a new library law passed as from 1978 in the event of a Devolution Bill being implemented, every Scottish library is removed from the right to carry out the functions of the Bill, because one thereby has a new definition of a Scottish library authority and a new Bill in this House is needed to amend it. We shall be having terrible pressure on legislative time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow a line of argument that involves what may happen in 1980 or 1999. Will the hon. Member please stick to the amendment?
  Mr. Taylor: My point is exactly on the amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The amendment says
  "such other libraries as may from time to time be stipulated ".
  The Government are proposing instead local authority libraries only. What I am saying does not just relate to local authority libraries. If that was the case it would be simple. But we are talking about law.
  The point is that I am not prepared to let this amendment go through if it could have the effect in a short time of ensuring that every English library would carry out this function but no Scottish library. I am simply pointing out that if no Scottish library Bill was implement, the automatic effect would be that Scottish public libraries would not be covered.
  That is the one feature that attracts me to the amendment. If we do not have some provision for the Secretary of State to stipulate other libraries, in one minute we could exclude every Scottish library from the scope of this subsection.
  That is something I do not want. While I accept that there are arguments both for and against, I shall not be happy to vote for this amendment unless I have clear assurances on this important point of Scottish administration.
  Mr. David Walder: I intended to surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by speaking to the amendment. I would have thought that the main purpose of the Bill was the interests of authors. I would have thought that the moving force of authors, in all respects, was that authors write books which were constantly borrowed by libraries, institutions and the like and but got no recompense for the process of borrowing.
  I find it extraordinary that only public authority libraries are contained in the Bill. Naturally, one can imagine an author being slightly resentful if he sees his works being borrowed with no recompense to himself, not only from public authority libraries but from universities, service institutes and the like. I would have thought it was no great stretching of the Government to include at least the possibility that other libraries should be included in the Bill.
  If we are aiming, as all authors' organisations have suggested—it is a terribly simplistic term which some of my hon. Friends may not like—at justice for authors, I would have thought we were aiming at justice for authors in other libraries which lent their books. 'that is the whole purpose of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Miss Margaret Jackson: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: I must put on record that twice the Government failed to keep the House on Second Reading and that we had three goes to get Second Reading. In Standing Committee the Government failed to keep their forces present and proceedings were adjourned at least on one occasion.
  Now, because the Government have failed to keep the House and have failed to produce enough Members to close the discussion, they are chickening out on the Public Lending Right Bill. Be it on the Government's head that this Bill is now unlikely to reach the statute book in this Session.
  Mr. English: I must put on record that the Opposition Front Bench claimed to be in support of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) even objected in the columns of The Guardian to my hon. Friend the

  1305
  Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) claiming to be the author of the Bill The hon. Member for Chelmsford claimed that he was the author. It is the responsibility of both Front Benches to keep the House.
  The point about the Bill is that it is unpopular in the House of Commons, and that is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing whether the debate should be adjourned.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered this day.

  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [LORDS]

    EUROPEAN SECONDARY LEGISLATION, &c.
    Ordered,
    That, notwithstanding the Order of the House of 18th November 1974 in the last Session of Parliament relating to nomination of Members of the Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation, &c., Mr. Ian Percival and Mr. Malcolm Rifkind be dis-
    1306
    charged from the Committee and Mr. Tom Arnold and Mr. Robert Hicks be added to the Committee for the remainder of this Parliament.
    Ordered,
    That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn]
    Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member who was expected to speak on the Adjournment is one of my hon. Friends—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's name is on the Order Paper. He is the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), but he is not here.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Two o'clock.

  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Prisoners (Escapes)
  Television (Wales)
  Television (Wales)
  Matrimonial Causes (Magistrates' Courts)
  Matrimonial Causes (Magistrates' Courts)
  PETERBOROUGH
  PETERBOROUGH
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  CBI
  CBI
  MOZAMBIQUE
  MOZAMBIQUE
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)
  PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  HOUSE OF LORDS
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
  LUXEMBOURG
  LUXEMBOURG
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  GOVERNOR OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND
  SKELMERSDALE
  SKELMERSDALE
  SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC PROSPECTS)
  SCOTLAND (ECONOMIC PROSPECTS)
  WOLVERHAMPTON
  WOLVERHAMPTON
  MALTA
  MALTA
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC (CHANCELLOR)
  GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC (CHANCELLOR)
  TREASURY (ECONOMIC PLANNING)
  TREASURY (ECONOMIC PLANNING)
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  ROAD ACCIDENTS
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  SCOTLAND
  SCOTLAND
TRANSPORT
  Railways (Dismissals)
  Railways (Dismissals)
  Vehicles (Loading and Unloading)
  Vehicles (Loading and Unloading)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Toll Bridges
  Toll Bridges
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  British Rail (Contract)
  British Rail (Contract)
  Road Construction Units
  Road Construction Units
  A52 (Nottingham-Grantham)
  A52 (Nottingham-Grantham)
  Road Fund Licence (Dr. P. Zacharias)
  Road Fund Licence (Dr. P. Zacharias)
  Motor Cyclists
  Motor Cyclists
  Fashion Forwardings Limited
  Fashion Forwardings Limited
  Transport Policy
  Transport Policy
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  OHMS Postal Facilities
  OHMS Postal Facilities
  Civil Servants (Rents)
  Civil Servants (Rents)
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Security Vetting
  Security Vetting
  Ministry of Defence Police
  Ministry of Defence Police
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Science Teachers (Training)
  Science Teachers (Training)
  Scottish Universities
  Scottish Universities
  Agricultural Students
  Agricultural Students
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Dental Research
  Dental Research
ENERGY
  Gas Reserves (Lancashire Coast)
  Gas Reserves (Lancashire Coast)
  European Community
  European Community
  Drax B Power Station
  Drax B Power Station
ENVIRONMENT
  Football Grounds
  Football Grounds
  Rent Rebates and Supplementary Benefits
  Rent Rebates and Supplementary Benefits
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Hawkshead (Pedestrianisation)
  Hawkshead (Pedestrianisation)
  Dogs
  Dogs
  House of Lords (Building Expenditure)
  House of Lords (Building Expenditure)
  Local Authority Members (Attendance Allowances)
  Local Authority Members (Attendance Allowances)
  Windscale (Planning Application)
  Windscale (Planning Application)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Rate Support Grant (Wales)
  Bricks and Cement
  Bricks and Cement
  Housing Survey
  Housing Survey
  Rents
  Rents
  River Fisheries
  River Fisheries
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Consulates (Aid to Travellers)
  Consulates (Aid to Travellers)
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  European Development Fund (Disbursements)
  European Development Fund (Disbursements)
  Tea
  Tea
SCOTLAND
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Maize
  Maize
  Local Authority Lending
  Local Authority Lending
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Gas Liquids Separation Plant
  Gas Liquids Separation Plant
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  River Fisheries
  River Fisheries
  MacBrayne's
  MacBrayne's
  Licensing Act (Implementation)
  Licensing Act (Implementation)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Bal Javan Chamcho Baby Tonic
  Bal Javan Chamcho Baby Tonic
  Benefit and Wage Levels
  Benefit and Wage Levels
  Family Planning Services
  Family Planning Services
  Social Security Recipients
  Social Security Recipients
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Vaccine-Damaged Children
  Local Offices (South London)
  Local Offices (South London)
  Benefits (Weekly Total)
  Benefits (Weekly Total)
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Rent and Rates Payments
  Rent and Rates Payments
  Unemployment Benefit (Overseas Visitors)
  Unemployment Benefit (Overseas Visitors)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Departmental Mail
  Departmental Mail
  Orpington Hospital
  Orpington Hospital
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Junior Doctors (Northern Region)
  Junior Doctors (Northern Region)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Group Homes)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Group Homes)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Dental Mechanics
  Dental Mechanics
  Widows
  Widows
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Naudicelle Tablets
  Naudicelle Tablets
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  Resource Allocation Working Party
  London Medical Appeal Tribunal
  London Medical Appeal Tribunal
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
  Psychiatric Patients
  Psychiatric Patients
  Electrical Treatment
  Electrical Treatment
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Average Family Income
  Average Family Income
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
  Tax Collection (Rochdale)
  Tax Collection (Rochdale)
  PAYE
  PAYE
  Manufactures (Exports and Imports)
  Manufactures (Exports and Imports)
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Exchange Equalisation Account
  Exchange Equalisation Account
  Wives' Pensions
  Wives' Pensions
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefits
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefits
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Capital Formation
  Capital Formation
  Patents Registration
  Patents Registration
  Spare-time Employment (Undeclared Payments)
  Spare-time Employment (Undeclared Payments)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ration Books
  Ration Books
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Herbicide 245
  Herbicide 245
  Food and Drink (Production)
  Food and Drink (Production)
  Tea
  Tea
  River Fisheries
  River Fisheries
  Agricultural Production
  Agricultural Production
  Imports
  Imports
TRADE
  Company Investigations
  Company Investigations
  DC10 Aircraft
  DC10 Aircraft
  Power Plant
  Power Plant
TRADE
  Tea
  Tea
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Tea
  Tea
  Metrication
  Metrication
WALES
  Schools (Teacher-Pupil Ratio)
  Schools (Teacher-Pupil Ratio)
  Home Loss Payments
  Home Loss Payments
EMPLOYMENT
  Certificates of Independence
  Certificates of Independence
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Factories
  Factories
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Work Experience Scheme
  Work Experience Scheme
  Working Hours
  Working Hours
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Industrial Disputes (Lost Days)
  Job Creation Programme
  Job Creation Programme
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Certification Officers
  Certification Officers
  North-West Region
  North-West Region
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Wages Council Inspectorate (Investigation)
  Wages Council Inspectorate (Investigation)
  Manpower Policy
  Manpower Policy
  Shepway
  Shepway
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Training
  Training
  Free Movement of Labour
  Free Movement of Labour
  Weymouth and Portland
  Weymouth and Portland
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Scotland
  Scotland
  Manchester
  Manchester
  Cornwall
  Cornwall
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Work Permits
  Work Permits
  Construction Industry (Hampshire)
  Construction Industry (Hampshire)
  Leek
  Leek
  Bricklayers
  Bricklayers
DEFENCE
  Rent Act 1974
  Rent Act 1974
  Porton (Research Worker's Illness)
  Porton (Research Worker's Illness)
  Reserve Forces (Disablement Allowance)
  Reserve Forces (Disablement Allowance)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Quality Assurance (Components)
  Quality Assurance (Components)
  Expenditure Reductions
  Expenditure Reductions
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Local Authorities (Vacancies)
  Local Authorities (Vacancies)
  River Fisheries
  River Fisheries
  Murders
  Murders
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  European Farm Fund
  European Farm Fund
  Meat Industry
  Meat Industry
INDUSTRY
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Government Chemist (Cumbria Laboratory)
  Government Chemist (Cumbria Laboratory)
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Minerals (Exploration)
  Minerals (Exploration)
  British Leyland
  British Leyland
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Fuel Supply
  Fuel Supply
  Power Plant
  Power Plant
  Plastics
  Plastics
  Pumps and Valves
  Pumps and Valves
  Heating and Ventilating
  Heating and Ventilating
  Rubber
  Rubber
  Office Equipment
  Office Equipment
  Paper and Printing
  Paper and Printing
  Fluid Power
  Fluid Power
  Electrical Engineering
  Electrical Engineering
  Metals
  Metals
  Electronics
  Electronics
  Textiles (Machinery)
  Textiles (Machinery)
  Electronics
  Electronics
  Industrial Equipment
  Industrial Equipment
  Computers
  Computers
  Electrical Engineering
  Electrical Engineering
  Man-made Fibres
  Man-made Fibres
  "Business Month"
  "Business Month"
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools

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

AIRLINE OVERBOOKING COMPENSATION SCHEME
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 now in a position to make a statement upon the result of the discussions between the Civil Aviation Authority and British Airlines concerning the application of the overbooking compensation scheme to return flights resulting from an original booking made in the United Kingdom on British arilines.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand from the Civil Aviation Authority that the airlines see difficulties in extending the scheme as suggested. The Authority is, however, continuing to explore the possibilities with the British airlines, including that of persuading airlines generally to provide compensation for denied carriage, on a worldwide basis. Naturally the Government hope that these further efforts will be successful.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I left the Question on the Order Paper because I hoped that even he—and I am not being offensive—might think that four months was rather a long time to wait for a satisfactory answer? Does the Minister recall that it was 14th July when this matter was first raised? Further, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there are two points of view on this, and that the point of view which some of us have been pursuing is that this compensation on airline tickets should extend to the whole of the ticket and
1110
should first of all be covered by those airlines which have adopted the British airlines scheme?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand the differing approaches to the Question, but I should like to assure my noble friend that she has allies in important places. I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority would like the airlines to go further than has been suggested by the Airlines Users' Committee of which she is a member and would wish the compensation to cover all passengers on inward flights, irrespective of where they happen to have bought their tickets. Therefore, I can assure my noble friend that there are many who think with her, but it is a question by which route we can best make progress and at what speed.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that being told that I have allies and that a lot of people agree with me is the best bit of news that I have had for a long time?
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last time that I put a supplementary to this Question I received a very courteous letter from the Civil Aviation Authority, saying that the delay was not their fault? However, could we trace where the fault lies regarding this delay? The journey of exploration seems to have gone on for rather a long time.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we should not underestimate what has been achieved. The voluntary compensation scheme was a very important step forward, covering a considerable range, and my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry deserves a good deal of credit for moving that far. What has been achieved up to this point is indeed a major achievement. We are now talking about extensions of that scheme.

PHILIPPINE AIRLINES' LANDING RIGHTS
2.40 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To Her Majesty's Government

1111
what the present situation is with regard to Philippine Airlines obtaining landing rights at London Airport.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, Philippine Airlines' request for permission to operate air services into London Airport was first discussed in London last May during air services negotiations between officials of the United Kingdom and Philippine Governments. Those discussions were adjourned and no date has yet been agreed for their resumption.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer may I ask him whether he is aware that the Philippines have bought British aeroplanes for 20 years against American competition and, secondly, that they are a very hot prospect for buying or leasing a Concorde? Would not the Minister agree that this is not the way to treat a prospective customer who may well buy a £35 million aircraft?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am aware of the importance of the Philippines as a potential customer, but the noble Earl's Question relates to landing rights. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in common with most other foreign Governments, to adhere to the principle that we exchange air traffic rights only for air traffic rights. It is not a question of linking it with commercial negotiations.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, does not the Minister think, therefore, that in future it might be a good idea in this instance to make an exception and to go into the matter in greater detail?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am not sure that the situation in relation to the Philippines is so exceptional as to call this policy into question.

HYDROGRAPHIC STUDY GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
2.42 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further decisions have been taken by the Government in regard to the recommendations of the Hydrographic Study Group, debated in the House of Lords on 17th December 1975.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, since the debate on 17th December 1975 in your Lordships' House about the Hydrographic Study Group Report, considerable progress has been made on implementing its recommendations. The staff of the Hydrographic Department at Taunton is being increased to improve the standard of maintenance of the Admiralty Chart series; publications are being increased in price by 50 per cent.; and a Hydrographic Strategic Review Body has been formed to review the national programme of surveying on a regular basis.
In addition, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy announced on 12th October in another place, it has recently been decided that the Royal Navy's hydrographic fleet should be retained at its present size for the time being. During 1977/78 the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Overseas Development, as well as the Ministry of Defence, will contribute towards the running costs of the ships identified in the defence review as surplus to strict minimum defence requirements. The basis of the operation of the Hydrographic Service thereafter is being reviewed with the aim of ensuring that in the long term, and paying particular attention to its commercial potential, the fleet will continue to be able to carry out a full programme of surveying in support of all national requirements. This programme would include work in United Kingdom waters and overseas, the priorities for which would be considered by the Hydrographic Strategic Review Body.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, is my noble friend Lord Winterbottom aware that the Answer he just gave will give great satisfaction to many of your Lordships who took part in this debate? Is the noble Lord also aware that it is very pleasant to find the Government actually doing something that the House did not suggest that they should do? May I further ask him why in fact no

1113
more publicity has been given to this other than by Written Answer in the other place? Are the Government unwilling to give good news on subjects of this kind? May I ask my noble friend in the furtherance of the annual review, the review that will now take place, whether the Government will keep Parliament aware of what is happening in this important area, which calls for an increase in effort?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for his bouquet. He has given a very welcome fillip to the publicity about this welcome development.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that this news will be gratefully received in Scotland, which has a rather larger problem than the adjacent kingdom to the South? Is it possible to obtain an assurance from the Government that on no account will the hydrographic survey be devolved in any future Bill?
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while adding my congratulations to the Government, may I ask, in view of the great load of additional work which has come on to the Hydrographic Department through the North Sea oil programme, whether it is not possible for the programme to be increased? Is it possible that other facilities might be provided and additional revenue found for this purpose from the oil revenues which we expect to receive?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is no doubt that the need for scientific surveying of waters around the United Kingdom is of increasing importance in view of our oil prospecting activities. Only approximately 25 per cent. of the waters around this country have been surveyed other than by lead and line, and for this reason a highly scientific fleet is required.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, while adding my congratulations to the Government, may I ask whether they are aware that the commercial selling of hydro-graphic publications still leaves much to be desired? Welcome though it is that the Government are increasing the price of the publications by 50 per cent., have they
1114
considered employing commercial marketing advice in arriving at this sort of decision? Are the Government aware that it appears that an important publication, Ocean Passages of the World, is out of print pending re-issue, and that this is very much in demand overseas?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not know the exact number, but the staff is being increased in order to maintain the high standards and good service that the Hydrographer has supplied until now. I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend that a certain important set of charts is out of print for the time being.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the terms of reference of the Hydro-graphic Strategic Review Body, in considering national requirements, will enable that body to look at considerations in international waters where British surveying is still much in demand, although it may not be required strictly by the United Kingdom present needs? Can the noble Lord also say what the phrase "for the time being" means? Does it mean two years, five years, ten years?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give a timescale, but in point of fact the Hydrographer and the Hydro-graphic Strategic Review Body are taking a world view of the use of this fleet.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, why is it a matter for congratulation that the price of publications has been raised by 50 per cent.? How is this reconciled with the alleged anti-inflation policy of the Government?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that commercial undertakings—and this is a commercial undertaking—should pay their way on a commercial basis. I do not think it is the wish of this House to sell these important charts, which are in world-wide demand from here to Japan, at prices below the cost of production.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that my congratulations did not extend to the increase in price? Will he take careful note of the

1115
dangers which now threaten the Ordnance Survey? Will he convey to his right honourable friend the desirability of pursuing a sensible policy with regard to the Ordnance Survey?

POLITICAL HONOURS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
2.49 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the functions of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee; whether they have authority to recommend or reject any nomination for membership of the House of Lords; and what are the qualifications considered for such membership.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords the function of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee is to report to the Prime Minister whether the persons whose names he submits to them are fit and proper persons to be recommended for appointment to any dignity or honour on account of political services. Their function is one of scrutiny and scrutiny only—to report if the past history or general character of a person render him unsuitable to be recommended. The Committee have no duties of initiation or recommendation, nor are they asked to adjudicate on the nature of the honour submitted, whether it be for Life Peerage or for any other appointment, The criteria for the selection of Life Peers are not, therefore, a matter for the Committee. They are for the Prime Minister to decide.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. In the matter of the rejection, the non-acceptance of nomination, can he say what criteria would justify action of that kind? At the same time, can my noble friend also say whether, in a matter of qualifications, the nominees are ever asked if they propose to attend your Lordships' House and take part in the normal activities?
Lord PEART: My Lords, if the Committee reports against the name put
1116
forward to them, I am being asked whether that is decisive against the appointment being made. I would say, not necessarily. I cannot reveal the details of any particular case. On the other matter that my noble friend Lord Shinwell raised, I have great sympathy with him, because I know he is an assiduous attender of this House, and is an example to many younger Peers. I hope I shall live up to his reputation. All I would say is that this is really a matter for the Prime Minister; there are a large number of considerations in mind in making the selection.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, setting aside the somewhat belated congratulations on my activities, may I repeat the question about qualifications. We want to know whether, when a nominee is suggested to the Scrutiny Committee, they are asked the question, "Have you got the time to attend their Lordships' House or do you merely accept the Peerage and leave it at that?"
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot say what questions are asked in the Scrutiny Committee. I understand the noble Lord's concern about having Peers attend the House of Lords and I think he is right to press this; I make no complaint. But there are other factors apart from attendance here in this Chamber.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is a fact that a Life Peerage is regarded as a political honour which has to go to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee? I have always assumed, and so has my Party, that it is a political appointment to attend this House and to take part in the discussions.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is quite right. I am new to this; probably he is more expert about it than I am. But I think he is right.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, if I may ask the noble Lord one further question, is it not a fact that a Life Peerage is an appointment, whereas, for example, a Privy Counsellorship is regarded, oddly enough, as a political honour and has to go to the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee?
Lord PEART: Well, my Lords, I understand that.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm or deny the rumour that the Committee were on holiday when the last list was presented?
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would not this somewhat thorny question be a little clarified if my noble friend would venture—and I would fully understand it if he is reluctant—to give some of the disqualifications rather than the qualifications?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think that would be inappropriate.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am far from indulging in criticism of those who are unable to attend, for business or other reasons? There is no criticism in my Question so far as that is concerned. But would it not be in the public interest, if I can use that somewhat ragged cliché if there was less secrecy about this matter, and no mystification?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think my noble friend must understand that there has to be some secrecy about this matter. We are talking here about confidential matters which I cannot reveal. But I am glad that he has said what he has; there are noble Lords who have high business appointments and are not able to attend, but they are very fine Peers.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people who follow the working of our Constitution may be disturbed at the form of questioning to which he has just been subjected? One would have thought that a Life Peerage or any other honour of that kind was partly an honour and partly given in anticipation of the part that person could play in the interests of the country in the future. I would have thought that the recipient of such an honour ought himself to judge the occasions when he could make a contribution to the country. To make regular attendance an essential requirement would, I think, cut across the true value of this particular honour.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord disagrees with what my noble friend said in his supplementary Question.
Lord WADE: My Lords, could we have one point clarified, although I think the noble Lord has referred to it. Is it not correct that the creation of Life Peers is not the concern of the Scrutiny Committee?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree that the Scrutiny Committee cannot create Life Peers; I have stated that.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House aware that we on this side of the House would greatly welcome his mobilising his full voting strength of 150 and giving our Whips the fright of their lives?
Lord PEART: And me, too, my Lords.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Its purpose is to enable the Anglian Water Authority Bill, which is now being considered in another place, to resume its progress through Parliament next Session. It is in no way the fault of the Promoters that the Bill will not have received Royal Assent by the end of this Session. The corresponding procedural Motion was agreed in another place last Thursday. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than Three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration

1119
annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons accordingly in reply to their Message of Thursday last.

INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
2.57 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS PROPOSED ON CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN OF THE COMMONS REASONS
[References are to Bill (314) as first printed for the Lords. Commons Reasons are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c).
2 Clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out paragraph (e).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
3 Because the Amendments would prevent the effective constitution of either Corporation.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 3. The Government cannot accept that the Secretary of State's regulation-making power under Clause 1(3) should be restricted solely to the disclosure during Board deliberation of Board Member's interests in contracts. Your Lordships argued against most of subsections (3) on the ground that it gave excessive power to the Secretary of State. But, apart from two parts which I shall come to in a moment, the subjects which your Lordships removed from the scope of the regulation-making powers are matters which have been covered in previous nationalisation Statutes; namely, provision for the appointment and tenure of offices, quorum, Board proceedings and related questions. In most cases these are covered in detail in a Schedule. In the Gas Act 1972, a Conservative measure, these same questions were covered in precisely the same way, by regulations, as we seek to deal with them in this Bill.
The Government consider that the Secretary of State should have the power to determine not only these questions but other matters covered in Clause 1(3). These are the power to determine the size of the Board and the power to appoint members of the Corporations to particular offices.
We are departing in a small way from precedent here in that the Bill allows these questions to be settled by regulations. In previous legislation, the size of the Board and the particular offices to which the Secretary of State may nominate Board members have been specified in the Statute. Your Lordships ascribed unjustifiable significance to this change. We conceived of it as a logical extension of the regulation-making powers introduced under the Gas Act 1972 which would provide a small but useful element of flexibility. This is particularly useful in the context of this Bill which covers two industries likely to develop in very different ways

1121
and therefore whose board size and nature may well need to change one way or the other. We have provided a sensible means of covering this contingency by doing no more than extending a principle which has already been accepted.
I should add that as the Bill is left by your Lordships' Amendments the Secretary of State is not empowered to appoint even Deputy Chairmen (which he appoints in all other similar legislation) and there is even doubt as to whether he could specify terms and conditions to his appointment of Chairman and Members—whom, in consequence, we might have to appoint for life. It is essential that the legislation should provide for all these subjects and for these reasons I recommend that your Lordships' House should not insist on Amendments 1 and 2.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 3.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think the House will be very disappointed at this reaction on the part of the Government. Later we are going to deal with the question of Parliamentary control and I have no doubt the Government will say that they do not believe that certain extra Parliamentary control provisions are needed. Yet here is the noble Lord saying that he needs what he calls a "logical extension". Indeed it is an extension. I do not think he has answered at all the issue of what we called "swamping" when we discussed this at earlier stages, which seems to me to be an entirely appropriate matter to bring up at this moment when there is some suggestion that the same techniques might be applied to certain other bodies that I could think of.
Furthermore, the noble Lord has not mentioned once the issue which I think worried us most of all and which was raised by my noble friend Lord Carr; namely, the power of the Secretary of State to appoint executive directors in these Corporations. One has to ask the noble Lord what it is that makes him think that the Secretary of State is the proper person to appoint the directors in these enterprises, and is it not entirely at variance with the Mackintosh report (of which, I confess, I have only read
1122
Press reports)? Is it not entirely at variance with what we understand is to be recommended and the worry which is being expressed at the undermining of the powers of the chairmen of these Corporations?
With regard to the noble Lord's last point, I believe it ill behoves him at this juncture to start making detailed criticisms about the way in which the Amendment is worded, saying that possibly it takes away certain powers which would be needed. It could quite easily have been corrected if only the Government had seen the wisdom of the principle which underlies the thoughts behind the Amendment. Surely at this juncture we cannot discuss nit-picking details like the fact that the length of the appointment of the chairmen could be affected by the way this Amendment has been phrased.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am rather surprised that we should be asked to wait for the Mackintosh report when time is running so short. What we have done is to take a provision in a previous Conservative measure, modified it in a minor way and used it for the purpose of this Bill. I honestly do not see who on earth is going to decide about appointments other than the Secretary of State. He is ultimately responsible to your Lordships' House as he is to Parliament as a whole, and for that reason I see no other person who could be charged with those responsibilities. I do not think we are nit-picking; we are just building on precedents created by noble Lords opposite to a small degree. I cannot see the reason for the dislike of the present situation.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.4 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 2, page 4, line 6, after "weapons" insert "and of space vehicles and systems".
The Commons agreed to this Amendment and proposed the following Amendment thereto:
5 Line 2, leave out "and systems".
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5 to the Lords Amendment No. 4. Your Lordships' Amendments would add space activities to the activities which British Aerospace is under a duty to carry on under Clause 2(1). The

1123
Amendment to the Amendment extends the duty only to space vehicles. This is to make it clear that there is no intention of altering the present arrangements which cover the space industry. This consists of two firms which will come within British Aerospace—the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Dynamics—and a number of electronics firms in the private sector, Plessey and Redifon being among them. They operate in the context of a close relationship with Government and with European institutions. To impose a positive duty on the Corporation to operate in the field of space systems could upset this delicate balance, which reflects technological capabilities in particular areas of space activities. This could compel British Aerospace to enter areas, for example, on the systems and payload side where it has limited current capability, where it would be competing with other British firms to the possible detriment of their employment, and from an inferior technological starting-point. This was the case I argued at an earlier stage of the Bill.
But time has passed, and it was largely because of fears of upsetting this delicate balance that the Government did not originally agree to include space among the duties of British Aerospace. Now that the Government are satisfied that the amended Amendment will not in any way affect existing arrangements, we are glad to add this important high-technology activity to the duties of British Aerospace. I therefore urge noble Lords to accept the amended Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree to the Common's Amendment No. 5 to the Lords Amendment No. 4—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, I only wish to say, as I was the person responsible for getting these words into the Bill, that I am perfectly satisfied with what the Government propose and I am delighted to find that my Amendment is the only one to which the Commons have agreed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Page 4, line 7, at end insert:
"(1A) Nothing in this Act shall preclude British Airways Corporation or any other
1124
British Airline registered in this country from seeking supplies of civil aircraft including engines and ancillary equipment from any source should British Aerospace be unable or refuse for any reason to meet the specifications for civil aircraft including engines and ancillary equipment asked for by such airline."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
7 Because it is unnecessary, since there is nothing in the Bill that would restrict the powers of British Airways or any other British airline in the manner implied by the Amendment.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7. Our real opposition to this Amendment is that it is simply unnecessary. It requires that
"nothing in this Act shall preclude …"
Nothing in this Act does preclude what the Amendment states. There is no provision in the Bill which implicitly or explicitly enables the Secretary of State to apply pressure on a British airline. The Amendment was intended as an "avoidance of doubt" provision to make it clear that British airlines were free to order from any source if British Aerospace cannot or will not meet their requirements. But it would be absurd to leave in the Bill Amendments which seek to clarify a position which no one has any doubt about. If I may nit-pick, I will point out that the Amendment refers to "British Airways" by the wrong name—"Corporation" instead of "Board". However, for the non-nit-picking reasons, I beg your Lordships not to insist on Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, while noting that there is no obligation in the Bill, and that this provision is considered unnecessary, is it not better to put it in the Bill in order to make quite certain that it is unnecessary?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, British Airways is a very powerful body world-wide and within the private sector of the British air industry we have some rather strong minded people like Mr. Laker, if I may mention a name. I do not see any organisation being forced to

1125
buy equipment against their will. I think it is unnecessary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 2, page 4, line 24, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
9 Because it is desirable that the Secretary of State should be able, subject to Parliamentary control, to provide for adjustments to the duties of the Corporations as envisaged by the subsections which the Amendment leaves out.
3.10 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9. I would wish, with the leave of the House, to speak to the same purpose to Lords Amendment No. 17 which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. In this Bill we have attempted to introduce a modest element of flexibility. Experience with existing nationalised industries has shown that in some cases the statutory framework has proved unduly rigid and has hampered their ability to operate successfully. We have therefore attempted to avoid this danger in the present Bill.
Turning first to Amendment No. 8, this removes the power of the Secretary of State under Clause 2 to adjust the duties of the Corporations in line with changing needs, subject to Affirmative Resolution in each House. As has been explained on numerous occasions, we wish to introduce a procedure whose purpose is to allow the duties of these Corporations to be adjusted more expeditiously than has been the case in the past. In the past when the duties of nationalised industries have had to be changed, it has been necessary to introduce a Bill containing the proposals for change. The delay involved in this procedure can be very damaging. Therefore, we aim to make the procedure swifter, but still subject to the approval of Parliament.
There has been at least some misunderstanding about the purpose and effect of these new procedures, and I should like to reiterate in some detail the effect of
1126
the subsections which the Amendment would remove. Clause 2(5) allows the duties of either Corporation to be changed in three ways. First of all, new or alternative activities may be prescribed, which the Corporation will be required to carry on. We envisage that this would normally happen where an activity already being carried on by the Corporation under the clause becomes sufficiently central to its business for this to be recognised by being written into its duties. Conversely, an activity prescribed under Clause 2(1) or Clause 2(2)—an activity which seems central now—might in the course of time cease to be so substantial that the Corporation should actually be required to carry it on (I emphasise the word "required") and so under Clause 2(5) the Secretary of State will be able to substitute a new activity. I would emphasise that in this respect the Secretary of State can for good cause reduce the duties without need for amending legislation.
Secondly, the Secretary of State may prescribe objectives to be pursued. I emphasise that this is not a power to interfere on detailed affairs—the objectives must be, as the clause says, of a general character. Thirdly, he may lay down conditions of a general character subject to which any activities are to be carried on or objectives pursued.
These provisions are not, and are not intended to be, a means of providing for the extension of public ownership by Statutory Instrument, as has been suggested both in this House and in another place. These provisions were said by noble Lords opposite to provide a way for the Government to undertake some form of back-door nationalisation, perhaps of some unrelated sectors. I see the noble Lord, Lord Carr, smiling, because he knows I am about to refer to the paper bag industry which played an important part in his thinking in the matter. But these provisions could not be used for this because they provide no means of compulsory acquisition. They would simply allow the Secretary of State to alter the duties of the Corporations.
Let me say what I hope will be a final word on the subject of paper bags and set the noble Lord's mind at rest. Even if an eccentric Secretary of State decided to make it a duty of the Aerospace Corporation to manufacture paper bags and both Houses of Parliament were

1127
persuaded to agree to that course, we would have no means of bringing a reluctant paper bag manufacturer into public ownership. There is simply no means of doing it under the Bill. These provisions are nothing more than an attempt to allow a greater degree of flexibility in order to respond to changing circumstances. Indeed, we believe that they are a means of increasing Parliamentary control because they provide an opportunity to formalise smaller changes and to keep the practical and statutory position more closely in line.
With your Lordships' leave, may I say something about. Amendment No. 17. Amendment No. 17 would restrict the Corporations' ability to respond to rapidly changing commercial situations. We are concerned here of course with powers. Originally we were concerned with duties, a distinction which the noble Lord, Lord Carr, made very forcefully. But this Amendment would restrict the capacity to respond rapidly to changing commercial situations and to make the most of suitable opportunities because they would require the specific approval of both Houses before the Corporations could undertake any new activities. To impose Parliamentary control in this way would entail delays which, in the context of commercial operations could effectively prevent the activities being undertaken.
Public corporations, if they are to have any chance of commercial success need a scope for exploiting market opportunties. At the same time, because of their role in the economy and their source of finance, they must be properly accountable. The Government believe that these objectives, which are potentially in conflict, are best achieved and that the right balance is struck between them by the arrangement in nationalised industry legislation of Governments of both Parties. Clause 3(1)(b) follows broadly the similar provision in the Iron and Steel Act. These well precedented provisions combine Ministerial control at the strategic level with accountability by Ministers and Parliament for their responsibilities. This leaves the Corporations a reasonable degree of freedom while ensuring Parliamentary control. For these reasons I would urge noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 8, and in due course, when we reach it, also Amendment No. 17.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.—(Lord McCluskey.)
3.18 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, before I refer to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, may I be allowed to make two general points. I think your Lordships' House should be aware that of all the Amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons, 53 in all, and which we shall be discussing today, no fewer than 26—in other words, half of them—were rejected by the other place without any discussion at all. I think that that brings home to your Lordships' House the farce to which our democratic Parliamentary procedures have been brought by the use of the guillotine in another place. Of course there was precedent set in guillotining Lords Amendments. I cannot help recalling, however, that when in a previous Parliament we were providing for a guillotine of Lords Amendments on the Industrial Relations Bill we provided not six hours but five days for discussion of Lords Amendments.
There is one other point I should like to make briefly, because Ministers may perhaps wish to consider the matter. I am sure that I am not alone in your Lordships' House in being concerned by the reports which appeared in today's Guardian, "Labour threat to stop cash on shipyards". If one reads the text it includes the aircraft industry as well. Apart from the question of cash, it is suggesting that in certain circumstances the Government would see to it that the new British Shipbuilders Corporation would deny orders to Messrs. Yarrows, Vickers, and Vosper Thornycroft, the naval shipbuilders, and as punishment would see that the orders were sent elsewhere if Parliament were to remove those firms from the Bill.
I am quite sure that these reports cannot be true. If they were true, it would be blackmail of the most despicable kind. I suspect that it might really amount to a breach of Parliamentary privilege. I repeat that I cannot believe that there is any truth in these reports but I hope that Ministers will take an early opportunity today of denying that

1129
there is any truth in these reports. When reports like this appear in a newspaper like the Guardian I feel that the Government should formally deny the truth of them. Although I want to stress to your Lordships that I am not giving them any credence, I thought it was right to bring the matter to the attention of the House.
Coming to Amendment No. 8, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that the Government in these sub-sections, which the other place are seeking to reinsert in the Bill, are taking a modest element of flexibility. I have not got my Oxford Dictionary with me but I cannot believe that the powers the Government are taking could possibly be covered by the word, "modest". I accept that it may be the Government's genuine intention to use these powers in a modest way. That is probably true. However, as we said at the Committee stage, we have to consider what is in the Bill, not the intentions of the present Secretary of State. As I pointed out and as the Government have admitted, these powers would in fact enable the Government, simply by Statutory Instrument procedure, to place a duty on either of these Corporations to enter into any sort of manufacture or activity they choose to think of, including paper bags. As I said, I deliberately chose an absurd example in order to spotlight the limitless breadth of the powers which are included in the clause. I saw the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, smiling when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, mentioned paper bags. I am sorry he has left the Chamber because it could equally encompass food retailing and distribution simply by Statutory Instrument. I do not know whether we all realise the literally limitless power inherent in these subsections.
Of course the noble Lord made the point℄and I deny and have never ceased to deny it℄that the Bill does not give them power actually to acquire against their will paper bag manufacturers or food retailing establishments. It simply gives the Secretary of State power to order these Corporations to undertake these activities as a matter of duty, and to do so without any fair trading provisions in the Bill to safeguard the way in which they should carry out the undertaking. I repeat that I am not suggesting for one moment that the present Secretary of
1130
State or the present Cabinet or the new Corporations when set up have any idea of doing those things. I just beg your Lordships to take note of the fact that these are the powers we are putting on the Statute Book for future Secretaries of State of whatever Party. I only hope that one day your Lordships do not look back and say that it was an unwise thing to do.
However, we are not going to fight this matter to the last ditch. We think it is a silly degree of power. We would not have opposed a modest element of flexibility. But it is not a modest element of flexibility; it is an unlimited element of flexibility for which power is being taken. Finally, we wish to register the protest, but having said that I think we must leave it and hope that nobody ever abuses these powers; but that there is scope to abuse them let your Lordships be in no doubt at all.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, said that many of these Amendments were not discussed. But Amendment No. 8 was discussed and voted upon, and the majority against the Lords Amendment was 31. In relation to my use of the word "modest", I would hesitate to cross swords with a former Home Secretary on the matter of modesty, but the modesty of the provision here surely derives from the requirement in Clause 2(6) that the order be brought before both Houses of Parliament for Affirmative Resolution.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 2, page 5, line 11, after "form" insert "in which all employees have the right to participate.".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
11 Because it is undesirable further to qualify the concept of industrial democracy the Deputy Speaker having cast his vote to retain the Bill in the form in which it left the Commons.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11. This Amendment assigns rights in industrial democracy to all employees with no effective means of exercising them. This approach is contrary to our general policy on proper

1131
employee representation. I have made it clear repeatedly in your Lordships' House that the Government regard independent and recognised unions as the organisations best suited to represent the interests of all employees. It is for this reason that we expect them to play a special part in consultations and the development of industrial democracy. We believe that we should build on their strength. Of course I have also repeatedly made clear that all employees have the right to participate in consultations and in industrial democracy, but the Government believe that the trade union movement provides a means of participation, whereas this Amendment confers rights but without any practical means of exercising them. I hope that for those reasons noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 11.℄(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I noted with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that he repeatedly expressed the view that all employees have a right℄and I think he used the word "right"℄to participate in consultation. But, of course, under this Bill they do not have a right to participate in consultation. That is exactly what we are complaining about. I only wonder whether the Government know what they are doing. As I said, the noble Lord specifically said just now that employees have a right to participate in consultation, not in collective bargaining℄we always draw this distinction. The fact remains that, as the Government wish to see it passed, the Bill specifically excludes a large number of employees from this right. We are told that they may enjoy it as a favour. In other words, by taking the line they have taken the Government are doing exactly what I said the other day; that is, deliberately creating within industry first-and second-class citizens.
This is a Statute quite deliberately setting up social apartheid in industry. I repeat that all of us, or at least many of us, understand the difficulty about collective bargaining. We are not in any way attempting to force rights of collective bargaining on everybody because,
1132
whatever might be the theory of it, that would result in chaos in industry. In trying to widen industrial democracy, we are limiting our approach entirely to the question of consultation. I am afraid that a lot of talk which comes from the Government of the desire to promote industrial democracy is nothing but cant. It has no meaning of any kind.
What I, and I am sure many noble Lords, find distressing is that the Labour Party and the trade unions for generations have been among those foremost in this country in the fight for universal political suffrage, for extending our political democracy. We now have a situation where every man and woman over the age of 18 has a vote, yet when the Government come to promote industrial democracy they are deliberately putting on the Statute Book a form of selective limited suffrage. The only people who are to have suffrage are those approved of by certain dukes of the trade union movement. They are no longer the rotten boroughs of the Dukes of Omnium; we are having in industry the rotten boroughs of the dukes of the TUC. I do not believe that that is what the TUC set out to achieve or what the vast majority of trade union members want, and I trust that before long there will be a Conservative Government who can introduce proper industrial democracy into this country.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I wish briefly from these Benches to support the general principle enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in saying that it is the extension of a statutory right in this matter to develop a trade union which we deplore and the absence of that right in the case of other employees.
3.30 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I plead with the Government not to build into new legislation a further division in our industrial base. There are already too many divisions; there are too many trade unions, there is a division between management and men, between white collar and blue collar workers and between salaried staff and wage earners. One cannot help but feel that our problems, both in terms of growth and productivity, would be solved more quickly if these divisions did not exist. The Government are taking a retrograde step, particularly

1133
by incorporating aerospace, in which two-thirds of the people are not in organised unions℄recognised by the dukes of the trade unions, as my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley put it℄and in this contest I would refer the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to the October 1974 Manifesto which clearly did not say that there should be a division. It said specifically under the heading, "Industrial Relations":
"… to develop joint control and action by management and workers across the whole range of industry".
That is what we are seeking; that is, that all workers should have the right to be consulted and to participate.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, before we leave this point I appeal for a commonsense approach to this problem. It is impossible for the industrial leaders of the shipbuilding industry, whether nationalised or private, to have the sort of relations of confidence with the workers which are essential for successful industry nowadays if there are something like 46 trade unions engaged in the industry. I hope that when the shipbuilding industry is nationalised the Government will make it their business to do what the Germans, Swedes and other successful shipbuilders have done and form a single trade union for the shipbuilding industry. It would then be possible for management to co-operate in a really productive way. I am absolutely convinced that that must be done and while this may not be relevant to our discussion, I want to leave that thought in your Lordships' minds.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I should have thought that this was one Amendment which your Lordships would have insisted on retaining in the Bill. If we want industrial democracy℄I am not quite certain what is meant by that; all sorts of definitions are given of what it is supposed to mean but I define it in the most generous way℄we must have co-operation with all the workers. If somebody has to be consulted on what we call the workers' side, then all workers should be eligible to be consulted. We know that in practical terms there are many workers who would have a contribution to make but who cannot be consulted and who will not be consulted if the Amendment which we sent to the other place is removed.
1134
This is just another way of whipping everybody into trade unions. As a general proposition, trade unions are good and play a great part and should be supported, but if we get to the stage when people are conscripted into unions then we shall have reached the point when the effectiveness of trade unions will have been weakened, and it is to avoid that weakening that in my view the Amendment should be retained. However, it does not look as though it will be, although the arguments for it are strong. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is having to contradict what he truly believes because he said that everybody should have a right, yet he is here sponsoring part of a Bill which removes that right from many people who should have it.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I agree that we should like to see a smaller number of trade unions in most industries and indeed the TUC is doing a great job of work now in trying to concentrate the number. However, as noble Lords opposite know as well as I do, we suffer from the fact that we pioneered the whole basis of trade unionism; others can take advantage of the fact that we failed in some respects. But there are now far and away less trade unions in existence than there were a few years ago. In the days when I negotiated in engineering we had 38 unions in that industry. That number has been concertinaed to a great degree.
As for the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, raised, the House cannot have it both ways. A great number of employers who negotiate with their trade unions do so in the hope and belief that those negotiations will result in agreements which will be honoured. I used to negotiate for 30,000 people and never asked for a closed shop, although I had a 90 per cent. membership; but had there been a large number of non-unionists, I should have failed to honour the agreements which I made. If one says that people who are not organised within our trade union movement shall have some right to negotiate, one must face what that means in terms of the agreements which we make with employers and which we desire ardently to honour. No man negotiating for a trade union can hope to get agreement with people over whom he has no control in accepting the agreement he has made. While it may sound

1135
theoretically very nice to say that we must have 100 per cent. of employees able to discuss℄for my part I do not refute that℄when it comes to the "nitty-gritty" of agreements being made and ardently wanting to be honoured by my side, I cannot guarantee that unless they are members of my trade union.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, we have been over this ground at considerable length during many days and nights and I do not want to prolong the debate at this stage. I particularly do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, in using rather harsh words and thereby disrupt the calm waters through which the Bill has always sailed in this House. However, I will reiterate a point I have made on many occasions; that is, that the Government are committed to industrial democracy. We are committed to effective industrial democracy and I have drawn attention repeatedly to the experience of other countries where, if industrial democracy and consultation of this sort has not been organised through recognised and independent trade unions, it has simply not been effective in practice. We are dealing with very highly organised and powerful groups and we are talking about the management and structures of companies. I have repeatedly said that if we want industrial democracy and consultation of this sort to be effective, we believe that it must be based on the existing strength of the trade union movement, and that is what the provisions in the Bill seek to achieve.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord referred to other countries, may I ask if he is saying that it is not effective in, for example, West Germany or Holland where, as he knows, consultation is through the medium of works councils on which all have a vote; universal suffrage as opposed to partial suffrage and as distinct from collective bargaining, which is of course done through the unions?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think if the noble Lord will study℄as I have had the time to do during my summer holiday℄some of the research published by the Buller Committee, he will find that, as I have said, where consultation and representation is not organised through
1136
independent trade unions it is not as effective. The people who, with very good intentions, which we share on both sides of the House, originally set up procedures and wished to see these things, have not seen them occur in practice.
On Question, Motion agreed to

LORDS AMENDMENTS
12 Clause 2, page 5, line 14, after "with" insert "(a)".
13 Clause 2, page 5, line 15, after "unions" insert "and
(b) other persons or organisations appearing to the Corporation to be representative of those of its employees or the employees of its wholly owned subsidiaries who are not members of a relevant trade union".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reasons:
14 Because the Amendments unduly extend the duty to consult.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, to which the Commons hve disagreed for the Reason numbered 14. These Amendments cover very much the same point as℄I am sorry, is there something wrong? The noble Lord, Lord Carr, is looking concerned. May I give way.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: I thought that we were dealing with Amendment No. 12 and that when it came to Amendment No. 13, it was for me to move it. It is not that I am so keen to move it, but I think I am right in interpreting your Lordships' custom in saying that whoever moves has the right of reply at the end, and nobody else. I was anxious to retain that right to move Amendment No. 13.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I stand corrected by the noble Lord and I shall certainly confine myself to Amendment No. 12 and the Commons Reason numbered 14 to disagree with that, and wait with eager anticipation to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has to say on Amendment No. 13.
This Amendment covers grounds very similar to those which we have just discussed on Amendment No. 10 and in the Government's view the Amendment would undermine the position of independent and recognised trade unions by

1137
giving to organisations appearing for the Corporation to be representative the same right to be consulted on industrial democracy, which we believe should be confined to unions which meet the criteria for indepenence established by recent legislation and which are recognised by the two Corporations. Once again the approach followed by this Amendment runs contrary to the Government's general policy and we have made it clear repeatedly that we regard independent and recognised unions as the organisations best suited to represent the interests of all employees. For these reasons, once again I hope that noble Lords will not persist in their Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 12), to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 14.℄(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 13, but doth propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
In page 5, line 15, after ("unions") insert ("and any other independent trade union as defined in section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which appears to the Corporation to represent a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries").
What we are suggesting here is that, as well as the relevant trades unions, there should be consultation with any other independent trade union as defined in Section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which appears to the Corporation to represent a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries. While voicing our protest about Amendment No. 10 we decided not to seek to resist that or to replace our original Amendment with another one at that point, because we felt, in view of the comments made in another place, and the decisions of the other place, that it might be more appropriate to move this Amendment where we are now doing it, in page 5, line 15, of the Bill, in the terms to which I have just referred. We believe that in moving this new Amendment we are seeking substantially to go towards the views expressed in the other place.
1138
The Reason given for the rejection of our previous Amendments was that they unduly extended the duty to consult. That may seem rather an odd Reason, taken in the context of the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that he believes that all employees should have the right to be consulted. It is difficult to see how one could extend the right beyond everybody in the organisation. However, the other place, in its wisdom, has seen fit to say that this original Amendment of ours should be rejected, because it unduly extends the duty to consult.
In an attempt to try to reach some compromise, I think your Lordships will see that we really have sought to restrict those who ought to be consulted under the law; not, as your Lordships will know, according to our genuine belief but in order genuinely to try to seek some compromise with the Government and the wishes of the other place. Here, instead of seeking as we did before to ensure that everyone has the legal right to be consulted℄and I must keep underlining this word "consulted" and put it in contradistinction to the right to be involved in collective bargaining℄we are saying that the right to be consulted should be confined to two categories: first, to those unions which are both independent and recognised, that is, the unions which have the right both to consultation and collective bargaining; and secondly, to those unions which are independent but not recognised; in other words, to unions which have been certified under the Labour Government's own legislation as being independent and therefore in no way under the domination of their employers.
I believe that this is a reasonable request and that it goes a considerable way to try to reach a compromise with the views expressed by the Government hitherto and those expressed in the other place. I beg the Government to take this seriously and to accept it as a compromise, which is what it is; to realise that we for our part are giving up a substantial part of our beliefs in order to try to reach an amicable compromise; also, perhaps, to bear in mind that this basic concept which we passed in this House was the subject of a tied vote in another place. The basic concept was only removed from the Bill on the casting vote of the Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time.

1139
Of course it is not really necessary to say this, but I should like to do so to be quite sure that there is no misunderstanding. I recognise that the Deputy Speaker gave his vote in the proper constitutional way; in no way was he expressing a partisan view of this issue. He was, above all, keeping the matter open for further discussion.
I beg the Government to take account of these two things, first that the other place has a tied vote on this issue and secondly that, faced with that, in this Amendment we are deliberately moving a long way from our original proposition to try to reach a compromise with the views of the Government and this very narrowly and rather formally expressed view of the other place on which, so far as the ordinary Back-Bencher and private Members were concerned, there was actually a tie. I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at this Amendment. I cannot believe that any of the independent and recognised trades unions, which, I understand, would feel very jealous℄rightly jealous℄of intrusion into their rights to collective bargaining, would find any cause for taking offence at the fact that other genuinely independent trades unions should have the right at least to consultation, but not℄I repeat not℄to collective bargaining. I hope that the Government will take into account the concession that we have made in an attempt to reach a common ground, and the fact that in another place there was a tied vote on this issue. If Parliamentary democracy is to have some meaning, then we must show some capacity in Parliament to reach compromises wherever we can. I beg to move.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not be oblivious of the fact that, on this issue, he has so far had the support of only the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton. The noble Lord, Lord Lee, made his position perfectly clear and I saw the soundness of it. He said that he could see that, in theory, there ought to be 100 per cent. consultation but that, from his experience of having been the leader of some 30,000 trade unionists, he wanted decisions to be effective so that if he were consulted and gave an undertaking he wanted to be in a position to see that it was carried out. He rather
1140
suggested that if independent people were not members of any trade union they could not have that certainty of being able to carry out what they had promised to do.
The Amendment moved by my noble friend meets that point absolutely. My noble friend is saying that the consultations shall not now be 100 per cent. with the individual but shall be with an independent trade union as properly defined in the Labour Government's own Act. I should have thought that meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lee, whose practical experience of this is much greater than that of many of us in your Lordships' House, would be a very good reason indeed why the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should look at this with great sympathy. The only point that has supported him so far is the point that has now been dispensed with as a result of the wording of the present Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like first of all to make a small, possibly "nit-picking", point to the noble Lord, Lord Carr, about the voting. As I understand it, the tied vote occurred on an earlier Amendment and not on the Amendment which we are at present discussing.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I accept that, but I thought I had explained to the noble Lord℄and if I did not I am sorry I did not make it clear℄that the only reason why we did not move the Amendment on the earlier point was that we thought that we could more easily introduce our compromise idea at this point of the Bill. That is why it was not introduced in relation to Amendment No. 10. It was procedural and meant to be helpful, nothing more.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his help, and I accept it. I thought that it was worth making the point just to make sure that nobody in your Lordships' House was misled into thinking that the Amendment which we are at present discussing is that where the majority was of one vote only.
In the course of debates on the Bill the Government have explained many times why the duty imposed on the Corporation to consult under Clauses 2, 5 and 7 should

1141
not extend beyond relevant trade unions, as defined in Clause 56. As the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, this Amendment accepts half of the Government's definition and I am glad to see that we are making some progress. However, I regret that the Government cannot accept the Amendment because, while acknowledging the very genuine desire for a compromise of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, the Government believe that the Amendment would undermine those in both industries as regards the very benefits which our legislation aims to provide.
The Amendment acknowledges that unions to be consulted must meet the definition of independence under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974. But where more than one union meets this definition and claims to represent substantial proportions of the Corporations employees, the Amendment would deprive all those concerned of clear criteria for deciding the issue. Our provisions in the Bill leave no room for doubt; consultation would depend on recognition and disputes about recognition could be resolved under the Employment Protection Act 1975 by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. We believe that those procedures which are in line with the Government's general policy on proper employee representation are in the best interests of all those in the industries. We have proposed some arrangements which we hope will prevent damaging recognition disputes arising. I suggest that the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carr, offers no practical alternative and I therefore hope that noble Lords opposite will not insist upon it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, where this is dealing with those people who are to be consulted as to the forms that industrial democracy will take℄and I emphasise that it is not over industrial democracy itself but over the forms that it will take℄under the Bill as at present drafted some 30 per cent. of the people will not be consulted or, alternatively, those who are at present not members of trade unions will, if they wish to be consulted, be forced to become members of trade unions which at the moment they do not wish to do?
Lord MELCHETT: No, my Lords, I do not agree. As the noble Earl knows, we have had lengthy discussions on this point at various stages of the Bill, and, as I have said, having discussed this issue with both Organising Committees, it is quite clear to me℄and both the chairmen of the Organising Committees have made it clear℄that they are willing to talk to any group of employees. The Bill does not say that particular groups shall not be consulted. It gives a legal right to some groups, but it leaves it open for the other people in the industry to talk as they wish, having made arrangements that are suitable to everyone involved and which do not cause long and damaging disputes of one sort or another which cannot possibly be in the interests of people in trade unions, people outside trade unions and, most important of all, the industries themselves.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the whole excuse for this Bill, which is opposed by this side of the House and by Liberals and Cross-Benchers alike, was because it was in the Manifesto? Would he also bear in mind that the Manifesto specifically said:
"In the interests of a wider, more just and effective democracy, we shall seek to strengthen legislation protecting minorities."
Far from seeking to do that, they are seeking to bring in legislation which will dismiss minority rights. Is not this directly in contradiction with the manner in which the Labour Party put its Manifesto before the country?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked me the same question about a minute ago and I did my best to answer it. I am not sure that there is a great deal more that is useful that I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that I have not already said on numerous occasions when the noble Lord and others have asked me exactly the same question. I repeat that the Bill does not remove the right to be consulted from the people about whom the noble Lord is concerned. It gives certain rights to recognised and independent trade unions but it does not remove rights from other groups.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I have not the 1974 Act before me and I am not certain what is the definition of an

1143
"independent trade union". I do not know whether it is independent of the TUC or what it is, but I have very vivid recollections about the way we worked this kind of thing in practical life. Many of your Lordships will remember the productivity agreements that were arrived at during the war. In my factory we had one before the war, but we were generally in advance of others and I shall not press that. But in those agreements there was no stipulation that one had to be a member of certain recognised trade unions in order to negotiate about productivity. We had a dozen productivity committees of which people elected within their own departments and irrespective of trade unions were members. They were not empowered to indulge in collective bargaining about wages and conidtions. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, knows that as well as I do. Within this arrangement, it was not the case that certain types were treated as being untouchables. Of course we discussed with them important matters, whether of productivity or of conditions in the factory.
The only thing that one could never agree to, for the reasons that I gave earlier and which I shall not repeat, was that they should have the powers of collective bargaining on matters that affected the lives of the majority of trade unionists. I should have thought that in this respect in relation to the present Amendment there was no problem of these people being treated as untouchables. I believe that they would certainly have rights to discuss. They would not have the right℄and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, would agree with me in this case℄to arrange with employers agreements which would affect the lives of the vast majority of members of trade unions. Of course there will be discussions with people in what he has called independent trade unions.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, has just said what he has said, because he has just described the very system which we are wanting to see established in the Bill and which the Government are refusing to allow to be established in the Bill. All along, at Committee stage, at Report stage, and again now I have made this sharp, clear
1144
differentiation between the right to collective bargaining and the right to consultation. I know from my experience, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee, knows from experience which is far greater than mine, that in industry it has worked perfectly satisfactorily to have various shop committees to deal with productivity and other matters of general interest to employees, without any permission to get into the field of collective bargaining; and the value of those committees has been that they have been genuinely representative of all employees, most of whom (at any rate in most engineering shops) were trade unionists, but there was no setting apart of one against another; no one was an untouchable. But this is what we are creating in the Bill; we are creating untouchables.
I say this because we are giving the legal right of consultation to some and specifically denying it to others. Although those others are told that they may be consulted, many of them have already sought to be consulted and have met with nothing but blank refusal from the Organising Committees to see them and discuss things with them. So it is no wonder that they are very nervous indeed and very worried indeed, and look to Parliament to look after their rights—
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord define the types of people to whom he is referring?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, this is the other point which I was glad the noble Lord made, when he said that he was not sure what was meant here by the word "independent". It is not in any sense meant to be independent of the TUC; it is meant in the sense, to use the colloquial phrase which has now come back into my mind, that they are not "sweetheart unions". They are certified as independent by the certification officer, set up by the Labour Government in the 1974 Act to which I have referred. I want to be quite clear, as I think I have already been with the House, that we believe that all should be entitled originally to consultation. In an attempt to compromise and to reach some agreement, I have been prepared in the Amendment to limit it only to certified independent unions. That is what we mean in the Amendment.

1145
I find the Government's attitude most illiberal and anti-democratic. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, keeps on talking about the Government's conviction: that what the Government are insisting on is in the best interests of all the employees. Well, who is to decide what are their best interests? The fact remains that tens of thousands of the employees in this industry do not believe that what it is proposed to enact is in their best interests. In the aircraft industry certainly at least 30 per cent. of all the employees do not accept that what is being enacted and forced upon them is in their best interests. When this Government claim to exercise democratic authority with the support of only 29 per cent. of the electorate of this country, I must say that I find it odd that they can, in the name of democracy, reject the views and feelings of 30 per cent. of the employees of the aircraft industry. But that is what they are doing and that is why I believe that the Government are taking a most illiberal and anti-democratic line.
When we come to this stage in Parliamentary proceedings we in your Lordships' House are always in a difficult situation. We have made our views very clear. We believe that very large numbers of the employees in these industries are being denied by the Government genuine rights which they ought to have. Nevertheless, I will not seek to press the matter to a Division. I can only repeat what I said earlier: the sooner that we get a Conservative Government in power, the sooner all employees of industry will have the rights to which they should be entitled.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.6 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 2, page 5, line 18, leave out subsection (10).
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
16 Because it is undesirable that the duties imposed by or by virtue of Clause 2 should be the subject of legal proceedings.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 15 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16. It is the Govern-
1146
ment's clear view that the courts should not have to adjudicate on industrial democracy. Therefore when we decided that it was important to underline our commitment to industrial democracy by imposing on the Corporation a positive duty to promote, we had to ensure that this duty was not enforceable by proceedings before a court of law. We therefore inserted in the Bill the subsection which your Lordships' Amendment removed. The subsection applies to all the duties imposed by Clause 2, and not just to the duty to promote industrial democracy because we wished to follow the precedent of the Iron and Steel Act 1949, as revived by the Iron and Steel Act 1967.
However, some concern was expressed by your Lordships about this subsection's effect on such questions as patent law and the rights of inventors. My noble friend Lord Winterbottom and I have already given your Lordships an assurance that the subsection does not in any way touch on any duty or liability which a Corporation may have by reason of anything else in the Bill; by reason of anything in any other enactment; by reason of anything in any other branch of law; or by reason of anything in any agreement to which it may be a party. If a person has a claim against a Corporation arising, for example, out of the law relating to patents or out of the law relating to confidential information, that person will not be able to rely on anything in Clause 2. But, equally, nothing in Clause 2 will get in his or her way.
For those reasons I urge noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 15 which in the Government's view would impose an improper burden on the courts.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 16.℄(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
17 Clause 3, page 6, line 3, at end insert:
"(3A) No consent or general authority shall be given in pursuance of the preceding subsection or in relation to subsection (1)(b) above unless a draft of the document containing it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
18 Because it would greatly restrict the Corporations' ability to respond quickly to new commercial opportunities.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 17 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18. Your Lordships will recall that I spoke about this when dealing with Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 18.℄(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this specific Amendment so as not to get it muddled up with the other one with which the noble and learned Lord dealt. We on this side welcome the Government at least paying lip service to the need to have the power to respond rapidly and to have the ability to exploit market opportunities. One of our fears is that the working of the market place may be irreparably damaged if it is dominated by large State-owned Corporations, such as are brought into being by the passing of the Bill. I was also glad that the noble and learned Lord admitted that there was a conflict between proper Parliamentary control and on the other hand sufficient independence in the nationalised Corporations to ensure commercial flexibility. This is another of our misgivings about the principle of nationalisation.
The noble and learned Lord admits that under the Bill the Secretary of State is getting a considerable extension of powers, and in justification he claims that these are general powers and not specific powers. I should like to suggest to him that even if that is true℄and I am not suggesting that it is anything else℄if the Bill is read as a whole, one cannot escape the conclusion that throughout the Bill there is a great extension of the Secretary of State's powers beyond anything which we have seen in previous Statutes. I am not again taking the point that we should slavishly follow precedent, because I am sure we all accept that we have to maintain a degree of flexibility (in the sense that I should like to use that word) and react to evolving situations, which happen in
1148
the world of Government just as they do anywhere else. What I am saying is that, surely, if we are going to extend these powers we should at least consider the possibility that we need a corresponding increase in Parliamentary control. I should like to end up by asking the noble and learned Lord the simple question: Does he not think that it is really rather inconsistent of the Government to resist the strengthening of Parliamentary control in harness with the extension of Governmental powers?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I do not really understand this kind of system, not having been in this House for very long. Am I entitled to say something?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Yes
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I merely want to support the Amendment, to insert subsection (3A), because I think it tremendously important that Parliament, both the Commons and the Lords, should not be weakened in any way. That is not to say that I necessarily always agree with what the present Government do, but I do not think it would be in the interests of democracy if we never had any disagreement. Anyway, I do not think that we ought to eliminate Parliament; and when any question of importance is raised, then I think it is important that there should be resolutions in both the Commons and the Lords.
What interests me is that the Commons disagree to this Amendment for the following Reason:
"Because it would greatly restrict the Corporations' ability to respond quickly to new commercial opportunities".
My Lords, I was in another place for 38 years, and whether my own Government or the Labour Government, I always felt that they were not really very quick anyhow. I should have wanted them to have been much quicker; and to me it seems absolutely ridiculous to say,
"greatly restrict the Corporations' ability to respond quickly".
They may feel like that in another place now, but many people there, both in my Party and in the Government Party, have no idea of the length of time it

1149
often takes the responsible Minister to arrive at any quick decision. I think it is a most ridiculous Reason—and I mean ridiculous.
I sometimes feel that I am a little too outspoken in this House. I always like to do things politely, but I like to state my own views, and I have every intention of stating them. I think the Reason which has been put forward by the Commons is perfectly ridiculous and I just wanted to say that. I hope to goodness that on one or two occasions, anyhow, my side of the House will vote. I like my words recorded in Hansard. I think it is not very good always to come forward with excellent views and then not to vote on them, because I do not think the country understands that. I sometimes think that when the country hears on the media, or reads in the newspapers, what goes on here they really wonder that the House of Lords is after. If you state you are against something, you ought to be able to vote against it, and I should like to do that. I think this is a most ridiculous thing that has come from the Commons, and I do not really think we ought to allow that ridiculous Reason to be put into Hansard without somebody opposing it.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not know whether I should say anything which will stiffen the resolve of noble Lords opposite to force this matter to a vote. I think we are agreed—and I would certainly agree with the noble Lord who spoke, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal—that the effect of the Amendment would necessarily be to cause delay. I think we are also agreed that what is needed in the broad national interest is to ensure that the Corporations are able, with the commercial speed of response which noble Lords would praise in other contexts, to extend their activities into related fields; that is, related to the product, to the technical skills, know-how, assets or other resources of the main business. So we are at one on that; and surely the noble Baroness would also acknoweldge that, if on each occasion the Corporation had to go to the Secretary of State and thereafter the Secretary of State had to have a Resolution approved by each House of Parliament, that would be liable to cause what in some cases would be an intolerable and possibly damaging delay.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord allow me one moment? I am very grateful. I think probably the noble Lord is aware that I have already said that I am surprised that the Secretary of State does not drop dead, because he is asked to do so much. I should not like any Secretary of State to drop dead from overwork; but I do not agree with what the noble and learned Lord is saying at all, and I am very glad to have the opportunity to say so. I mean—
Several Noble Lords: Order, Order!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Because it is putting too much responsibility on the Secretary of State, that is no reason why Parliament, both in another place and here, should not have the right to say something. I do not like things happening about which Parliament, both Houses, have not the right to say something.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not know whether it would improve the chances of survival of a Secretary of State if he had always to come forward to both Houses for an Affirmative Resolution. The other matter that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, dealt with was the extension of powers. Here one is simply building upon experience. The experience of previous nationalisation Statutes and of the operation of these industries has indicated that the powers can be improved, and that is what has been sought to be done in different parts of this Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
4.19 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
19 After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Shiprepairing
"A. None of the functions conferred by this Act upon the Secretary of State or British Shipbuilders shall be construed as authorising or requiring British Shipbuilders to repair or maintain ships except by or through the companies referred to in Schedule 2 to this Act."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
20 Because a limitation of the function of repairing or maintaining ships to specified existing companies is unduly restrictive.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 19 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20. It might be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if, with your Lordships' permission, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 54A, 71, 80, 81 and 82, all of which deal with ship repairing.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I wonder whether I could interrupt the noble Lord. I think that in fact it would probably be more convenient if that group of Amendments could be taken together when we reach Amendment No. 47.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that the Amendments will have to be moved on separate occasions, I am suggesting that I might make my one speech on ship repairing. I have told your Lordships that I have only one speech to make on this matter. I am now trying to make it for the umpteenth time and was hoping to avoid having to make it on several occasions during the afternoon.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, lest there should be any misunderstanding, I shall hope to be able to speak on Amendment No. 47 and not to have exhausted my right to speak in the debate now.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if this Amendment is merely to be taken shortly, it might be appropriate if I, too, save my remarks for a later occasion and limit myself now to saying that this Amendment is one on which we had considerable debates on previous occasions. The other place has disagreed to it for the reasons which I gave as best I could to your Lordships when we discussed the Amendment during the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and Third Reading. I am not sure that there is anything in this particular Amendment that I can add. I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is the first of the Amendments on ship repairing which has returned to us. This Amendment is related to Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82. Those are the substantive Amendments which would remove independent ship repairers from the Bill. We have considered very carefully the Government statements and their views on our Amendments and we have also studied the debate which took place in another place. I think it would be convenient if on this Amendment we discussed the whole subject of inclusion or exclusion. I will tell the noble Lord at the outset that we think the Government have still not made any case at all for the inclusion of ship repairing in this Bill. We believe that the ship repairing companies ought not to be included in the Bill. If your Lordships agree with that, it would not upset the rest of the Bill although we thoroughly disapprove of the nationalisation proposals in the rest of the Bill. On the mechanics of achieving this exclusion, Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 are the key Amendments. They are the last three Amendments which we are due to take at the end of today.
Yesterday, the Government thanked us for our co-operation in handling Amendments to make the Dockwork Regulation Bill coherent and logical. In the same spirit we are trying today to meet as far as we can points which Ministers made. Accordingly, I can tell the House that this new clause, Amendment 19, is not essential to our purpose and that I propose that the House should agree with the Commons on this Amendment No. 19.
Amendment No. 80 is a very different matter. Again in order to meet points raised by the Government we have tabled alternatives to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 54A and 71. I am going to make only a passing reference to them. They provide for the situation of a single firm, Vosper Thornycroft. I suggest that we discuss them when we reach Amendment No. 47. So much for the mechanics. We have on several occasions discussed the substance of the Government's proposals and the objections that we have to them. I shall therefore summarise our objections with brevity.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene now. There may have been a misunderstanding between

1153
the noble Lord and me. I understood from our exchanges at the start, that the noble Lord was not proposing to have a substantive debate on ship repairing now, but was to take this Amendment shortly and to have the major debate when we get to the substantive Amendments. It will be helpful to me (for I have now missed the opportunity of making my speech) and for the rest of the House if the noble Lord could make clear when he intends to have the major debate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I got in touch with the noble Lord's office early this morning and I suggested to the noble Lord's private secretary that we should have the main debate on this Amendment. I pointed out then that there were four Amendments which related to Vosper Thornycroft and which were grouped together and could be simply dealt with as a separate case and that they might be considered together when we reach the first one of the Amendments. I also said that Amendments Nos. 80, 81, and 82, which come at the end could again be, as I saw it, the subject of debate at the end of the day if there were any outstanding points on reaching Amendment No. 80, but that it would be convenient if the general question were discussed under this Amendment.
As the noble Lord moved this Amendment, he has the right to speak again and can if he wishes make his speech on this Amendment. I think it would have been wrong to bring the special case of Vosper Thornycroft into this debate. Those are consequential matters which can be dealt with when we reach the four Amendments.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am anxious not to delay the House and will certainly make only one speech. But I should put it on record that I understood the situation as the noble Lord now describes it when I started making my speech. But the noble Lord interrupted me and I understood that he was trying to change the prearranged arrangements and to take this Amendment shortly. I am happy to make one speech at the end and no doubt that will be sufficient for your Lordships.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, where the noble Lord did not conform with what I suggested was that he
1154
started to read out the numbers of the four Vosper Thornycroft Amendments which I had suggested should not be discussed now. That was where he misunderstood my message. I do not see any difficulty about proceeding with the general debate. I am sure that this would be more convenient to the House than to do this at the end.
Briefly, our first objection is that the ship repairing industry is a service industry and not a manufacturing one; secondly, the activities of the ship repairing firms are distinct and separate from shipbuilding; thirdly, the nature of the work requires ship repairers to be spread at various places around the coast. To be successful they must be able to offer and provide services at very short notice and to maintain the closest understanding and contact with their customers. Their initiative and efficiency will inevitably be impaired by the imposition of a centralised bureaucracy. The fourth objection is that, although there are fewer ships sailing the seas today because of the recession, the British ship repairing industry is not in difficulty and does not need to be propped up. It has been holding its own, and more than holding its own, in the last five years when it has been increasing its share of the business in North-West Europe which it has won.
Fifthly, out of about 100 British ship repairing companies the Government have selected 12 for nationalisation on an arbitrary basis. This has raised the question of hybridity, the question of whether Parliament is being fair under its own rules of procedure if an apparently arbitrary selection of ship repairing companies is included in the Bill. For all these reasons, the sensible course is to drop ship repairing from the Bill.
Let us now consider briefly the Government arguments in favour of nationalisation. These have been advanced during debates here and in another place. The Government have said that nationalisation is required in order to introduce a coherent strategy for the industry—this at the very time when it appears that a report has been written by the National Economic Development Office pointing out the shortcomings of the relationships between the Government and the existing nationalised industries. I will quote briefly from yesterday's Times, which makes clear that

1155
the strategy is unlikely to be coherent. The Times purports to quote from the Report:
"…government pressure has also impeded the management of the public sector, so that the Boards of nationalized industries cannot reasonably be held accountable for their economic performance 'since their ability to carry out a predetermined strategy has been increasingly circumscribed by the way Government and trade unions have exercised their powers.
"'The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that relationships between governments and nationalized industries despite some recent improvements and one or two exceptions, are confused, demoralizing to all concerned and can have damaging economic consequences for the country as a whole'."
My Lords, that is allegedly a quotation from the report. An informed commentator on radio yesterday, when asked about the report, described the relationships between Government and nationalised industries as a "shambolic mess". He was a very informed commentator; he was Sir Richard Marsh, speaking on the "World at One" radio programme. I of course remember him as a Labour Member of Parliament in another place. He went on to say that the Government have been changing policies every few weeks and that Ministers and Civil Servants kept popping in and out like mice in the woodwork. Those were his words; I took them down as I was listening yesterday. He was clearly deploring the absence of a coherent strategy. That is the view of a recently retired chairman of a nationalised industry. Is it prudent to take the risks involved in consigning the ship repairing industry to that kind of situation?
Then another Government argument has been ship repairing will not carry out the investment and modernisation needed unless it is realised. The Government here are wrong. There may have been some holding back while the threat of nationalisation has been there, but there is no serious difficulty under these heads if the ship repairing companies are released from this Bill.
Let us look at the part of the ship repairing industry which did go into public ownership through the mishap of Court Line folding up. It folded up because of the collapse of its travel and tourist side, not because of its ship repairing interests. Within 18 months one of the companies went out of business. That was Green-wells of Sunderland. About 380 men
1156
lost their jobs. That need not have happened. Is that the kind of new investment and progress which the Government mean? Then another pretext which the Government have used is that they have a commitment to nationalise the ship repairing industry. They may have a commitment to nationalise shipbuilding, but there has been nothing to indicate that it was ever suggested that ship repairing on its own was ever put forward as a candidate for nationalisation. When it appeared in the proposals, it was an adjunct to shipbuilding.
At no moment in recent history did a Fabian Archimedes, rushing out from his ablutions, announce that it was essential for the achievement of Socialism in Britain that the ship repairing industry should be nationalised; nor did the Labour policy committee or the Executive Committee propose or approve that ship repairing be nationalised other than with shipbuilding. Ship repairing was to be found in the Labour Party's proposals with shipbuilding and because of its supposed relationship with shipbuilding.
In the debate in another place last Thursday, the Minister, Mr. Kaufman, tried to make a lot of his contention that ship repairing was closely interrelated with shipbuilding. There is a convention that Members of one place are polite about Members in another place. As Mr. Kaufman was a little unkind in his remarks to my noble friend Lord Colville, he will not mind if I poke a little gentle fun at him in return. For the second time (because he also made the same point in Committee) Mr. Kaufman spoke of his visit to Tyneside and having walked from the Swan Hunter shipbuilding yard to the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company's ship repairing yard without knowing it or being able to distinguish the difference between them. I must tell him the truth: he did not know where he was. He was not going into the Wallsend Slipway and Engineering Company's yard. It is a mile away down the River Tyne from the Swan Hunter Shipbuilding yard.
There is a comic irony in his statement that he could go from shipyard to ship repair yard and back without realising he had moved from one yard to the other. The fact is that he had not. He went on to say it was also the case overseas, and spoke of his visits to yards in the Far

1157
East. If one looks in Who's Who one sees Mr. Kaufman lists his recreations as "travel and going to the pictures". On this occasion I think he got his recollections of them mixed up. My noble friend Lord Carr, in an earlier debate, referred to an article in the Guardian today to the effect that the Government were considering what course they might take which amounts to special pressure or even blackmail on certain companies by withholding money which had already been made available from certain companies if this Bill were held up. I hope that the Government will publicly deny, as my noble friend asked them to, that they are considering the kind of course that is conTained in that article.
Last night in Guildhall the Prime Minister was reported as saying that the highest priority must be given to the needs of industry, even over social objectives; also that we must make a success of the mixed economy. To nationalise the ship repairing firms runs directly counter to that speech. It would upset and damage an industry which is wholly inappropriate for nationalisation. My Lords, when we come to Amendment Nos. 80, 81 and 82 I suggest that we should, as a House, insist on our own views.
4.38 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in the present state of world shipbuilding the concept advanced by Her Majesty's Government to transfer private ownership of British shipbuilding to a nationalised Corporation is a highly speculative undertaking. Nevertheless, the history of British shipbuilding in the past 20 or 25 years demonstrates that an organisation superior to that in operation for many years past under private ownership—what is called "private enterprise"—must be replaced by an organisation most stable in character, more collected in its operation.
In the course of our debates on Second Reading, the Committee stage and Report stage, I availed myself of the opportunity of rejecting the proposition that ship repairing should be telescoped with the nationalisation of shipbuilding itself. There are various reasons why we should refuse to telescope the two. As I have already indicated, it is highly speculative to nationalise British shipbuilding. One has
1158
only to consider the situation in Japan, Norway, West Germany and elsewhere, many countries producing ships at low cost to our detriment in this country, and the gradual decline in the industry. However, it is inevitable and I leave it at that.
But when it comes to ship repairing it is even more speculative and quite unnecessary. It will contribute nothing whatever to the advancement of our economy. Indeed, it might be an impediment to take over a vast number of small industries, some of which are struggling for their existence. At the same time to agree that British Shipbuilders can undertake repairs as and when they regard it as necessary obviously means that the ship repairing industry would be in even greater danger.
I have read the reports of all the arguments which have been used in the other place in favour of taking over ship repairing. I am bound to say that some of those arguments were laughable—certainly incoherent. I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in criticising Members of another place, particularly Ministers. Some of them are not worth bothering about, quite frankly. On the other hand, certain Members of another place are enjoying themselves, extracting great amusement and at the same time indulging in considerable excitement, by condemning some Members of this House who have ventured to express their views on this subject. Such adjectives as "backwoodsmen", "old has-beens", "misfits", and a great many more have been used. I have heard them all before but I have managed to survive. Some of those people have fallen by the wayside and those who remain had better be careful. We can take it all. It is about time that we recognised that in this democracy of ours—even with the Party system, such as it is—we should be permitted the right to express ourselves independently, irrespective of what a Government executive or caucus decides. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry indulged in that exercise, and I think that she was quite entitled to do so. It does not mean that one condemns a Government or a Party; one seeks to correct the errors of judgment. That is all, and that is all I have sought to do in connection with British shipbuilding.

1159
One must not be at all egotistic about this and indulge in personal reminiscences, but I understand shipbuilding. I was brought up on the Clyde. I was a town councillor for a shipbuilding area for many years, with a huge majority in the days when I was popular. It has all gone now! For many years I was the chairman of the Party's shipbuilding and shipping committee and, looking at the other side of the coin, I can recall the occasion when for the first time in our history a Conservative Minister came along and asked for finance to enable a British shipbuilding company of great reputation to build a ship which was regarded as necessary. We supported him when many Conservatives were in opposition to him. Ever since then British shipbuilding has been dependent upon Government finance.
When it comes to ship repairing it is, to excuse the mixed metaphor, a horse of another colour. It is suggested that one of the companies—I need not mention its name—has been indulging in bribery and corruption and has been inviting people to dinners, functions and so on. I have not received a single invitation, but I manage on three meals a day and am quite content. What an utter nonsense it all is. The fact is that we should do this nation great harm if we took over the British ship repairing industry; nor should we do the industry, or the workers in that industry, any good.
I am not going to argue the matter again. It is better to state one's position and be done with it. I am not going to support the Government. The critics in another place can jump into the Atlantic for all I care—or some other part of the world's oceans—and I shall bear it with my customary fortitude. No, we have to make a stand. I shall make my contribution by making it clear beyond peradventure, whatever may be said about it, that this project for taking over British ship repairing should be denounced, condemned and rejected, and I hope that your Lordships will do so, too, at the end of the day.
4.47 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I had not been aware of the private carve-up between the Government Front Bench and the
1160
noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, by which we have this odd arrangement whereby we are conducting the debate on Amendment No. 80 on Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. However, if this is the right opportunity to discuss ship repairing I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and emphasise, very shortly, what he has said. I think that today is a time for short speeches because I sense that the Government are not going to give an inch, no matter what persuasion we bring to bear. Therefore we are wasting a certain amount of time. However, I should like to say once again how welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has been. It helps the House very much to hear from him in the terms in which he has spoken today—as, indeed, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, yesterday. It shows that there is a good deal of independence on all Benches in this House, and I think that it should be welcomed. I make no secret of the fact that I think that this whole measure is extremely irresponsible, in the light of the present economic circumstances. With all our experience of the failures, the bureaucracy and the capacity for making losses in the industries which are already nationalised, it is unbelievable and lacking in common sense that any Government should embark upon further nationalisation at this time. To commit the country to further expenditure out of public borrowing—because that is what it is—of about an additional £1 billion is total political irresponsibility. But it is obvious that the Government are determined on their course and that if we try to exercise our legitimate delaying powers we shall provoke them to use the Parliament Act and they will get the whole measure in a relatively short time.
I believe that the least we can do is to save the ship repairing industry from the dead hand of nationalisation. We on these Benches do this because it is an industry which we know requires alertness, enterprise, quickness of action and quickness of decision. These are not the characteristics of nationalised industries as we have experienced them. We are also aware that if any individual ship repairing firm wishes to become part of the new nationalised industry it can negotiate to do so; there is nothing to stop it. For the rest, however, we believe that

1161
individual ship repairers should have the freedom to escape from nationalisation. If there are two or three firms in this list of 12 which want to be nationalised, then good luck to them, but personally I believe that the right action of this House is to resist the nationalisation of the ship repairing industry.
I want to make only one further point regarding the political aspect. I do not accept without reservation the theory of the political Manifesto. As time elapses and economic and political circumstances change, particularly when they change dramatically and substantially, so the authority of the political Manifesto itself diminishes. It has to. The situation at the end of 1973, when the Labour Party's Manifesto was written for the February 1974 Election, was quite different from the situation today. Different policies are needed and in our present circumstances we should not be spending public money on more nationalisation, Manifesto or no Manifesto. Personally, as I have said, I should like to kill the whole of this measure because I think it is ill-conceived and irresponsible against the economic climate and background in which we are living. At least what we can do is to save efficient and profitable ship repairers from the fate which the Government have in mind for them. From these Benches we shall have no hesitation in insisting that ship repairing is taken out of the Bill and I hope that the Government, against the whole economic background of today, will respond in the spirit in which our actions are intended.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, because the Opposition Front Bench have been extremely puritanical, because they have been leaning over backwards to avoid the risk of being charged with constitutional misbehaviour, they are allowing the Government to get away with three-quarters of the things they ought not to get away with. In terms of argument on principle, we should not for one minute be contemplating allowing the nationalisation of the aircraft industry; on grounds of principle and argument and common sense we should not be allowing them to get away with nationalising the shipbuilding industry. The only point on which I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is that I see nothing wrong with the Government
1162
giving a grant to certain industries to enable them to carry on over difficult periods. But that does not necessarily mean that there has to be national ownership of the industry. The two things do not run together.
I gather that the reason why your Lordships are not likely to make the stand which in my view ought to be made on the aircraft industry and the ship building industry is because some mention of it was made in the Manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, has expressed absolutely my view on that. I do not think that a sentence in a Manifesto ought to be sacrosanct and be able to override the common sense of what has happened since that sentence was put into a particular document. But because mention of the document was made in the Manifesto, my noble friends, whose guidance on these matters I accept because they are wise, have thought fit not to use any powers they may have to deal with these two Parts of the Bill in the way I should like it to be done. So far as the ship repairing section is concerned, that was not mentioned in the Manifesto and—
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is fascinating to hear the advice which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has been given by his Front Bench on these matters, but I am afraid the advice went astray at that point because ship repairing was mentioned in both Manifestoes. I was anxiously awaiting the news of how the noble Lord's Front Bench had managed to distinguish ship repairing from shipbuilding and the aircraft industry.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I have not had any advice from anybody; that is why perhaps my contributions are not as effective as they might be. But this is not a matter on which one needs technical advice. I was getting a little worried a few minutes ago in the debate on this important principle, because it was beginning to get very technical and procedural. It is much deeper and there is much more to it than that. This was not mentioned in precise terms in the Manifesto, and the reason my noble friends have given as to why they did not want to conflict with the elected Chamber was that it was in the Manifesto, I quite understand, although I should

1163
not have felt that I had to be quite as pure myself. But that does not apply to ship repairing.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of answering the question: why does it not apply?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord is suggesting that the shipbuilding mentioned automatically carries with it ship repairing.
Lord MELCHETT: With great respect, my Lords, I am not. Ship repairing is mentioned specifically in both Manifestoes. The words" ship repairing" actually appear in the Manifesto.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, as I do not want to take up too much time on that sort of argument, perhaps the noble Lord will read the Manifesto, if he can find one, and then he can form his own judgment as to how precise it may be.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will read out to him what was said in the February and October 1974 Election Manifestoes:
"We shall take shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering into public ownership and control."
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, the point is—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: But, my Lords, the noble Lord is not taking the ship repairing industry into public ownership under this Bill. The main point I want to come to is that under the Bill the noble Lord is taking into control one or two sections of the ship repairing industry. It is discriminating in a way which is against the rules, and I am saying that in the sense that appears in the Bill the noble Lord and his Government never put into the Manifesto that they would take ship repairing into public ownership in the form that is being presented in the Bill.
The real point that I want to come to—because we want to get on and to come to the vote on this Part of the Bill—is that
1164
this Part of the Bill is not clean. This Part of the Bill does not pass the test of whether or not it is hybrid. The position has been made perfectly clear and quotations have been given in the past. The ruling of the Select Committee was given: if there is any doubt, it is deemed to be hybrid and it should be sent to Examiners for that doubt to be removed. In 1962 Mr. Speaker in another place said that he accepted the ruling that if there was any doubt it would be deemed to be hybrid and the matter should be sent to the Examiners. The record here is perfectly clear. The Bristol ship repairing industry has expressed a real doubt and they have prepared Petitions which, if we do not vote this Part of the Bill out today, I shall make myself responsible for presenting to your Lordships to give a ruling on it. That is the first doubt.
A second doubt was expressed by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross who put questions to the noble Lord the Leader of your Lordships' House in terms which showed that my noble friend, for sound legal reasons, had very real doubts. No answer was given to those questions which removed the doubt as to hybridity. Indeed, as a result of the answers given, quite impartial and objective legal opinion was sought outside and eminent counsel in that opinion made it clear that he disagreed with the Government on at least eight or nine of the items on which they said they had no doubt.
So if in the light of all those doubts just because noble Lords say that they are not convinced and they still have no doubts they cannot claim to have removed the doubts which others have. I sent Counsel's opinion along to the noble Lord the Leader of the House in order to support the claim I had made before, as to the Bill's hybridity. This outside, objective opinion established that there was a real doubt. The noble Lord the Leader of the House, in his reply to me, said:
"Having studied the opinion, nothing in it causes the Government to doubt the correctness of their conclusion that the ship repairing companies are not in conflict with the rules".
What he said in effect was that the Government had no doubts. He did not move far enough to say that nobody else had any doubts and the rule as it is clearly laid down and supported by the noble Lord, is quite clear; if there is any doubt at all from the source this matter ought to

1165
be sent to the Examiners for it to be made perfectly clear that quite apart from the principle of the Bill itself, we are working according to our rules.
The further point which made me quite satisfied that the Government were not completely clear in their own minds was the reply given by Mr. Kaufman in another place when they were dealing with other Amendments. My right honourable and learned friend Sir Derek Walker-Smith raised the point of hybridity, with some force and again with some legal backing behind his opinion and when Mr. Kaufman referred to that he did not attempt to deny any doubt. What he did is what Counsel, according to history, always do when they know they have not got a good case: they abuse their opponents. The only reply given by Mr. Kaufman on this serious point as to whether we were working to our rules was that eminent counsel who had given this opinion, which was in conflict with the Government's view, could not be relied upon, just because he had been the Chairman of the Conservative Association at Oxford, or just because he sat on the Executive of the Conservative Committee of Lawyers. I wonder what the reaction would be of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? I wonder what would be the reaction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, the ex-Lord Chancellor? I wonder what would be the reaction of my noble friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone? If in either House it was suggested that when in their private professional capacity they were giving an opinion that they were incapable of being objective and impartial because they had shown some civic interest in genuinely showing or having sympathy with one or other of the political Parties, that ought to be resented by the whole of the legal profession in this country. But for your Lordships' House, it ought to be taken into account that if the Government spokesmen have to descend to that sort of argument in order to divert attention away from the real facts of the case, it is pretty good evidence that the facts as presented have a basis. I should like the noble Lord to deal with this if he can.
My Lords, if my noble friends and the noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and other Benches do not remove it on the grounds of principle, which are unanswerable, it ought to be kept in mind
1166
that we would have a duty to insist that the rules be adhered to. At some stage in the future, either in Parliament or outside, this question of whether or not this is a clean Bill, whether it passes the test of hybridity, will have to be looked at to decide whether or not it ought to have been put before the Examiners, and whether when we let it pass it passes the test of legality and of keeping within the boundaries of our procedures. I hope there will be no doubt, when we vote on Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, that this section will be removed from the Bill in order to do justice to what the country needs, and in order to do justice to the sanctity of the rules under which we work.
5.2 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, there can be no objection to noble Lords making a case against the nationalisation of any particular industry even if in the past, like my noble friend Lord Shinwell, they have been instrumental in nationalising great industries. But when these occasions are always used to denigrate the whole conception of nationalisation, then we are entitled to object. I challenge noble Lords to tell me of any set of industries in the post-war era which have increased their productivity at the same pace as the nationalised industries.
Several noble Lords: Oh!
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I challenge noble Lords to tell me that in fact, if my noble friend had not nationalised the coal industry, there would have been any coal industry left.
A noble Lord: ICI.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the productivity of ICI has been good, but not as good as the great chemical industries of other nations. I mention this only because of the type of debate we are having. The coal industry was indire straits. The miner would not send his son into the pits. Again, I am challenging the Opposition to deny the fact that public ownership of coal has saved the lives of thousands of miners. There has been nothing in any of the privately owned coal industries elsewhere comparable with the efforts made in the realm of safety in the British pits. There is no coal industry in the world which can compete with it.

1167
My Lords, let us look at the other nationalised industries. The gas industry has had huge sums of public money spent on it. In a few short years it changed from carbonising coal, which was uneconomic, and the gas industry was going out to taking the by-products of oil. The industry then converted itself from a gas-making industry to one which merely distributes gas. The colossal sums of public money necessary for that could never have been invested unless the industry was publicly owned. I could go on talking in the same way about the electricity industry. Let us take the health industry. Had my old friend Aneurin Bevan not nationalised health, we could never have had the reduction in mortality that we have seen in this country. These are facts which no one opposite can deny.
So far as shipbuilding is concerned, this industry has remained in existence because of the huge inoculation of sums of public money. Such sums could not have been invested by the private owners. These are the facts, and unless someone wants to contradict me—and I will give way if they do—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am not seeking to contradict. My noble friend may have heard what I said about the principle of the nationalisation of shipbuilding. We are seeking to take over another industry. Is my noble friend aware that in the Cabinet of 1945 to 1951, when we decided to nationalise steel, we argued about it at great length. I protested because there was a suggestion that we must take over some subsidiary undertaking, Guest Keen and Nettlefolds. Eventually we agreed to nationalise steel, but not to take over Guest Keen.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, my noble friend need go no further. We could have been nationalising Smiths' Crisps at that time. But the peculiar composition of capitalism is not the issue before us. I agree with my noble friend, which is why, when drawing up the Steel Bill in 1965, one deliberately took out all that kind of thing. Indeed, when I look at shipbuilding as distinct from ship repairing, maybe I should declare an interest because thousands of my colleagues in my engineering union are in both industries. Sometimes they work in ship-
1168
building, and sometimes in ship repairing. I do not know that to them it makes much difference.
So far as shipbuilding is concerned, many hundreds of millions of pounds of public money have been invested in it, and therefore I should have thought we were entitled to expect a return for that money. Ship repairing is a different issue. I heard one Tory Member of Parliament say this morning on the radio, that we should try to denationalise those industries which are making profits; in other words, keep in public ownership those which do not make profits, and then complain that they cannot make profits. This is the kind of issue we are up against now.
I would put it to the House that there can be no affinity between shipbuilding and ship repairing unless they are of an entity in the sense of ownership, plus the fact that I have yet to hear contradicted their enormous success in the field of increased productivity and public investment. Whether you take the steel or coal industries, or any of the others, there could never have been the modernisation of those elements which are now in the public sector unless public ownership had taken place. The House and the nation had better face that as a fact which is irrefutable should anyone wish to deny it.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I did not intend to join in the debate this afternoon, but yesterday I received a letter which, in view of the various remarks made by your Lordships this afternoon, I feel it would not be out of place to read to your Lordships. The letter says:
"Dear Lord Kinnaird, Please accept my gratitude for your recent vote in the Upper Chamber against the Government Bill to nationalise the ship repairing firm of which I am an employee and a shareholder. Fears have been expressed amongst many of my fellow workers as to the future of our jobs under Government control. We are a small democratic company who have over the years built up an excellent name in the ship repairing industry and have contributed greatly towards the balance of payments in this country. Should we be nationalised, the current fear is that many foreign ship owners would rather use Continental repair facilities. Consequently, the outlook for us in this part of the country would be very bleak to say the least.
"While thanking you for your efforts on our behalf in the past may we still look for your future support in the weeks that lie ahead? Yours sincerely."
My Lords, does not that cry for freedom speak for itself?
5.10 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has already explained why the question of hybridity is apposite to this group of Amendments. It is a subject in which I have been taking a particular interest. I have been rather vocal outside this House in the last day or so, and perhaps it would be as well if I explained my position inside the House. I will do so briefly, because, of course, this is not an occasion on which the actual argument has to be deployed.
My Lords, as understand it, there is nothing wrong with hybrid legislation. It is just that when the Government, or any other promoters of a Bill, wish to deal with people or companies in a certain category and do not do so equally among them all, then the rules provide that they should be entitled, if they wish, to be heard before Parliament as to the way in which they are being treated. It does not mean that Parliament necessarily has to accept what they say, but they must at least be heard. That I should have thought was both fair and democratic.
Not only is that the general rule, but under the express terms of this Bill there is a real danger that trouble could arise if we did not deal with it according to the rules. In the form in which the Bill came to us first from another place, under Clause 19(2) only those companies are nationalised which are listed and which also fulfil the criteria as to ship repairing in Schedule 2. There is nothing to stop a company in Schedule 2—I do not know whether any one of them will—going to the courts after this Bill becomes law and asking the courts to interpret the words whereby the criteria have been described. If the courts some to a conclusion—and I think they would—which is different from what we have been told by the Government, then we shall find out, but find out too late, that we have all the time been dealing with a hybrid Bill, and we have not given to those people who are entitled an opportunity to be heard and to put their point of view about it. That, I think, would be a very sad thing to happen.
The reason why I am increasingly doubtful about the status of the Bill is this. The words in the criteria are very simple and straightforward. I have asked
1170
a number of questions of the Government, and as the Answers have proceeded the Government have introduced more qualifications and brought in more and more glosses about what these words mean. Instead of the simple words as they are in the Schedule, in order to accurately fit those companies which the Government wish to nationalise and to leave out the ones that they do not wish to nationalise, we have to have new qualifications, new points, new differences and distinctions brought in in shoals in each of the answers I have been given. Again there is no reason why the Government should not, if they wish, draft the Bill in that qualified and differentiating form. It has been done many times before in other Statutes. But they do not. They rely upon these distinctions in private, but they do not state them in the Bill. I have no doubt at all that, if I were given the opportunity, I could put your Lordships in a position such as described by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, where you would not be sure that the Bill was not hybrid, and that would be all that I would have to do. I am not going to do it, because the great advantage of this group of Amendments is that it makes it unnecessary. For that reason, if for no other—and I have many others—I will be happy to support it.
I would say one other thing. In another place, both on the guillotine Motion and when our Amendments were being discussed, the Government spokesman, Mr. Kaufman, made two strange speeches. In two speeches he attacked the personal and professional probity of Mr. Leolin Price, QC, and in the second one he poked fun at me. I do not mind about the latter in the least; I agree with my noble friend that those who descend to paltry jibes and personal abuse probably are disguising a very thin case, and the Government's case has got thinner and thinner. But Mr. Leolin Price has had no opportunity to answer what was said in a privileged position in another place. I know what he would like to say, because by chance it came into my hands in text. It was not his suggestion that I should say anything about this, but I asked his consent to do so. This is what he would like to answer to Mr. Kaufman:
"It is clear to me that Mr. Kaufman does not begin to understand how the Bar works, and that he has no idea of the personally damaging content and quality of his observations about me, or in the privileged assembly in which his observations were

1171
made he simply did not care whether they would be personally damaging. My Opinion was prepared in the ordinary course of my practice on instructions received from a well-known firm of solicitors, and the preparation of the Opinion was an ordinary professional task. For a Minister of the Crown to suggest that my professional Opinion is worthless because of any personal political history or political interest is novel and extraordinary. The Minister's view of the value of my opinion and advice is not, I think, shared by such clients as Mr. Arthur Scargill and the trade union of which the noble Lord, Lord Briginshaw, was the General Secretary. The Minister's view is absurd as well as insulting."
I think that, since the insult appears in the Official Report, so should Mr. Leolin Price's answer. Apart from that point, I think the doubt about the hybridity stands, and for that reason we should certainly carry these Amendments.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I am, naturally, supporting my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on taking ship repairing out of this Bill. But I was a little alarmed when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, got up and said that he intended to make only one speech. Well, that is very nice in one way, but am I to understand from that that he is not going to answer the point that was raised both by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy about the article in the Guardian? I think that is a very important statement that the noble Lord ought to make during this debate. If he really stands by his statement that he is only going to make one speech, which he has already made, does that mean he is not going to answer that particular issue? I think it is very important that that particular argument on what was in the Guardian should be answered. Is he going to answer it or is he not? I should like to know. I am going to say one or two more words, but I should like an answer to that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene in her speech. If I could reassure her, I am, when I get the opportunity, going to make one more speech to your Lordships' House on ship repairing. What I will say in it I think the noble Baroness had better wait and see.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Well, my Lords, of course I have
1172
to wait, because there is no other way of dealing with the matter, but I hope the noble Lord will answer what was said in the Guardian. Otherwise, perhaps I shall get up and have a word or two to say in the middle of his speech. Nevertheless, I will not bother about that at the moment.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was very amusing, which he thought was the right thing to be, about Mr. Kaufman's visit to Tyneside. As I represented Wallsend-on-Tyne for very many years until I was sadly defeated, I know a little bit about ship repairing. Mr. Kaufman may be an absolutely charming Minister; I really do not know him at all, but I am sure he is probably a very nice Minister. I am sorry he did not know where he was walking. to when he walked through from Swan Hunters to the ship repairing yard. That does not matter. The point is, does he really know anything about ship repairing? I very much doubt whether he knows anything about it at all. If he knew anything about it, it was a pity, as a very nice Minister, that he did not give us some information about the difference between ship repairing and shipbuilding. When I spoke last time I referred to ship repairing, which is a most important industry, quite different from shipbuilding. I want to reiterate that because I hope that when the vote comes we shall have overwhelming support for taking ship repairing out of this Bill. I will not say any more than that at the moment, but I certainly will vote to take it out. I still retain a lot of friends in the North-East—they very often did not support me politically, but we always got on very well—and I am quite certain that there are many men who would be well pleased if we took ship repairing out of this Bill. That is really all I want to say on the subject.
5.20 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, there has been a certain amount said about the making of personal attacks on either Members of another place or Members of your Lordships' House, and to what an extent that reveals a weakness in the attackers' arguments. As one who was subject to some attack by the honourable gentleman who speaks for the Opposition on this Bill in another place, I of course would not necessarily dissent from the arguments put forward; but I certainly do not intend myself to follow various

1173
noble Lords in attacking either Members of your Lordships' House or Members of another place with personal abuse. It seems to me that what we are meant to be doing in this House at any rate is arguing the case on its merits, and that is what I have tried to do throughout the passage of this Bill and what I intend to continue to try to do.
There has been extensive debate on the ship repairing proposals both in this House and in another place. I, for my part, have made it quite clear that the Government's proposals to vest in British Shipbuilders the nine privately-owned and the three Government-owned ship repairing companies listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill result from a firm commitment in both of the 1974 Manifestoes of the Labour Party. As I have said many times, these are the major ship repairing companies operating dry docks on the main estuaries. The Government firmly believe that only by vesting these major firms is there any prospect of bringing about the improvements on such matters as investment and working conditions that this industry badly needs.
The Amendments which would remove the 12 ship repairing companies from Schedule 2, together with the definitions which cover them, would prevent the Government from bringing into effect their industrial strategy for the most important part of the ship repairing sector of industry. As I have said before, and as my noble friend has reiterated in this debate, I believe that the distinctions between shipbuilding and ship repairing have been very much exaggerated. This was effectively pointed out in another place by someone who has actual experience of working in the industry.
As I have said before, there arc several examples of ship repairing and shipbuilding being carried out by the same company. There are other cases where separate ship repairing companies are in the same group as shipbuilding companies. The only conclusion to be drawn is that these activities complement each other to a considerable extent. The same types of skills are needed in the labour force, and very often common facilities are used. Separating ship repair and ship-building will in many cases lead to inefficiency and to the loss of flexibility in the use of resources.
1174
It is worth adding that many of the ship repairing companies in Schedule 2 have been planning for some time on the basis that they will be nationalised, with possibly one well publicised exception. The Government's discussion paper which listed the major ship repairing companies covered by the proposals for public ownership was published on 31st July 1974. If these companies are removed at the eleventh hour from the scope of the Bill, they will be faced with a situation they did not expect and which may well be unwelcome in some cases to the shareholders. Worse still would be a situation where uncertainty about the future of such companies drags on.
I do not question the sincerity of noble Lords opposite in the stand that they have taken on this aspect of the Bill. But I suggest that it is misguided, and possibly based on a lack of full understanding of the nature of the ship repairing industry and the industrial logic behind the proposals, and even in some cases of the wishes of the companies themselves, certainly in so far as the need to end uncertainty is concerned.
Could I turn briefly to the question of hybridity, which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, have raised. As I understand it, the purpose of raising hybridity in this debate was to some extent at least to suggest to your Lordships that your Lordships' House should decline to accept the Commons' rejection of this House's Amendment removing ship repairing companies from the Bill, because there is an element of hybridity in the provisions relating to such companies. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to advance fully with the noble Viscount the numerous respects in which the Government consider this point is misconceived, but I must make a few comments on the argument which the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, put forward.
First, the Government do not agree that there is any element of hybridity in these provisions. We have considered the various detailed matters raised by the noble Viscount at other stages during the passage of the Bill, and my noble friend the Leader of the House has replied to them in a series of Written Answers. These Answers have set out the reasons

1175
why, in each particular case, the Government consider that the company in question does, or does not, come within the description of ship repairing companies in paragraph 3 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the Bill. Maybe I should add that we have of course had the opportunity of studying the opinion of learned counsel, to which both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord referred, and the Government do not consider that anything in it affects the view that we have formed and held consistently during the time the Bill has been before your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I could reiterate a point which I know I have made before, and which I think is fully accepted at least by most noble Lords opposite; that is, that the Government have demonstrated the conviction which they hold that there is no element of hybridity by making every possible effort to give all the information to noble Lords opposite that was at our disposal, and answering fully all the points which have been raised to us. It has not been the case that the same courtesy has been shown in return—not, I hasten to add, by noble Lords opposite, who have been in the position where the information has come to them in certain dribs and drabs and certainly was not available to all of them when the Bill reached your Lordships' House. But I should like to place on the record once again the fact that the Government are perfectly clear that the Bill is not hybrid. We have retained that firm conviction throughout the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Nothing that has been put to us at various stages during the Bill's passage has shaken that conviction.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, everyone will accept that the Government have no doubt. Do they, in return, say categorically that outside Government circles there is no doubt?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think it is a little foolish to ask me to answer for every single individual either in your Lordships' House or outside the House as to whether they have doubts. After all, a great many people may not have studied in detail the various questions and answers that have been given. I have no doubt that they could have some doubts, particularly in view of the various com-
1176
ments that have been made in the Press and other places about hybridity in the Bill. I would suggest that anyone who has carefully considered the various questions which the Government have been asked and the answers which have been given should not have any element of doubt as to the hybridity of the Bill.
There is one other point that I should like to make briefly about hybridity. As I understand it there is no question whatsoever for the issue of hybridity being raised in this House at this stage. In fact, there is no question of it being raised after the Second Reading of any Bill except where the question of hybridity has arisen because of an Amendment made to the Bill after Second Reading. The ship repairing provisions of this Bill are in exactly the same form as they were when the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House. Noble Lords have had ample opportunity to raise the point formally in the months that have passed, but have not done so. It is clear that ever since May, if not before, persons interested in opposing the Bill have been engaged in the most thorough and extensive researches in order to find grounds for suggesting that the Bill is hybrid.
I make no complaint about this, but the fact is that nothing which those persons have discovered, or argued, caused any of your Lordships to raise the point formally while these provisions were included in the Bill and the Bill was still before your Lordships' House. It was not made a formal issue on Second Reading nor in Committee nor on Report. I would also remind the House that in another place the issue was raised at a late stage in the passage of the Bill through that House and after considerable discussion that House decided to treat the Bill as an ordinary public Bill and not to apply any of the procedures which might have been appropriate to private legislation.
As I understand the implication behind what the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Viscount have said, nearly six months later we as a House are being asked to consider the issue at an even later stage on grounds that the Government regard as even slighter than those relied on in another place. Of course this would raise the issue of comity between the two Houses. In any event I

1177
suggest that the use of the issue of hybridity at this stage to impede the inclusion of ship repairing in the Bill is not intended to be bona fide in the interests of individuals but wholly and solely as an excuse, and a bad excuse, to impede Government legislation on a point which has been reconsidered and voted on again in another place.
I have been asked to comment on a report which I understand has been published in the Guardian this morning. I confess to your Lordships that, having returned rather late last night from Northern Ireland and having had a considerable amount of reading to do on this Bill this morning, I have not had a chance to study in detail what the Guardian said although I have got some of the flavour of the remarks in the newspaper from things which noble Lords have said in the course of the debate.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is turning from the question of hybridity, does he not accept that the facts on which the issue of hybridity was raised in another place—which I think was something to do with whether or not an oil rig was a ship—are totally different from the facts on which the issue of hybridity was raised in this House?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not sure that I accept that any new facts have been discovered which give rise to an element of doubt as to whether or not the Bill is hybrid. Some of the so-called facts which have been so-called discovered during the Bill's time in your Lordships' House have turned out not to be facts at all. I am thinking of the famous folio numbers found to be put on by the girl taking pieces of paper out of the records in Companies House in Edinburgh. Of course I agree that when the issue of hybridity was first raised in another place the particular facts on which the case was raised are not those on which the Government are being questioned in this House. As I have said, nothing which has been raised in this House has altered the Government's determination that the Bill is not hybrid.
I was coming to the conclusion of my remarks. I merely wanted to say to your Lordships' House that, although I have not had the chance to study in detail what is written in the Guardian, I have made
1178
clear in your Lordships' House and Government spokesmen have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill in another place that in all sincerity we feel that if this Bill is further delayed the consequences for the shipbuilding and the aircraft industries would be extremely severe. That is still the Government's view.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
5.34 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Insert the following new clause:
Restriction on certain powers.
". Notwithstanding anything in the two last preceding sections of this Act or in any subsequent provision of this Act or in any order, consent or authority made or given under this Act neither British Shipbuilders nor any of its subsidiaries shall—

(a) manage or operate any ship;

(b) enter into any arrangement with regard to the management or operation of any ship unless the arrangement is such that the amount of any payment thereunder of money or moneys worth to or by British Shipbuilders or any of its subsidiaries is calculated independently of the earnings of that ship;

(c) acquire and hold an interest in or form or take part in forming a body corporate or enter into any partnership with a person if the business of that body corporate or person is or is to be wholly or mainly the management or operation of any ship;

(d) receive any moneys or moneys worth in consequence of holding an interest in a body corporate or of being in partnership with any person if the amount of those moneys or that moneys worth is dependant in whole or in part upon the earnings of any ship".

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following Reason:
22 Because it represents an undesirable restriction on British Shipbuilders' activities.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22. As I have explained on previous occasions the new clause would represent an attempt to limit the scope of the activities of British Shipbuilders. We want the Corporation to have maximum flexibility to operate commercially whilst at the same time remaining fully accountable. Quite apart from the desirability of the Corporation having the powers to

1179
seize commercial opportunities, this clause could have the effect of preventing the carrying out of existing activities by a subsidiary, for example the operation of tugs.
I hope the noble Earl is able to hear what I am saying above the general hubbub. I know he takes a particular interest in this Amendment and I think it would be rather unfair to him if those people leaving the Chamber prevented his hearing the remarks I am making on this Amendment. We do not want to set up British Shipbuilders as a major power in the shipping field. All we want to do is to ensure that the Corporation can assist the British shipbuilding industry in every possible way and we believe the subsidiary could be a means of securing orders which might otherwise have gone abroad.
As I have made clear on other occasions, British Shipbuilders cannot undertake any new activity without the consent of the Secretary of State, and such consent would not be forthcoming unless he was convinced the activities contemplated were in the national interest. Naturally one of the things he would consider most carefully would be the effect of the activities of the subsidiary on the British shipping industry. The occasions in practice when British Shipbuilders would operate ships on its own account or participate in joint ventures on a profit and loss basis—the two activities to which I know most concern the noble Earl—would be rare. Normally ships would be built for a specific owner to be put on long-term charter, and any other ships acquired would be put out to bareboat charter or long-term period charter at commercial rates. But occasionally British Shipbuilders might find itself with a ship on its hands, as for example when a charter arrangement fell through or an owner was unable to take delivery. In such cases the Corporation would normally seek an alternative charter, but it would make sense for it to operate the ship in the meantime.
Similarly there might be occasions when by participating in a joint venture the Corporation could induce an owner to place orders for say three ships in United Kingdom yards instead. This is another example I gave when discussing the Bill
1180
at the Committee stage. I can give an assurance that the number of occasions on which the Corporation would be likely to engage in ship operating or partcipate in joint ventures with an equity interest would be very rare, and on such occasions the Corporation would be expected to operate in a genuinely commercial manner. We believe that the Corporation must be able to take every opportunity to assist the shipbuilding industry, and that it must be able to operate so as to take advantage of commercial opportunities. Nor can we accept that the public sector should be subject to restrictions not imposed on the private sector. In view of the assurances I have given which go further than I was able to go at the previous stage when we discussed this matter, I hope that noble Lords will not persist with the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22.—(Lord Melchett.)
The Earl of INCHCAPE: My Lords, the new clause which your Lordships have inserted was intended to provide a valuable safeguard against British Shipbuilders embarking on ship operation or ship management. The other place has disagreed with it on the grounds that it represents an undesirable restriction on the activities of British Shipbuilders. For the reasons I advanced when I moved the insertion of this clause at the Committee stage I thought, and still think, that such a restriction would not be undesirable, in fact quite the contrary. It would be in the interests of the British shipping industry which both the Government and British Shipbuliders must look to as the main customer of the shipbuilding industry. However, in view of the assurances which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has given me, and for which I am most grateful, I certainly do not press for this Amendment to be reinserted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, when this new clause was being considered at the Committee stage the Government gave certain assurances and they were repeated today. The noble Lord said he thinks he went further today, but until I read what he has said I have not been able to detect that he has gone very much further. What the Government visualised in Committee, and have not

1181
changed their mind about, is that there could be situations in which the new Corporation might operate ships. The point here is whether they would operate ships and it is not a question of owning ships; they may own ships. The new clause would have ensured that they did not go into the business of operating ships.
The noble Lord indicated that there were technical objections to the Amendment which we sent to another place; for example, it might have stopped the Corporation from using a tug. Those technical objections were clearly not insurmountable and we had hoped that the Government would have been able to respond with an alternative Amendment which would have given an assurance to the British shipping industry. I therefore regret that the Government have not felt able to make some move to the shipping industry by putting forward an alternative which would have avoided the technical defects.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 5, page 9, line 16, at end insert "or professional organisation".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
24 Because the Amendment unduly extends the duty to consult.
5.42 p.m.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 23 but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof, No. 24A:
Page 9, line 16, at end insert ("or professional organisation and any other independent trade union as defined in section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which appears to the Corporation to represent a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries").
There is an error in the Amendment as printed, due entirely to the very great rush in which it had to be prepared. Thefirst three words as printed "or professional organisation" are from the Amendment which I am not seeking to insist upon, and it was not meant that they should be included in the Amendment which I am moving. As I said, the error is due entirely to the tremendous rush under which not only Members of this House but the staff of the House have been
1182
working, and I am sure that we all understand how these errors occur. I am not saying where the blame lies because it may well lie with me and my noble friends.
I wanted to stress that. I also want to stress that the only reason why we did not want to insist on "or professional organisation"was exactly the reason I gave when speaking to an earlier Amendment, when I said that we were genuinely seeking, on this question of enlarging the scale of consultation, to compromise with the views of the Government and the views of the other House. Your Lordships will notice that the wording of Amendment No. 24A is precisely that of the earlier Amendment, No. 14A, and I do not think therefore that I need explain it again. I am extremely disappointed that the Government have not taken this in the spirit in which it was offered, as a genuine attempt to compromise, with our surrendering some of what we believe in order to reach a compromise between the views of the two Houses.
While I assume, as I must, that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will repeat what he said on the previous Amendment, may I ask him to give some assurance on this issue? He said in the debate on the previous Amendment that he believed that everybody should have the right—he used the word "right"—to consultation; but that is exactly what people do not have and fear that it is an opportunity they will not be given. If the Government cannot, for reasons good or bad, accept the Amendment, it would be helpful if Lord Melchett on behalf of the Government would give an assurance to all these people that they will in practice have the right to be consulted, as he said earlier, and that this right will not be denied them merely because their legal entitlement to it is not, in the wish of the Government, to be written into the Bill. Such an assurance would help to allay fears, which I hope he believes are genuine, in these industries.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment but doth propose in lieu thereof Amendment No. 24A.—(Lord Carr of Hadley.)
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is not proposing to argue, as he appeared to argue

1183
earlier, that by qualifying his use of the words "industrial democracy" with the word "effective" he can justify a suggestion that only the big or favoured battalions should play a part in these processes. I invite him to deny that if a right to be consulted is bestowed, but is bestowed selectively and restrictively as among relevant organisations, that is not merely unjust in this context but gives the lie to the stated democratic intention.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, in one sense I am not going to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, because I do not intend to repeat the speech I made on Amendment No. 14A. I am afraid, however, that I am going to disappoint him in the sense that I am not repeating it because I have nothing new to say in relation to the Government's attitude to Amendment No. 24A—which, as he pointed out, follows No. 14A exactly—but because it is the same as the attitude which I took to No. 14A. However I would certainly like to respond to the particular question which he asked me. As he knows, this is a very difficult subject. It is one on which I have freely acknowledged that there are considerable difficulties, and there are difficulties for all those concerned. There are difficulties for the organising committees and the Corporations, as they will be; there are difficulties for the independent and recognised trade unions, and there arc difficulties for other groups. I do not pretend that anything I am going to say tonight to Lord Carr will make any difference to the fact that those difficulties exist, and all I am likely to do in whatever I say is probably to exacerbate the difficulties, and that is why I shall be careful not to say too much.
I hope Lord Carr will accept that with a difficult industrial relations problem it is not always very helpful to have fears from either side of the House sounded off by people who do not know a great deal about them, and I confess that I am in that position, even if Lord Carr is not. This is a problem which must be sorted out with good will—and I believe that that good will exists—among those actually working in the industries and in the organising committees and the Corporations as they will be. I have no doubt, as I say, that that good will exists and that there is a wish to sort out the problems
1184
that exist, but I am not sure that any particular assurances from me would carry any weight or necessarily help the matter a great deal.
I have said on previous occasions that the Government wish to see everybody working in these industries involved in the consultation process and that has been made perfectly clear. I do not think there is anything more definite I could say that would be very helpful, except to reiterate my view that there is a great deal of good will, and once the Bill has become law and people are faced with settling down to working its provisions I feel sure that some of the fears which have been apparent during the passage of the Bill—and I accept from Lord Carr that they are genuine fears—will be met by the actions of the two Corporations.
On Question, Amendment No. 24A disagreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
25 Page 9, line 16, at end insert "and any other person who, or organisation which, appears to it to be representative of a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of any of its wholly owned subsidiaries."
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following Reason:
26 Because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation to consult professional organizations.
5.48 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 26. This again covers the same ground that we have been over in previous debates and therefore I do not intend to delay your Lordships by saying very much. As I explained in relation to Amendment No. 12, we believe that to extend formal consultation rights to organisations which fail to meet the criteria for "relevant trade union" is not in the best interests of all employees in the industries and could give rise to harmful practical difficulties. I hope that for these reasons the Rouse will not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 26.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would explain the Commons Reason. The Reason states:
"Because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation to consult professional organisations."
This Amendment does not even mention professional organisations. I fail totally to understand how the answer is in any way relevant to the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have a feeling that the previous Amendment is not the only thing that has been muddled up in the speed with which the Bill has been returned to your noble Lordships' House. I think there are five Amendments altogether which refer to industrial democracy in one way or another: Amendments Nos. 23 and 33, are one section, as it were, and Amendments Nos. 25, 29 and 35. I think that the Reasons for one lot have been transposed with the Reasons for another lot. As we have had a general debate on this issue, I hope the noble Lord will leave it at that. If he would like me to, I could give him the numbers as I think probably they should be.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, perhaps I could refer to it again in a later Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
27 Clause 5, page 9, leave out lines 25 to 31.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
28 Because it would be wrong to deprive the Secretary of State of a reserve power to give directions to the Corporations in appropriate circumstances.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 28. This Amendment removes the power of the Secretary of State to give directions to the Corporations after considering their report. As I have explained on a number of occasions, the Government believe that the Secretary of State must have the power to give
"such directions as he considers appropriate for securing that the management of the activities of the Corporation and its wholly owned subsidiaries is organised in the most efficient manner."
The power is well precedented in the most recent nationalisation legislation—the Iron
1186
and Steel Act 1967, the Civil Aviation Act 1971 and the Gas Act 1972—and I hope, in view of that, that noble Lords will not insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 28.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, there is no purpose in my repeating the remarks that we have already made in connection with Amendment No. 17. Much the same general arguments apply. It is quite clear that the two sides are not going to agree about this. May I confine myself to asking the noble Lord whether he can tell us what exactly he thinks are appropriate circumstances for the intervention, as the Commons have chosen to use those words in giving us their Reasons for this?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, we went into this matter in some detail when we discussed the Amendments. I know that noble Lords opposite felt that this power would allow the Secretary of State to interfere in detail. The Government's intention is to provide the Secretary of State with the reserve power. It would certainly not be a power that would allow interference in detail. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, argued during a previous stage in the Bill that when the Secretary of State was dissatisfied with the management and organisation he should dismiss those responsible. That was the alternative to having this reserve power in the Bill. We consider that there are situations in which it would be less damaging to the morale of the Corporations for the Secretary of State to be able to give a direction on organisation after receiving a report from the Corporation. We share the view that the Corporations rather than the Government should determine their organisation, but the Government think that this reserve power could in certain circumstances provide the best way of resolving very difficult problems. For those reasons we regard it as essential.
We have provided that directions may cover only "general principles". I made the point before, but I am not sure that it has been fully taken on board by noble Lords opposite. Perhaps they have not wanted particularly to direct their minds to this point. As I said, we have made the

1187
change to ensure that directions only cover general principles, because that is a precedent from previous nationalised industries legislation, including Conservative precedents. I should have thought that that made it clear beyond all reasonable doubt that it was only intended that the power should be used on major matters. I hope that that explanation has gone some way to reassure noble Lords opposite.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
29 Clause 6, page 9, line 39, at end insert:
"(1A) It shall be the duty of each Corporation to seek consultation with other organisations not being relevant trade unions, as appears 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 for the purposes specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2) below."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
30 Because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation to consult professional organisations.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30. We have just discussed a similar Amendment—Amendment No. 25 to Clause 5—and for the same reasons I would urge noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 29.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 30.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I want to point out simply that once again the Reason given by the Commons is totally irrelevant to the Amendment. Again, the words "professional organisation" are not only not included in the Amendment but were specifically excluded by your Lordships when dealing with this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that this was all due to the rush. I cannot refrain from asking: Who has caused the rush? I think that the Government really ought to be ashamed of themselves in dealing with this matter in this slipshod and wholly unsatisfactory manner.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
31 Clause 7, page 10, line 13, leave out "consulting" and insert "seeking consultation with".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
32 Because it weakens the nature of the obligation on the Corporations to consult relevant trade unions.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 31 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32. Amendment No. 31 was passed by your Lordships without discussion after the mover of the Amendment had mistakenly claimed that two identical Amendments previously debated had been passed on a Division. There had not been a previous Division, because the earlier Amendments had not been moved. We on this Front Bench, naturally accepting the word of any noble Lord opposite for anything they say, did not query this remark when we were told about it. I think it is for that reason that the Amendment has got into the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will now agree to the Motion.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 32.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, it might be stated that it was one o'clock in the morning when this incident took place. In the circumstances it would not be wise, perhaps, to precipitate a constitutional crisis by insisting on the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 7, page 10, line 14, after "union" insert "or professional organization".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
34 Because the Amendment unduly extends the duty to consult.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 33, but doth propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
"(or professional organisation and any other independent trade union as defined in section 30(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act

1189
1974 which appears to the Corporation to represent a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of its wholly-owned subsidiaries").
My Lords, this Amendment is exactly the same Amendment as that dealt with before in Amendment No. 24A, and again, as in that Amendment, the words "professional organisation" crept in by mistake owing to the rush in which we are working. I do not think that I need repeat any of the arguments and I do not expect the noble Lord to repeat any of his arguments. I simply want to say two things to him: this really is an area in which it is extremely important, not only for the good will of the employees concerned but also for the prosperity of the Corporations, that the consultation should be with everybody. The Amendment concerns Clause 7, whose subject is the formulation of the Corporation's plans and policies and the conduct of their operations and it covers such things as capital investment, research and development,et cetera.
These are matters on which people like engineers, technical experts of all kinds, accountants and other highly specialised people have a great deal to contribute and on which it is essential that they should contribute. Of course these are the very people for whom the "relevant trade unions" are not the appropriate trade unions. Unless they are consulted—although they have no legal right to be consulted—the whole of this will be made an absolute nonsense. So I hope that the noble Lord will say that the Government will make sure that, in this area, the Corporations consult everybody because, if they do not, they will be leaving out the very people who have the greatest responsibility for contributing to the most important subjects of the Corporations' future plans.
The only other point to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is that, once again, the Reason given refers to professional organisations which, again, have no relevance to my Amendment and to one of the two Amendments to which No. 36 replies.
May I just say for the sake of the professional organisations that we have not suddenly lost interest in them? We are simply taking the words of the Government's reply at their face value because wherever it is relevant they say that professional organisations do not have
1190
to be included because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation. By this, I think that it is implied that the professional organisations will of course be consulted where it is appropriate. I thought that I ought to say that lest the professional organisations, reading through our proceedings, were to think that we had suddenly come to believe them to have no importance at all. That is of course not the case. We are in difficulty because where the Commons replies refer to them it is usually in appropriate and it has been difficult to say at any moment in an appropriate way that we are accepting at its face value the Government's use of the word "unnecessary" as meaning that the professional organisations will of course be consulted. I beg to move.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask for an elucidation? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will give some reply to the noble Lord, Lord Carr. I have been sitting here a little perplexed by the printing mishaps which have added slightly to the confusion, but I have been much more confused by the fundamental controversy. The other place used the phrase,
"…because it is unnecessary…to consult professional organisations".
and I ask myself, what does that mean? Does it mean that it is a law of nature that professional organisations will be consulted and that therefore it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation because this will automatically take place? Or does it mean something else?
It is quite clear that other provisions in the Bill confer a legal right to be consulted on organisations which, from the legal point of view, are technically slightly different organisations, but it is not plain to me that, according to the principles of natural justice, the difference is so great as to warrant the distinction that seems to obsess the other place in commenting on the Lords Amendments.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, to be honest, I had not intended to reply to the noble Lord because, as he pointed out, this is the third identical Amendment and I had really said all I had constructively to say on the first Amendment. When I replied to the noble Lord on the second Amendment I am not sure that he heard

1191
everything that I said to him and I really felt that to continue to prolong the debate on the Third Amendment might be keeping your Lordships here longer than some noble Lords would wish, particularly as I understand from an earlier discussion that there may be a Division during the later stages of our deliberations.
Of course it is important that professional organisations should be consulted by the management and the boards of these two new Corporations. None of use has ever pretended that that was not so, nor that the Corporations could be run sensibly and efficiently unless professional organisations of many sorts were regularly consulted and unless the boards of the Corporations were readily in touch with a great many people—professional organisations and others. It is for that reason that it was thought unnecessary to put a statutory obligation on the two Corporations to this effect. I am not sure that there is a statutory obligation on other Corporations or, indeed, on private companies to consult professional organisations in this way and no doubt they go on very well without a statutory obligation being placed upon them. It is for those reasons that the Commons have suggested that your Lordships should not insist upon the Amendment.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I believe that I have a right to wind up on this Amendment. May I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us—perhaps not on the present Amendment but when he comes to the next one—whether he regards professional organisations as being in a different category in this respect to independent trade unions? The answer given by the Government is in different terms when it speaks about professional organisations and when it speaks about "other independent trade unions". I believe that the House would like to understand the inwardness of the different terms used by the Government in relation to the two types of body.
On Question, Motion disagreed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
35 Clause 7, page 10, line 14, after "union" insert "and any other person who, or organisation which, appears to it to be representative
1192
of a substantial proportion of its employees or of those of any of its wholly owned subsidiaries"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
36 Because it is unnecessary to impose a statutory obligation to consult professional organisations.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36. Once again, this is an Amendment that we have already discussed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I had hoped not to have to say anything about this Amendment because I had expected that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would respond to the question that I put to him a moment ago. Although the answer given by another place to this Amendment is clearly irrelevant because the Amendment that it is rejecting has nothing to do with professional organisations, nevertheless the answer does have something to do with them. I really think that we should know what this word "unnecessary" means. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has asked for an explanation. I hoped that by speaking for a few moments I might provide time for the necessary answer to come from the Box and, since that seems to have happened, perhaps I can now ask the noble Lord to enlighten us.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I did not reply initially because I thought that there was another Amendment like Amendment No. 34A to come and I was intending to respond on that. However, having had a chance to look through the Marshalled List, I see that this may well be the last Amendment relating to industrial democracy and I take the noble Lord's point that it was a little remiss of me not to have replied when moving the Amendment. I apologise. There are of course differences between professional organisations and independent, though not recognised, trade unions. The professional bodies cover the learned professions and their organisations cover very many employees well outside the range of those

1193
actually working for the two Corporations. That may be true of some independent trade unions—I am not quite sure about that—but it will also be the fact that many of the independent trade unions will concern themselves solely with representing the employees in the particular industry.
When we had a similar discussion at the Committee stage, or the Report stage—I cannot remember which—when we were considering the difference between professional bodies and independent and recognised trade unions, I made the point that although a large trade union may have members in many different companies and many different industries, it would nevertheless have an organisation and a structure within the particular company and the particular industry to be nationalised which would be relevant for consultation and collective bargaining purposes with the actual Corporation. That will not necessarily be true—indeed I should be surprised if it is true—of any of the professional bodies which would not have independent structures and representatives and full-time organisers and so on in particular companies or particular industries. So from that point of view I think that there is a considerable difference. I think it also fair to say that the representation provided by professional bodies is of a quite different character to that provided by trade unions, whether independent or independent and recognised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.12 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
37 Clause 7, page 10, line 32, leave out from "relate" to "the" in line 34.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
38 Because it prevents the Secretary of State from ensuring that effective corporate planning is achieved.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 37, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38. This clause puts on a statutory basis the arrangements for forward planning in nationalised industries which have in practice obtained for some time. The clause as the Government originally drafted it sought to ensure that
1194
the Corporations periodically draw up a plan, agree it with the Secretary of State, and in the general conduct of this operation act on lines settled from time to time with the Secretary of State. The effect of this Amendment is that, once a corporate plan had been drawn up, the Corporation could disregard it; or could, in between actual plans, proceed on a strategy not approved by the Secretary of State and even possibly, unacceptable to him.
The Government are strongly against allowing the Corporation such an option. If corporate planning is to be effective and to provide the kind of benefits which we hope will grow from it, there must be some means of ensuring that the plan is followed, or that, if strategy changed in some important respect between annual plans the Corporation continues to satisfy the Secretary of State as to the general lines of that strategy. This Amendment in practical terms makes this impossible and for those reasons I hope that noble Lords will not insist on their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
39 Page 11, line 18, at end insert "and which the Corporation is legally entitled to disclose"
40 Page 11, line 34, at end insert "and he shall refrain from giving any direction if the publication would be against the national interest or the commercial interests of the Corporation."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
42 Because they are unnecessary.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 42.
Clause 8, with which we are now dealing, is precedented; it follows very closely Section 4(3) of the Railways Act 1974 and to some extent Section 6 of the Iron and Steel Act 1975. We oppose these Amendments both because they are undesirable and because they are unnecessary. It would be wrong, surely, to suggest, and certainly wrong to incorporate the suggestion in legislation, that any Secretary of State would, knowingly, use Clause 8 to require a Corporation to

1195
break the law, and a prohibition is there fore unnecessary. Furthermore, we feel that the national interest and the interests of the Corporation are already quite adequately safeguarded. As your Lordships will see from Clause 8, the provisions in the clause for publication are not automatic, but they operate at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It must be presumed, surely, that he will act in the national interest as he conceives it.
As Clause 8(3) is now drafted, before publication the Secretary of State must consult the Corporation. If the Corporation were to indicate to the Secretary of State that publication was thought to be against its commercial interests, it can surely be assumed that the Secretary of State would insist on publication only in the rather unlikely event that some reason of national interest overrode the Corporation's commercial interests. For those reasons I hope that noble Lords will not insist upon their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 42.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we are not going to insist on these Amendments from this side and I wish to say only three things to the noble and learned Lord. First, I do not think that the railways or the iron and steel industry are particularly happy precedents, and I sincerely hope that we are not going to find the shipbuilding and aircraft industries going the same way as the railways. Secondly, we are grateful for the assurance from an eminent lawyer that the indemnification that we were seeking in Amendment No. 39 is indeed unnecessary. Whether the noble and learned Lord has satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that he has in fact defined what he means by the word "unnecessary" I rather doubt. However, he has gone some way towards reassuring us, I am certain. Finally, he makes certain assumptions about the Secretary of State, and I am very glad that he has this kind of confidence in the Secretaries of State that we have had from time to time. I only wish that I could share his unbounded trust and optimism in the good sense and
1196
wisdom of all the Secretaries of State we sometimes have.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
41 Clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
"(10A) Before a draft of an order under subsection (6) or subsection (7) above is laid before the Commons House of Parliament in accordance with the preceding subsection, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a statement in which shall be given so far as is practicable and in his opinion not contrary to the commercial interest of the Corporation concerned, the following information regarding that Corporation, namely,—

(a) its plans for capital investment;

(b) the trends expected in the amount and value of its production and sales;

(c) the amount, sources and application of the funds available or likely to be available to it;

(d) the sources of finance from which it proposes to borrow;

(e) its present arrangements and future plans for repayment of the amounts mentioned in subsection (6)(a) or subsection (7)(a) above; and

(f) such further information as to trends in the Corporation's financial results and capital employed as may be avail able and has not been published in the Corporation's Annual Report or in any other statement of its results.".

The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
42 Because it is unnecessary.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 41, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 42. Amendment No. 41 seeks to put into the Bill a statutory requirement that the Secretary of State should provide, in effect, a prospectus to Parliament when he lays an order to increase a Corporation's financing limits under the clause. The Government are, of course, entirely sympathetic to the principle that Parliament should have full and useful information against which to judge an application by the Secretary of State for an increase in financing powers. But the Government consider that the Secretary of State, being answerable to Parliament, would provide this anyway in the normal course of events. We do not however, consider that the appropriate way of securing this aim is by Statute. For one thing, it is very difficult to lay down in Statute the matters which need

1197
covering. Certainly this Amendment does it inadequately and only in broad outline.
I should like to give just a single example, in the case of British Aerospace. One of the key items on which an order would need to be judged would be the Corporation's plans for development, or participation in development, of new civil aircraft. This is not classed as capital investment, in the terms of item (a) of the Amendment. The bare figures of "application of funds" (mentioned in item (c) of the Amendment) without some narrative explanation would be of little value to the House. In short, what is needed is not the answers to a kind of pro-forma, but a reasoned statement, according to the circumstances of the industry and its situation at a particular time, and supported by estimates of the relevant production and financial figures.
My Lords, there is also the question of commercial confidentiality—and this is important. The Amendment certainly makes an exception for this, but we believe that a statutory requirement not fulfilled for this reason could in some circumstances in itself draw the attention of competitors to factors of which it might be advantageous for them to know. Noble Lords opposite may not agree with this, but it is they who have been so resistant to the provisions of the Industry Act, for example, on disclosure of information for this very reason; and they have moved a number of Amendments to this Bill on the same point, one of which we accepted in the other place.
As I have said, the Government are sympathetic to this suggestion, but they think that it would be wrong to lay down the procedure in industrial Statutes on an industry basis. It would be better to try to co-ordinate the Government's practice in relation to all the nationalised industries which from time to time may need increases in their borrowing limits. The Government are already exploring ways in which this might best be done. In the meantime, at least one of the major public corporations, the British Steel Corporation, has undertaken to provide the fullest information against which to judge the case for increased borrowing wherever future orders for borrowing Bills are due to come before Parliament; and I give an assurance that my right honourable friend will write to the two chairmen asking them
1198
to follow the same practice. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 42.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, since I pressed this very hard, back in the summer, in relation to another Act, and expressed the very gravest disappointment at the response of the Government in relation to this Bill at the last stage of our proceedings, may I say that I appreciate the assurance which the noble Lord has just given, I take it in the spirit in which it is given, and will look forward to beneficial results for Parliamentary control in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
6.23 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 25, page 31, line 30, at end insert
"and for the purposes of this paragraph there shall be taken into account the largest amounts, if any, approved in the case of those securities under section 24(1)(c)(ii) above, and, in the case of each of those amounts and the amounts approved under section 23(l) above, where the number of days comprised in the final financial period exceeds or is less than the number of days comprised in the period of control in respect of which that amount was approved, that amount shall be treated as increased or, as the case may be, reduced by multiplying that amount by the fraction, of which the numerator is the number of days comprised in the final financial period and the denominator is the number of days comprised in that period of control.".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof.
44 In page 31, line 26, leave out from second 'of' to 'the' in line 29 and insert such amounts as to ensure that the aggregate payments of dividend for that period on those securities are equal to the maximum amounts permitted under section 24 above or, if larger amounts have been approved under section 23(1) above, to'.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 43, to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree to Amendment No. 44 proposed by the Commons and to the words so inserted into the Bill. I would remind noble Lords that this is the Amendment in the moving of which the noble Lord, Lord

1199
Redesdale, won the admiration of us all and bewildered quite a few of us with his obvious grasp of an arcane and abstruse provision. When we accepted, in that state of mind, Amendment No. 43 moved on Report by the noble Lord we made it clear that we might wish to look again at the drafting proposed. I think we were all in agreement that the original Amendment was very complex and might benefit from some simplification.
We have now looked carefully at the substance of what was proposed and what was said in support of it by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—we read it very carefully; we had to—and in the light of this it would appear, I hope, that all his objectives can be achieved by the simple Amendment which has been proposed by the Commons. This Amendment simply refers to Clause 24 as a whole, and therefore embraces both the case where no previous final dividend has been paid and the question of pro-rating for time.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree to the Commons Amendment No. 44 in lieu thereof.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I wish I had not undertaken to answer this one in view of the bouquets which were passing in the direction of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, but I am sure that on his behalf I can respond to the noble and learned Lord. I would make the point that it is always so much easier to criticise some body else's draftsmanship, and on this occasion I suppose we are in the position of being the biter bit. I would simply say that I am advised that we still prefer our drafting to the Government's drafting. Having said that, I believe that the drafting that the Government have produced probably covers the point, but I should like to be able to entice the noble Lord into saying exactly what their intention is, to make it abundantly plain that the intention lying behind their wording is what we want.
I wonder whether I could ask the noble and learned Lord to give an assurance that where the dividend for the final financial period is to be related to the large amount approved under Clause 23(1)
1200
of the Bill, and that amount was approved in respect of a previous period of control of a particular length, the amount of dividend in respect to the final financial period will be based on the amount previously approved but adjusted appropriately where the final financial period is shorter or longer than the period of control in respect of which the amount in question was approved. I am sure it will not come as a surprise to the noble and learned Lord to know that I did not write those last remarks myself.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, they were beautifully read; and, if I may respond in kind, the simple answer is, "Yes". If a larger amount has been approved for an earlier period of control, the dividend required for the final financial period will be the largest amount approved for any earlier period of control pro-rated for the length of the period to which the dividend relates.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Clause 30, page 41, line 37, leave out from first "of" to end of line 42 and insert "any sum the right to repayment of which could be treated as a security under section 21(6) above".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
46 Page 41, line 37, leave out from 'repaid' to 'or' in line 42 and insert 'any sum the right to payment of which, if the sum had been repaid, would, following the service of a notice under section 21 above, have been treated as a security or part of a security under subsection (6) of that section.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 45, to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree to Amendment No. 46 proposed by the Commons and to the words so inserted into the Bill. With the leave of noble Lords, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 at the same time and move them in due course. First, I am indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who, before I rose to my feet, pointed out a number of errors in Amendment No. 46 as printed. That gave us time to inquire into the cause, as a result of which I can tell noble Lords—and I look at No. 46—that it should read as follows:
"Page 41, line 37, leave out from 'repaid' to

1201
'or' in line 42 and insert' any sum the right to repayment of which, if the sum had not been repaid, would, following the service of a notice under section 21 above, have been treated as a security or part of a security under subsection (6) of that section'".
I can direct the noble Earl's attention to the Official Report of the Commons proceedings in column 752, where he will find that in fact, before the Commons, the Amendment was in the correct form and that a printing error has crept in between that stage and this.
My Lords, it was suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, during our Report stage that the drafting of Amendment No. 45—and this applies to No. 56 as well—was defective. We agreed to consider that matter, and on consideration we agree with his view. The two Amendments proposed in lieu have the effect of keeping more closely to the drafting included in the Bill as it first left the Commons. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment but cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46 in lieu thereof.—(Lord McCluskey.)
6.30 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am delighted to know that the noble and learned Lord agreed with me; that is very flattering. I wish that he had agreed with some other more important Amendments that we put forward, but I am grateful. We had a discussion on Clause 22, as it was originally, in Committee. The Government thought that they would redraft it and, having redrafted it, I pointed out at Report stage, that it might have been, for want of a better expression, "bog drafted". The noble and learned Lord said that he did not think that it was so; but that he would look at it. He looked at it again and met our points and, as he pointed out, it was "bog drafted" again or "bog printed" in so far as it left out the word "not", which is fairly relevant, and it referred to "payment" as opposed to "repayment".
I would also draw his attention to Amendment No. 46 and to an even more "pithy bog" where the word "repair" has been used instead of the word "repaid". It is understandable in the
1202
heady excitement of the Bill that the word "repair" has direct connotations and that must have permeated through to the draftsman or printer. But I hope the noble Lord will note that, too.
The other point is where there is a difference in the words as submitted in the Commons Amendment from the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord moved on Report stage. At Report stage, the Amendment used the words:
"repayment of which could be treated as security".
The words here are different. They are: "could be treated as a security or part of a security". I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain how such a loan could be treated as part of a security. I can understand how a loan or part of a loan could be treated as a security, but I do not understand how anything can be treated as part of a security.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, again I am indebted to the noble Earl for giving me notice of this matter. First, my own impression is that the draftsman has been slightly zealous. That is not uncommon in lawyers. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that this reminds me of the well-known lawyers' story of the young woman who gave birth to twins and having brought a paternity suit against the putative father was met with the reply: "My client denies that he is the father of the said twins or either of them." That is in the same category as this.
The explanation which I can offer to the noble Earl is this. We are here talking about inter-company loans. If there was one loan of a certain sum made at a certain time and no part of that loan was repaid, the whole sum would be treated as one security. Equally, if one loan was made on one date and all of it was repaid, that would be treated as one security. But if there was one loan made on one particular occasion and part of it only had been repaid and part not repaid, then the two parts might be dealt with slightly differently. There might be arbitration about the part repaid and not about the other part; or it might be the other way round. Accordingly, at the end of the day both would be treated as one security. That is why the words "or part of a security" have been put in. It is to cover the situation where perhaps part of the loan has been repaid.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, before we part with this Amendment, may I say, since the Government instead of rejecting Lords Amendments out of hand have proposed a counter Amendment, that perhaps this is the moment to draw attention to the dichotomy in the attitude of the Government towards these Bills in general. On the one hand, we see in the Government counter Amendment (in fact, on a technical point) that they are glad to have had the opportunity to think again. That is quite apart from more than a score of their own Amendments that they put forward on Report. But before this Bill passes and before this Session ends, I believe that it is in the interests of this House that one should protest again at certain things that have been said else where in direct contradiction—twice by the Prime Minister and once by each of two Members of his Cabinet, Mr. Varley and Mr. Benn. Despite their opportunity to think again they have been saying, in effect, that if the House of Lords persists in amending these Bills, we—that is, the Government—will go to the country for a mandate to abolish their institution as at present functioning. That is, in effect, what they have been saying. They have been saying that they do not want discussion but now that on this Amendment they have admitted discussion was useful to them, we have an opportunity to refer firmly, quietly and I hope effectively to these quite unworthy suggestions of pressure from another place.
Parliament exists, among other things, through mutual respect, respect between the two Houses. Just as we have a convention that we do not make undue fun, or only in the nicest possible way, of the other place, so it is quite proper that we should reply when they make threats against us. The implication is quite clear from things that have been said openly and privately in another place that they think that they could run a "Lords versus People" campaign.
"Lords versus People!"What a cry, when it is we who insist on debate!"Lords versus People!"What a cry, when the whole country knows perfectly well who is running away from debate!"Lords versus People!"What a cry when we, and if it came to the crunch, the media, too, would make it clear to the public who have been responsible for
1204
blocking discussion through the use of the guillotine in another place. "Lords versus People! "What a cry when those aiming to muzzle us must face the charge thereby of opposing Parliamentary Government itself. Muzzling Parliament! Do they not realise that they stand condemned out of their own mouths and by their own gestures and stances.
In muzzling Parliament do they seek more power yet? The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse. Do they equate Government in times of economic crisis with a new and greater mountain of legislation that has no relevance to the problems of today? If they are looking to us to be sausage machines turning out second-rate, ill-considered legislation and if that is their view of the purpose of Parliament, then all that one can say is in the words of the famous Lord Lovat on the way to the scaffold: "The greater the mischief, the better the sport". The question is, said Humpty-Dumpty, "Who is the master? That is all!" Is it a question of Parliament mastering the Executive or the Executive mastering Parliament? This is an old story and an old issue, but it must be faced and I make no apology for taking up two or three minutes of your Lordships' time now at this late stage of this Bill, at this late stage of this Session, to draw attention to it once again. The spectacle that we have witnessed does no credit to either House of Parliament. Policies have been debased without being debated; so that all that is not compulsory shall be forbidden. It all reminds one of the famous adage:
"Nature, our father and mother, gave us all we got;
the State, our elder brother, swipes the lot!"
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not sure that this is the right occasion to be discussing the issues which the noble Lord has raised. I content myself merely by saying that the House in considering this and other Bills recently has not been a revising Chamber; it has been a wrecking Chamber. In that character it is digging its own disappearance from our institutions. The British people will not be content with a House of Lords of 1,100 members, 800 of which are there only because they are sons of their fathers. I think it is correct that there should have been a warning from Members of the

1205
Government that if the House of Lords continues in this way its abolition in its present form will become inevitable.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, did he hear the broadcast of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who is the Chief Whip on the Government side, in which she said there had been no filibustering in the discussions on these Bills? She made that public statement which surely has far more weight from the Government Front Bench than it would have from the Back-Benches of the same side.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, before I sit down, it is very rare that I disagree with the noble Baroness, if indeed she said that. We on the Back-Benches can have independent opinions, and I certainly have them.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I rise most apologetically and suggest the we get on with the Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
47 Clause 30, page 42, line 12, after "if" insert—
"(a) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it other than at a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in possession on the initial date, or
(b)"
6.42 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 47 but doth propose the following Amendment, No. 47A in lieu thereof:
47A page 42, line 12, after ("if") insert—
("(a) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date, or
(b)")
It would save time if we could also discuss Amendment No. 48 and its alternative, No. 48A, Amendment No. 54A and its alternative, No. 54B, and Amendment No. 71 and the alternative, No. 72A. The group has the same purpose. We have discussed ship repairing in general on Amendment No. 19 but this group of Amendments relates to one company, Vosper Thornycroft, and is consequential to our intention that ship repairing should be removed from the Bill.
Just now we found a misprint. The Government's alternative Amendments contain the word "repair" instead of "repaid". While we were busy trying to take the word "repair" out of the Bill, it looked as if they were trying to bring it in again. I immediately acquit the Government of any attempt of backdoor nationalisation! These Amendments would allow Vosper Thornycroft's ship repairing business to be removed from the scope of the Bill. It is a separate business; I have described it at an earlier stage of the Bill. It is one of the largest ship repairing businesses in the country. It happens by an accident of organisation to be a separate department within one company instead of being a separate company or a subsidiary.
It would be wrong to leave that ship repairing business in the Bill while the ship repairing industry was being taken out of the Bill. The effect of the Amendments is to enable Vosper Thornycroft to exclude its ship repairing department. The new Amendments (which appear in the bolder type) have been provided as various improvements to the ones that have been sent back from another place, taking into account the comments which have been made by the Government. They should therefore be easier for the Government to accept. I commend to your Lordships' House the new alternatives. If your Lordships agree to these, it is still open for the Government to suggest any further improvement in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 47 but doth propose Amendment No. 47A in lieu thereof.— (Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I confess that I became lost when the noble Lord read out the list of Amendments to which

1207
he intended to speak with this Amendment. I believe I am right in thinking he is solely dealing with the Vosper Thornycroft point and not going any wider than that. As the noble Lord knows, the group of Amendments to which he has spoken, as they were originally proposed by your Lordships, would have allowed any shipbuilding company named in Schedule 2 to hive off its ship repairing operations without consent from the Secretary of State. I understand that this was meant to apply only to Vosper Thornycroft which has a separate ship repairing division. As the noble Lord now understands, there are several other shipbuilding companies carrying out ship repair operations within the same company. The Government believe that it would be wrong to have such a provision which would allow the breaking up of existing company structures in which ship repairing is closely integrated with shipbuilding. Of course those arguments apply just as strongly to the particular case of Vosper Thornycroft as they do to the general case, and it was on the general case that we argued the point when the matter was last before your Lordships. I do not think there is anything further that I can constructively add to the debate
which we previously had on the subject of ship repairing.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has again expressed the Government's anxiety that other shipbuilding companies in Schedule 2 will avail themselves of these provisions and hive off their ship repairing sections. My information is that that is not so. Of the shipbuilding companies named in the Schedule, I under stand that Swan Hunter Shipbuilding Limited is the only company with a sizeable ship repairing activity. I also understand that it is not their intention to avail themselves of a provision of this kind if it is included in the Bill. My understanding is that Vosper Thornycroft are the only company which will make use of these provisions if they eventually find their way, as I hope they will, into the Bill.
6.48 p.m.
On Question, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 47 but doth propose Amendment No. 47A in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 65.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gisborough, L.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Glendevon, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigton, L.

Goodman, L.

Amulree, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Goschen, V.

Arran, E.

Cromartie, E.

Gough, V.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gray, L.

Balerno, L.

Dacre, B.

Greenway, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Daventry, V.

Grey, E.

Barrington, V.

de Clifford, L.

Gridley, L.

Bathurst, E.

De Freyne, L.

Hacking, L.

Belstead, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L

Berkeley, B.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Halsbury, E

Blakenham, V.

Deramore, L.

Hampden, V.

Bourne, L.

Derwent, L.

Hanworth, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Digby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dormer, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hawke, L.

Burton, L.

Dudley, E.

Henley, L.

Byers, L.

Dundee, E.

Hereford, V.

Caccia, L.

Eccles, V.

Hives, L.

Camoys, L.

Elibank, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Howe, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elles, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carrington, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Inglewood, L.

Cathcart, E.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Inverforth, L.

Chelwood, L.

Exeter, M.

Kemsley, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Cobham, V.

Ferrers, E.

Kimberley, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gage, V.

Kings Norton, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cornwallis, L.

Garner, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Northesk, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Sharples, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Sherfield, L.

Long, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Slim, V.

Loudoun, C.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Stamp, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Margadale, L.

Rayne, L.

Suffield, L

Marley, L.

Reading, M.

Templemore, L.

Merrivale, L.

Reay, L.

Terrington, L.

Molson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Teviot, L.

Monck, V.

Robbins, L.

Teynham, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Monson, L.

Rochester, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Morris, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Vernon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Sackville, L.

Vickers, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Vivian, L.

Moyne, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wade, L.

Munster, E.

St. Helens, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

St. Just, L.

Wardington, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Sandford, L.

Westbury, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Sandys, L.

Wigoder, L.

Newall, L.

Seear, B.

Wolverton, L.

Norfolk, D.

Selsdon, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Aylestone, L.

Jacques, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Bernstein, L.

Janner, L.

Northfield, L.

Birk, B.

Kagan, L.

Parry, L.

Blyton, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Kennet, L.

Peddie, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Champion, L.

Kissin, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Popplewell, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Sainsbury, L.

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

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Fulton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Maelor, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Henderson, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT
48 Clause 31, page 44, line 28, at end insert:
"(dd) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it other than at a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in possession on the initial date; or".
6.59 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this matter was discussed in the
1210
last debate. Therefore, I beg formally to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 48 but doth propose Amendment No. 48A in lieu thereof:
48 A Page 44, line 28, at end insert:
("(dd) it is a transaction the effect of which is to transfer or grant to any person any property or rights belonging to the company effecting the transfer, being property or rights used by the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting or maintaining ships carried on by it at a place which is not a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in the possession on the initial date; or").
Moved That the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 48 but doth

1211
propose Amendment No. 48A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 31, page 42, line 39, leave out from "reduced" to end of line 41 and insert "in accordance with section 38(7A) below".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
55 Because they might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may he deemed sufficient.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55. In doing so, I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53, or at least address my remarks to those Amendments, all of which were disagreed to for the Reason numbered 55. All of these Amendments are concerned with the amount of compensation payable under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 50, 52 and 54 deal with adjustments to the basic compensation terms laid down in the Bill while Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 represent a fundamental rewriting of the compensation provisions.
The Commons have given as their Reason for disagreeing with all these Amendments that they might involve charges on public funds. We have already on previous occasions discussed at considerable length all the Amendments in this group. Amendments Nos. 50 and 54 are concerned with the price at which assets of the vesting companies may be hived off before vesting day. They propose that the price of assets hived off should, in effect, represent the contribution of these assets to the value of the company's securities at the reference period. Under the Bill as drafted the question of price has been left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. In all cases where he has exercised this discretion already the Secretary of State has specified that the price shall be the open market price at the time of disposal. This has been accepted by the companies in virtually every case. There is complete justice in this approach. We have given assurance to the companies, and in certain cases the Bill actually specifies this, that
1212
any investment into the vesting companies after the reference period will be repaid in full. It is therefore entirely fair that any disposals of assets after the reference period should be treated on the same basis. To do otherwise would be to destroy the symmetry of the provisions of the Bill, to the benefit of shareholders and to the detriment of the Corporations and the taxpayers.
Amendment No. 52 is concerned with severance payments. As has been explained in your Lordships'House on three previous occasions, we do not believe that such a provision is necessary. The Bill already contains provisions in Clause 20 which have the effect of substantially reducing, if not eliminating, the effects of disruption which might be caused by the vesting of one subsidiary of a group. Clause 20 is new in this Bill. There is no precedent for it in previous nationalisation measures and its effect is to eliminate the need for a separate severance provision.
Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 both seek to effect a fundamental change in the compensation provisions. They are completely unacceptable to the Government. They seek to destroy the carefully worked out objective basis of valuation laid down in the Bill and replace it with terms which are at best ill-defined and at worst entirely open ended. Amendment No. 51 provides for the existing terms of the Bill to be ignored and the valuation to be carried out on any basis which the arbitration tribunal thinks fit. Amendment No. 53 is at the least unnecessary and if, as we believe, it seeks to overthrow the basis of compensation in the Bill, it is both unacceptable and inconsistent with the existing words. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will not insist on this series of Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 50), to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55.

LORDS AMENDMENT
51 Clause 31, page 48, line 24, at end insert
"of, if on application by the stockholders' representative or the Secretary of State, the arbitration tribunal consider that, having regard to all the circumstances, that amount does not represent fair compensation, such

1213
amount as the tribunal shall determine to be fair compensation in respect of those securities."
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 51 but propose an Amendment in lieu as on the Marshalled List:
51A Page 48, line 23, after ("securities") insert—
("having taken into account, on application by the stockholders' representatives or the Secretary of State, all factors considered relevant by the arbitration tribunal in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of these securities shall be fair").
It is very difficult for those of us who only occasionally have a toe in politics to understand exactly how the Parliamentary system now works. Those of us on these Benches, the Cross-Benches, the Liberal Benches and throughout your Lordships' House, when we see something which we believe is unjust and unfair, feel that we should speak out against it. We feel, too, that the Government of the day—of whatever political complexion it may be—should give us a reasonable answer. On Amendment No. 51 which I tabled originally there was considerable debate and discussion on the principles underlying the method of determining compensation, and to receive a formal communication which says that the Commons disagree to these Amendments because they might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting this Reason may be deemed sufficient, is almost insulting. But I suddenly realised that for one reason or another the Commons were really prevented from discussing the whole question of compensation, as they have been prevented from discussing it almost throughout the passage of the Bill. Therefore I thought it was appropriate not to assume that the Commons were by nature unintelligent but to try to pursue a reply or some information from the Government through other channels.
It was as a result of this pursuance of things through other channels that I received yesterday a letter from Mr. Kaufman. In view of the evidence before me I do not support the view that Mr. Kaufman is totally unapproachable, unwilling to co-operate and unwilling to reply, because I received a communication
1214
from him very shortly after I had raised, through various channels, the need for a communication. Whether that communication is acceptable or not is another matter, but surely in seeking information from the Government it would have been preferable for this information or attitude to have been given to us, perhaps in the middle of the night, by the Government rather than that odd letters should be sent to Back-Benchers in an endeavour to explain the principles which underlay compensation. That is perhaps a criticism of procedure rather than of intention.
Noble Lords throughout the House have demonstrated to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of others that the principles which the Government proposed to adopt for determining compensation were not fair. They were decidedly unfair. We object to the Government saying that a Stock Exchange valuation was a fair price, and we object in particular to the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Sir Harold Wilson, saying that the compensation will be fair but that this will be a matter for Parliament, when in fact it did not become a matter for Parliament. Therefore with this Amendment today I seek further information from the Government which I hope they will be able to give.
I begin by referring to the letter which I received yesterday from Mr. Gerald Kaufman. One is extremely grateful for this because it is the first sign that I have seen of the Government seeking to co-operate with a Back-Bencher who is not a professional politician, who has to work, as many of us do here, and who is trying to do something which he believes is in the interests of the nation. According to Mr. Kaufman, the Government's first concern has been to choose a basis for compensation which is objective. With that we agree. He says that at the same time it was necessary to choose compensation principles of general application which could none the less take account in the fairest possible way of the different underlying circumstances of 43 different companies in four different industries to be acquired.
These are points which we have raised in your Lordships' House and noble Lords opposite were rather unwilling to accept that argument. The Government then, Mr. Kaufman goes on to say, "after

1215
careful consideration decided that a share or imputed share basis of valuation most nearly met"—these general criteria. He did not say it does meet; he said it "most nearly" meets. I do not agree that a share or imputed share basis of valuation is necessarily the right method of valuation. But what I would argue now is that we have, first, the Government's declared objectivity; and, secondly, we know there is a need for expediency, and the need for expediency is because of the considerable delay which has taken place since this Bill was first drafted and because of the financial situation of many companies in the shipbuilding industry.
If something is not done—if this Bill is not passed or other action is taken—there could be considerable unemployment and very serious financial consequences. It does not matter what happens, but some action must be taken. While I do not approve of the action that the Government are seeking to take, it was in the Manifesto and therefore we must try to support it within certain reasonable modifications. One thing that I, as a private sector man and as a banker, cannot support is a method proposed for compensation which, by every rule book in the Western free democratic world, is unfair and wrong. It is the precedent I have argued against, not the application here, because to establish such a precedent which is known to be unfair, and which on consultation throughout the world is seen to be unfair, is damaging not only to this nation now, but to the future of industrial investment in the United Kingdom.
My Lords, I will not go into all the arguments that come with it, but I will try to take heart from a few of the statements made by Mr. Kaufman. I know the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will try as hard as he can to give us some comfort. At the end of his letter, which I have made available, Mr. Kaufman says:
"I hope that the compensation terms of the Bill represent a conscious attempt to achieve objectivity by recourse to the methods and mechanisms of the Stock Exchange and achieve equality of treatment for all the interests affected through the flexibility with which the terms are drawn. The Government believe that the end product will be fairest."
What I am concerned about is that the end product will be fairest. I am not now so much concerned with the various methods that may be employed.
The object of my Amendment concerns the consideration of compensation, and there we come to the phrase "relevant factors". Ideally we would ask the Government to say, "We will take into account all relevant factors in consultation with all appropriate authorities and bodies, and sort out compensation". I believe that is how they started in this. They intended to be fair. I believe their advisers and the whole Civil Service are pathologically incapable of being unfair or unjust. It is not necessarily their intention to be unfair and unjust, but I believe that the Government, perhaps through a failure to grasp or understand the complications of compensation, set out to do something which was unfair and unjust.
Now we come to the point on "relevant factors". If there is no other basis on which to start, I will accept that some form of valuation related to the methods and mechanisms used by the Stock Exchange is a good one. It is not ideal, but it is difficult to find another alternative. The reason why it is so difficult to find alternatives is because of the differing factors of 43 companies in four different industries. There is one case where it can be deemed to be fair; that is, with the one company out of 43 which is quoted on the Stock Exchange. It is only fair for that company because it does not have a single shareholder who has control, but is comprised of many minority interests, all of whom own shares and regard the value of those shares as the price at which they could sell them on a particular day. Whether or not they wish to sell them does not come into it, because the company will be taken over, and they will be forced to sell.
But for the other companies, one starts with the question: If they had been quoted, what would the price have been? What I would repeat as succinctly as I can is that if one starts on that basis, one must take into account various relevant factors. The determination of what those relevant factors may be is a different matter. Mr. Kaufman said:
"To attempt to list the factors in the Bill would risk injustice. A list might result in a particular shareholder not being able to refer to a particular factor which he considered relevant. If no attempt is made at a list, it is clear that any factor which anyone thinks is relevant to valuation can be put to the arbitrator."

1217
This is relevant to valuation, though not necessarily relevant to an imputed or notional share valuation. The letter says "relevant to valuation".
My Lords, my argument is that it seems to me, as the Bill is currently drafted—and I am not a lawyer—that all factors which may be relevant t0o valuation need not to be taken into account. Here we rely to some extent on the Government advisers and on Whinney Murray who will be advising the Government here. If one is a professional firm, such as Whinney Murray, of the highest reputation, it is their duty to act in the interests of their client, to implement and utilise law and all codes of practice. In short, it is their duty to negotiate prices downwards, and to utilise all the measures in their power to do so, otherwise they are not performing their job professionally. But as the Bill is drafted, where the Government have said "relevant factors", it does not refer to all factors that could be classed as relevant.
Therefore, my Amendment in lieu is designed to enable the Arbitration Committee to decide whether or not a factor is relevant. In view of the apparent attempt of the Government to drop the insistence that a share price is fair, I have dropped the word "fair" from the original Amendment and propose that it be left to the Arbitration Committee to decide not what price is relevant, but what matters are relevant.
If I can give a simple example without listing all the relevant factors, one can have a company which owns certain assets. These are immediately disposable—land required for housing, or land in a strategic position. These assets can be sold tomorrow by a liquidator, for a large amount of money. There are companies in that situation. Equally, there are other companies who have land and buildings which are in such a position that while the immediate value of that land and buildings is nothing to anyone else, it has some form of agricultural or strategic value. The way in which you treat assets may make a considerable difference. There is also the matter of the performance the companies have undertaken in a particular period of time. Mr. Kaufman says:
"In particular, both parties"—
1218
referring to one side or the other—
"will consider factors which had a bearing on the prospects as well as the underlying condition of the companies concerned as seen during the reference period, which may have a bearing on the value of their shares".
This narrows it down to shares again, but we are concerned with several valuations of businesses.
The objective of my Amendment, in case your Lordships think otherwise, is not so much to increase the price that may be paid by the Government for compensation, but to ensure that those companies which have performed well and have utilised funds well, and will utilise new funds well, will be given a chance to obtain a realistic price, and that those companies which have failed, whether by fault of their own because the world is a hard and cruel place, will not be given unjustly compensation which will then be squandered and wasted. The overall amounts cannot vary, but it is important that the basic principles employed outside by private sectors throughout the world and by other Governments are fair, and are seen to be fair.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will go as far as he can on this, but since we are now faced with possibly the last points to be raised on compensation, it may be appropriate for me to point out that I have tried to be as independent as I possibly can be in this case. I have not at any moment participated in other sectors of the debate which could be construed as Party political, although I have voted with my Party. This may be true of others who may be stockbrokers or bankers who have spoken on this subject. It must be one of the roles of this House that those of us who are here by accident or design, if we have anything to contribute, should contribute it as independently as we can. I am conscious, too, of the fear of those on the Front Benches and on all sides of the House when compensation or matters concerning money are raised, which they may not fully understand, that they may be forced into a position of seeking to obtain more money for the capitalist system or raising emotional factors which should be outside the jurisdiction of this House. On that basis, I will sit down and await with eager anticipation the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and, I hope, some contributions from my noble friends. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I rise briefly to say that at an earlier stage I indicated my views about the compensation provisions. They have been absolutely impeccably presented by the last speaker in terms of the greatest fairness and with the least possible provocation. I should like to endorse what he said about the seeming apprehension on the part of the Opposition and on the Liberal Benches to intervene in this debate because of the suggestion that might be raised that, in some ways, they were supporting monetary interests against the less privileged section of the community.
I think this is a completely misguided and misplaced apprehension. I think their concern should be to ensure justice. Nothing that was urged by the noble Lord gave rise to any suggestion that anyone was going to get a penny the more. It might well be that people would get less as a result of sensible compensation provisions. I would urge on the Opposition and on the Liberal Benches to consider whether they have not a duty to ensure that there are inserted into this Bill sensible provisions. In my view, without any disrespect to the authors of the Bill, these are not sensible provisions. I cannot see why anyone should be deterred from moving to the point of Division a matter where it is a question of whether sense or nonsense prevails. We have a duty, and we were reminded earlier that we are a revising Chamber. Nothing is more suitable by way of revision than to convert nonsense into sense. I would think it is an absolutely impeccable and classical illustration of the revision of a provision.
I do not intend to keep the House long; there are many matters to discuss. But I would say just this. On the question of the quoted companies, it is not, I think, unfair to say that a quoted price should be taken. The quoted price to a large extent is a roulette consideration, but the fact remains that the owner of the shares could have sold at that price. On that footing, although objection could be taken, it is not an objection I propose to take at this moment. On the question of the unquoted companies, the idea that there should be a notional listing seems to me to be absolutely Alice in Wonderland. I do
1220
not know how you can possibly achieve a notional listing. I am not going to repeat what I said last time, but if you take into account the factors necessary to procure a Stock Exchange listing it is quite clear that no arbitration tribunal could, except by the exercise not only of rule of thumb but of absolute guesswork, arrive at any conclusion based on that notion.
I cannot see why this Amendment—which is a highly sensible Amendment; it merely says that the arbitration tribunal should take into account all relevant factors—should give rise to the slightest difficulty. You cannot take into account how many shares would be placed on the market. You cannot take into account how many shares would be overhanging the market as a possible means of depressing or enhancing the price. You cannot take into account what the public would think of the status of particular directors. You cannot take into account what form of service agreements would have been entered into with the directors of the company, which would have a bearing on the actual listing. There are about 11 million matters you cannot take into account in trying to arrive at a notional listing.
I venture to think that only the most honourable tyro in these matters would have evolved this piece of drafting. Nobody wants to take objection to drafting efforts by honourable tyros. Nor does one want to enact them. I do still plead with the Government to consider that this Amendment would restore a good deal of sanity to this provision, which is notably missing in relation to the unlisted companies. I would also urge that, even if it is felt as a matter of principle that no one should divide on so vulgar a question as money, nevertheless those of us who have a feeling that this is not much of a principle where justice is concerned should take the law into our own hands in this matter.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I should like to add a very few words in support of my noble friend's Amendment on one particular point which I think is important. During the course of the debates on this matter, several noble Lords have pointed out that actual, quite apart from notional or imputed, share prices represent prices at

1221
which willing buyers and sellers are prepared to carry out transactions. But in the back of their minds there is always the feeling that there might possibly be a take-over bid coming, and they know that if that does happen for the bid to be successful the price would need to be substantially higher.
Oddly enough, only today one of the most distinguished professional investors, in an interview with a City editor, made the point that there are now two markets in equities. The first is the ordinary market for those who buy and sell shares, and the second is for the whole companies, which prices are one and a half to twice the market price of the other shares. The point I am seeking to make is that if the base value of a security is determined with reference to the market price, or what the market price would have been if a share had been quoted, agreement between the Secretary of State and the stockholders' representative will be highly unlikely. Furthermore, I would hope that the arbitration tribunal would consider that the difference between the values of the two types of equities is an extremely relevant factor in assessing the proper value of the shares to be nationalised, since it is quite evident that there is a substantial premium over the market price to which the shareholders are entitled. This is the very point that was underlined in today's paper, to which I referred. It is a professional view by a person with a lifetime of experience, and it is not—I repeat not—a Party point.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I rise to support as strongly as I am able the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon; if the Government do not accept it, like my noble friend Lord Goodman, I hope, that he will press it to a Division. The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, has been exceptionally polite throughout in his assessment of the Government's assumed motives when we have been discussing these compensation terms, and it has not got him terribly far. Therefore, I am afraid I must be somewhat more blunt. Some days ago a noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench revealed that the compensation terms for one particular naval shipbuilder would be the equivalent of one year's profits. Let us not mince words; these are the politics of the Mafia. I doubt whether,
1222
supposing there were any private industry left to nationalise in Yugoslavia, Poland or Hungary, the compensation terms would be as low as these. I think one would have to go to post-Dubcek Czechoslovakia or to Albania to find such derisory terms—a price equal to one year's profits. Things have come to a sorry pass when Her Majesty's Government indicate that they are behaving really no better than Maoist Albania. Why have intelligent and moderate members of the Labour Party accepted this? Could it have something to do with what was revealed this morning by that Right-Wing Labour group, the Social Democratic Alliance; namely, that 33 Labour Members have philosophies more in tune with Eastern Europe than with the West? It would seem that Labour moderates are so terrified of these people and of the Marxists in Transport House, and, above all, in the constituencies, that they are driven to act against their better judgment.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I will be very brief. There is clearly a head-on collision between the starting assumptions from which the Government proceed in setting out what they regard as fair provisions for compensation and the starting point of those of us who disagree with them. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said with serene confidence, dogmatically, that the provisions in the Bill were entirely just. If I could muster such serene confidence about anything on this earth, I would say equally emphatically that they seem to me to be supremely unjust.
But the purpose this evening is not to rehearse the technical arguments, which have been mentioned already and well discussed at the Committee stage, but rather to question whether the Amendment moved by the noble Lord does anything to improve matters. From my point of view, if this were accepted by the Government then whether they start from what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has called the Alice in Wonderland basis of initial valuation, or whether they adopt something more sensible, if this provision—namely, that
"on application by the stockholders' representatives or the Secretary of State, all factors considered relevant by the arbitration tribunal …"—
could be taken into account, I should be satisfied. I find it extraordinarily difficult

1223
to conceive the frame of mind in which a provision of this sort can be resisted. Clearly the Reason given in No. 55
"Because they might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient"
is not such as to appeal to anyone who is not deeply committed to one point of view. I hope that this Amendment will be adopted, and if it were pressed to a Division I personally, having regard to all the consequences, would certainly be prepared to go into that Lobby.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, I rise simply to acknowledge the submissions which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, to say that he has support from another quarter.
7.31 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, who has made such a valuable contribution to our discussions over the nights that lie behind us, has made a further attempt to amend the compensation terms on lines which he considers to be more equitable. My only regret is that in looking at the communication which he had from my honourable friend the Minister of State he looked at a gift horse in the mouth with, I thought, rather excessive intensity. After all, it was an attempt to clarify the argument that the noble Lord and I, and other noble Lords in this House, have had over a rather long period as to what is fair and how shares should be valued. We have not been indulging in a dialogue of the deaf. The noble Earl may have a small snigger, but the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, today received proof that it was not a dialogue of the deaf. I was able to present him with what he wanted at the appropriate moment in the process of this Bill. It is not a dialogue between the deaf. Sometimes some Governments may be a bit deafer than others.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I was only smiling at the expression, not at the inference.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Well, my Lords, we are on our way. May I say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was rather spoiling his case by overstatement. I am not anybody's creature,
1224
whether he be an Albanian or someone very far to the Left of centre of my own Party. What I am talking about is this Bill and its implications for the economy of the country and two major industries.
Lord Selsdon's Amendment is similar to Amendment No. 53, which was pressed by the official Opposition at Committee and which the Government were unable to accept. Indeed, the Commons have also disagreed with Amendment No. 53 for Reason No. 55. The terms provide for quoted securities to be valued on the basis of their Stock Exchange quotations and unquoted securities on the basis of imputed quotations. In the case of unquoted securities, the value will be arrived at by negotiation between the Secretary of State and the stockholders' representative, or with recourse to independent arbitration.
We believe that the terms of the Bill ensure that compensation will be fair on two counts. First, the Stock Market provides an independent and objective means of assessing a company's worth at any given time. The price of shares as quoted on the Stock Exchange represents the price at which these shares will be bought and sold. The use of the past reference period does not render this argument invalid. The stock market is lower now than during the period up to February 1974 and, in most cases, the shares quotations of parent companies are well below the reference period levels, some substantially so. The fact that a reference period extending over six months has been chosen enables the future trends of a company to be clearly identified. The Stock Exchange does not think from day to day; it analyses the situation, and during this period they have six months in which to make a long-term analysis of the future of these companies.
Secondly, independent arbitration is provided for under the Bill so that all security holders will be treated both equally and impartially. This means that not only are the terms of the Bill fair but also their method of application. Amendment 51A requires that the tribunal, at the request of the Secretary of State or the stockholders' representative, shall take account of all relevant factors in order to ensure that the compensation is fair. However, the Bill already provides in

1225
Clause 38(3) that the Tribunal shall have regard to all relevant factors. As I have made clear, the tribunal is an independent body and it would not be acting properly if it had regard to factors relevant to a Stock Exchange valuation yet failed to take account of them. The present words may be different, but since the effect is exactly the same there is no need to duplicate the provision as the Amendment seeks to do.
The Bill currently provides for unlisted securities to be valued on the basis of what would have been their quotation on each of the relevant days had they been quoted at that time. The arbitration tribunal, in determining the basis value is required to have full regard to all relevant factors. There is nothing novel in this approach. It is analogous to the process undertaken by the Stock Exchange in fixing a price for a previously unquoted security. In fixing a price, the Stock Exchange acts within the requirements of its own code of practice set out in the Listing Agreement. This Agreement goes much wider than any legislative requirements and requires the publication of a great deal of very detailed information with particular emphasis on price sensitive information. I wish to assure the House that, in the compensation negotiations, it is not the intention of the Government to seek to carry out the valuation on any less stringent a basis than that used by the Stock Exchange.
Indeed it could be argued that the Bill goes further. It allows for the arbitration tribunal to take account of all relevant factors, not just those required by the Listing Agreement. Either party to the negotiations is free to bring into the negotiations, and before the Tribunal, any factor which it considers relevant. And it will ultimately be for the tribunal to decide what weight should be placed on that factor. The mechanisms of valuation which will be used are therefore closely akin to the well established and well tried practices of the stock market itself. As the noble Lord knows, we are talking about Stock Exchange mechanisms in this matter, and rather not, except indirectly, comparable prices.
As has been made clear in another place, much of the work of the valuation will be carried out by experts specifically retained for the purposes of the negotiations. The Government have secured the
1226
services of a leading firm of city accountants, Whinney Murray and Company, who will be involved in the detailed mechanics of the valuation. In addition, the Government will be calling on the detailed advice of the Government Broker, Mullens and Company, to assist in assessing the particular stock market factors which would have affected the price of securities during the reference period, had they been quoted. The association of these two companies with the valuation process only serves to emphasise what we believe is the inherent fairness of the basis and method of valuation laid down in the Bill. It is for these reasons that I ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord a question before he sits down? He mentioned the name of a very reputable and highly respected firm of accountants. Have those accountants been asked whether in their view it is sensible to attempt to value unquoted shares on the basis of a notional quotation?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill reports that they have, but I would have thought that a firm of that eminence would not have undertaken the duty unless they were satisfied of the background situation.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, may I be permitted to ask a further question? This is a highly technical matter; it is not a political matter. It would be most unfortunate if it were pressed to a Division. This is a Bill which in many aspects so far as the shipbuilding and aircraft industries are concerned is fairly free from controversy, and it would be a great pity if quite needless controversy were brought into it. Would the Government be prepared to consult with Whinney Murray on the question I have asked and reflect again if they get an answer which accords with my own view of the matter and that of many other Members here?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord felt inhibited in replying to the last question from the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. May I raise one point about what he was saying? I believe that the noble Lord was genuinely

1227
trying to reassure us about the Government's intention in relation to the compensation being fair. He rested considerably on Clause 38(3), a subsection which brings in the arbitration tribunal. The noble Lord was stressing that this subsection provided that:
"The arbitration tribunal…shall have regard to all relevant factors".
I wonder whether he would look at subsection (3) rather carefully as I try to speak about it. What disturbs me about the subsection—and I hope the noble Lord can tell me that I read it correctly—is that it says:
"The arbitration tribunal, in determining the base value that any securities would have had if they had been listed…shall have regard to all relevant factors.".
In other words, they can only have regard to all relevant factors in relation to the base value which securities would have had if they had been listed at the time in question. If I interpret that subsection correctly I am worried about its restrictiveness to a past date, whereas when I read the letter which Mr. Kaufman sent to my noble friend Lord Selsdon, and to which he referred, I see that in the middle of the second paragraph on the second page of his reply Mr. Kaufman said:
"Both parties will consider factors which had a bearing on the prospects as well as the underlying condition of the company.".
If the Government could tell us that subsection (3) allowed the tribunal to have regard to all relevant factors in relation to the prospects as well as the underlying conditions in accordance with Mr. Kaufman's letter, I for one should be a lot happier. I am not a lawyer or a financier or an accountant, but I have been trying to apply my lay mind to this. It seems to me that if we could absorb all the relevant factors which could be taken into account by the tribunal and that Mr. Kaufman's letter was indeed correct, that the prospects as well as the underlying factors at the time could be taken into account, we should all feel a lot easier and feel that the chances of justice being done were considerably greater than we at one time felt. I wonder whether, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord would feel able to explain his understanding of the subsection.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as my noble friend has exhausted more than once his ability to speak in this debate it might
1228
be helpful if I attempted to reply. I think it is the tradition of the House that unless people are moving or replying to the debate on the Amendment they should speak only once. My understanding is that the Government's case is that in regard to securities quoted on the Stock Exchange part of the price will reflect the future prospects of the company. In other words, as my noble friend said in replying to the debate, the value of the securities as quoted on the Stock Exchange is not simply a matter of looking at the thing from day to day. In listing securities the Stock Exchange will have taken into consideration the future prospects of the company; that is the current value of the shares and the future prospects and the trading picture on that particular day or week.
Therefore, it is quite clear that when we are going through this exercise of imputing a value to the shares which are not quoted it would be open to the tribinal—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carr, will take this point because it is the direct answer to the question he asked—to take into account the prospects of the company, and that will be a relevant factor in the tribunal's consideration because it would be a relevant factor if the securities were listed on the Stock Exchange in arriving at the value.
Lord WARDINGTON: My Lords I think I understood the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to say something to the effect that the negotiators could have recourse to the Stock Exchange Listing Agreement. This is very important and is different to a price. The Stock Exchange Listing Agreement actually takes into account something that I tried to explain the other day—the possibility of a notional price. If you are bringing a new issue to the market you have to make a guess, and prospects are part of it. In effect, the Stock Exchange has to monitor the information and protect the public and the seller from a wrong price
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the difference is so narrow that I really cannot see why a reasonable answer could not be given to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Everybody wants to be fair. If the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, represents the view of the Government—as of course he must—what he wants to do is not at all dissimilar

1229
from what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, is trying to achieve. It would be a pity to push this question to a Division. It is so near that it ought not to give the impression of a confrontation on a matter to do with the proper spending of money. Is there no way of approaching this? The noble Lord said that nobody could speak again but the House could give permission to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to do so.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may by leave of the House make a second speech, my noble friend Lord Winter-bottom has made three and it would be trying the patience of the House if he were to make a fourth. As the noble Lord said, I do not think there is very much between us. Therefore, we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment. An Amendment in a similar form to this one has already been discussed and divided on and rejected by another place, so it would not appear to be particularly constructive, when things between us are so narrow to put this Amendment into the Bill. Having heard the very clear exposition and the full statement which my noble friend has been able to give, and also given the fact that I was able to give a straight, Yes in reply to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, asked me, which seemed to be the point troubling him. I hope that that is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. It seems that in fact there is nothing left between either side of the House and I hope noble Lords will agree to leave the Bill as it was.
I did not understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was asking us to do but I can certainly give an undertaking to look at what he said in Hansard, and if there is any further information we can give the noble Lord or any further facts which he has brought to light and which have not been considered I will undertake to look into the matter and, if necessary, to write to him.
Lord GOODMAN: My Lords, I have been impressed by what has been said from the Government Benches in the last few moments and if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will look again into the question whether the accountants consider
1230
that the suggestion of a notional Stock Exchange quotation is something on which they could work, I should be very influenced by that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, for making that point, which I confess I had not fully taken when he first put the question. I will certainly look into that matter again. My understanding is that the accountants have been asked about it, but I will look into it and write to the noble Lord.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, it almost seems that we have here a classic case of the professional versus the politician; that does not imply that politics is not a profession. When one listens to noble Lords who come from the same walk of financial life as I do or from legal life, one believes them and knows that they share one's own views and that they do not share views that have been imposed on them or put forward by the Government Benches. If, at the beginning of the drafting of the Bill, the Government had consulted those who know this field, had made it clear that consultations were going on and that the end product would be, as Mr. Kaufman said, fairness, many of us need not have spent half the night—or was it the whole night?—discussing this issue in your Lordships' House.
Whatever comes out of this compensation discussion, it is clear that when a Government seek to impose their will, and their uninformed will, on a nation, they are entering difficult waters and that gradually the hackles of those who feel that they know rise, until one arrives at confrontation, the very confrontation that Governments should seek to avoid; confrontation among the financial sector, industry and Government. The Government may not have been aware of the hare that started to run and the dangers that could have come if this hare had been allowed, as it could still do, to gather pace.
I do not intend to press the Amendment, but I will not press it for reasons different from those which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, put forward, because I detected from some of his remarks that he was speaking very much from a prepared brief. I also know that he shares my view that it is the end result that must be fair and must be seen to be fair. I should like

1231
the Government, perhaps on another occasion, to give an undertaking that they do not believe that a share price or imputed share price is a fair valuation for a company. It may be used as a starting basis for valuation, but to declare to the outside world that that is the Government's view is dangerous to foreign investment.
We have spoken enough on this subject. It is tedious and can become extremely boring. If the Government will assure us that they will in the end be fair, then that is something one must accept, but I warn them about the commitment into which they are entering. They are entering into a financial commitment which will exceed £2 billion. That is merely money. They are, however, trespassing on certain aspects of morality which are far more damaging to the nation. While £2 billion for an enormous industry is not a fantastic amount of money compared with what may be required for the future, if they damage one factor that still remains so far as the United Kingdom is concerned on a worldwide basis, that of good will, they will have done something they will regret for the rest of their days. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORDS AMENDMENT
52 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Compensation for severance.
".—(1) This section applies to a person who:

(a) is entitled to receive compensation under section 35 above in relation to the securities of a company (the "relevant company"); and

(b) suffers special loss or damage or reasonably incurs expenses (not being taxes) as a direct result of the vesting of those securities in a Corporation.

A person to whom this section applies shall be entitled to receive a payment (to be determined in like manner to the compensation payable to him) equal to the loss or damage or expenses referred to in subsection (1) above.
(3) Where the relevant company forms part of a larger undertaking, the payment referred to in subsection (2) above shall include a sum equivalent to the reasonable cost of re-arranging the affairs of that undertaking and a sum calculated by reference to any increase in the proportion of the overhead expenses of the undertaking to the volume of the business over which those
1232
expenses are spread, so far as that increase is due to the vesting of those securities and is not reasonably capable of being avoided or diminished."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
55 Because it might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 52, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55. We have already discussed this Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
53 In page 52, line 41, at end insert:
"taking into account all factors which the arbitration tribunal consider relevant in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of the securities shall be fair.''
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 53, but doth propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
53A In page 52, line 41, at end insert—
"taking into account all factors which on application by the Stockholders' Representative or the Secretary of State the arbitration tribunal shall deem relevant in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of the securities shall be sufficient fairly to make good the earning power represented by these securities "
In view of the discussion we have just had I need not spend much time moving this Amendment. I want simply to record a few points on which the various parts of the House are in agreement and not to emphasise those points on which we may be in disagreement, and I will try to put the seal on the greater understanding, the greater degree of assurance, of what the Government believe will come out of these compensation provisions. The Government have said on a number of occasions that they wish the compensation to provide the present owners of the assets with amounts which will fully replace the earning power of those assets which they now have to vest in the new Corporations. We on these Benches and spokesmen on the

1233
Liberal and Cross-Benches have made it clear that if that is the intention, there is no difference between us; our fears and differences have been about the mechanism which we have been discussing. In Amendment No. 53A I have deliberately used drafting which would import into the Bill the precise words used by Ministers.
The key to the Amendment appears in the words:
"…in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of the securities shall be sufficient fairly to make good the earning power represented by these securities".
Those words have been used by Ministers on a number of occasions and I remind the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, of two occasions when they were used; I could give many more examples but I will not do so in view of the time. The Minister said:
"My contention is that the compensation paid will reflect the earning value of the asset".
He also said:
"The only real test of fair compensation is whether it makes good to each and every shareholder the capital and income that that shareholder has lost from the acquisition of his or her shares. That is precisely what the Bill tries to do."
We do not question the good faith of the Bill in trying to do that. We only question its adequacy in doing it and that is why in Amendment No. 53A we want to import into the Bill the words:
"…taking into account all factors…relevant in order to ensure that the compensation in respect of the securities shall be sufficient fairly to make good the earning power represented by these securities."
In other words, all we would write into the Bill in this Amendment is the assurance that the Government's own declared aim shall be what happens. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 53), but propose Amendment No. 53A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Carr of Hadley.)
8 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, Amendment No. 53A seeks to qualify the meaning of "fair'', including the Amendment No. 53 with which the Commons disagreed. During our lengthy debates on the compensation provisions of this Bill, the Government have repeatedly made clear that a stock market-based valuation of securities reflects the earning power of the
1234
underlying assets. When the Stock Exchange seeks to fix a price for a previously unlisted security, it assesses the value of that security on the potential investor. The value is based to a significant extent on what earnings the investor can expect from that security and hangs on the earning power of the underlying assets.
In order to achieve the result, the Stock Exchange works on the basis of the very detailed requirements of the Listing Agreement which we discussed when talking about the previous Amendment. This Listing Agreement which serves as a code of practice for all stock market dealings, requires very wide-ranging information about the records and prospects of companies to be made available well beyond the minimum statutory requirements. Under the Bill exactly the same process will apply. The Bill already provides that the arbitrator shall have regard to all relevant factors. Either party in the negotiations, either the Secretary of State or the stockholders' representative, can bring into the negotiations and ultimately before the arbitration tribunal any factor which he or she considers relevant to a particular case. The first part of Amendment No. 53A therefore is already covered in the current text of the Bill.
My Lords, as to the reference to fairness, I have already, and repeatedly, made the Government's position clear. The Stock Exchange employs a detailed process for fixing the price of a previously unlisted share and, so far as I am aware, no one suggests that this is unfair. We are using the same mechanism. I suggest that if it is fair in one case, it is likely to be fair in the other. It is the view of the Government that the present compensation terms are, for the reasons I have outlined, fair to all parties. In those circumstances, Amendment No. 53A at best adds up to the existing provisions of the Bill and at worst it reduces the clarity of the provisions as they are in the Bill, if your Lordships insist on the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, will not press his Amendment.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had reference to some sort of document which I had hoped he had dismissed a few moments ago. The professionals are all agreed that the share price is not a fair basis. What I am asking the Government to

1235
say is that that be the starting basis, nothing more. I hope we can get away from that, which is the emotive factor about which I spoke earlier.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I should be a great deal happier if the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had not made the speech which he has just made, because I now go away feeling that, I am sure unintentionally, he has back tracked on what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, and he himself said in discussion on the previous Amendment. Perhaps I am wrong. I can only speak as a listener. I am sure that unintentionally—that is what he seemed to be doing; he started off by objecting to the Amendment because it put a qualification on the meaning of the word "fair". The only qualification it is putting on the meaning of the word "fair'' is his own definition of the word, in the words that he had used on more than one occasion.
We started off by fearing, and I think also believing, that the Government's view of what was fair did not coincide with our view of what was fair. As we proceeded with our rather lengthy debates, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and also the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, on more than one occasion gave a definition of their intentions which was very satisfactory to us and led us to feel that at least we could share their objectives.
Because there has been this doubt arising from the wording of this Bill, not only inside this House but outside it, we really believed that by writing in the Government's own definition of what was fair and their objective in compensation, we would be doing something not only to allay our own doubts but also, above all, to allay the very real doubts of people outside who have not all been here listening to the speeches of noble Lords, therefore judging the sincerity and integrity of the Government's intentions. Whatever we may think about them having heard the noble Lords, they are not held so confidently outside this House, because the people merely read the Bill, see the basic method proposed, and think it cannot possibly lead to a fair result.
It is because the Government appeared to be running away from their own
1236
decision in rejecting this Amendment that I said a few moments ago that I wished the noble Lord had not made the speech that he had made, and perhaps we could have ended on the basis of the previous speeches. I am not going to advise your Lordships to vote on this Amendment. I think we have got to the stage now when the proof of the pudding is going to be in the eating. I only hope that the confidence which was rather increased by our debates on the previous Amendments will not be dissipated by what happens in practice.
I must only say to the Government, as my noble friend Lord Selsdon said in his speech leading up to the withdrawal of the last Amendment, that if the end result of this is seen not to be fair, it will not only be the shareholders of the assets who will suffer, it will be the whole of this country which will suffer; its unique name in finance and trading right across the world, and the chances of further investment in this country from people outside. I say only this to the Government at this stage of the Bill, "For goodness' sake live up in practice to the best of your assurances, not to the least clear of them''. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORDS AMENDMENT
54 Clause 38, page 53, line 45, at end insert:
"(7A) If, by virtue of an approval given by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 30 or 31 above, property, rights or liabilities have been transferred by the company in question, then, for the purpose of determining, in accordance with subsection (1) above, the base value of the securities of the company or such of them as are specified in the approval, it shall be assumed that, immediately before each of the relevant days,—

(a) the property, rights or liabilities so transferred were not vested in the company, and

(b) in place of that property, those rights or liabilities there were vested in the company funds equal to any consideration which passed to the company as a result of the property, rights or liabilities being so transferred.''

The Commons disagreed to the Amendment for the following Reason:
55 Because it might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason may he deemed sufficient.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55. This is an Amendment that we dealt with when speaking to Amendment No. 50.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 55.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
54A Page 53, line 45, at end insert:
"(7B) If any property rights or liabilities belonging to the company in connection with the business of repairing, refitting, or maintaining ships carried on by it other than at a shipyard or other works in which the company had an interest in possession on the initial date shall have been transferred or granted to any person and the consideration for the transfer or grant shall have been received by the holders of securities of the company or any of them, then, for the purpose of determining the base value of any securities of the company in accordance with subsection (1) above, it shall be assumed that immediately before each of the relevant days such property rights or liabilities were not vested in the company."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
55 Because it might involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting that this Reason maybe deemed sufficient.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Amendment No. 54B was discussed in the earlier debate. Therefore I now move formally that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 54A, but propose Amendment No. 54B in lieu thereof:
54B Page 53, line 45, at end insert:
("() If, pursuant to a transaction falling within section 30(2)(a) or section 31(2)(dd) above, any property or rights such as are therein mentioned have been transferred by the company in question, then, for the purpose of determining, in accordance with subsection (1) above, the base value of the securities of the company, it shall be assumed that, immediately before each of the relevant days—

(a) the property, rights or liabilities so transferred were not vested in the company, and

(b) in place of that property, those rights or liabilities, there were vested in the company funds equal to any consideration which passed to the company as as result of the property, rights or liabilities being so transferred.'')

Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment (No. 54A), but doth propose Amendment No. 54B in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
56 Clause 39, page 57, line 5, leave out from first "of'' to end of line 8, and insert "any sum the right to repayment of which could be treated as a security under section 21(6) above''.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
57 Page 57, line 4, leave out from 'of' to end of line 8 and insert 'any sum the right to repayment of which, if the sum had not been repair, would, following the service of such a notice, have been treated as a security or part of a security under section 20(6) above '.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57 in lieu of the Lords Amendment No. 56.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 56 and doth agree to the Amendment No. 57 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
58 Clause 47, page 64, line 26, leave out from "in'' to end of line 27 and insert "one or more of the activities specified in section 2(1) or (2) above, other than—
(a) a Corporation, or''.
59 Clause 47, page 64, line 32, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "a Corporation".
60 Clause 47, page 64, line 33, leave out "the sale of ships" and insert "that or those activities".
61 Clause 47, page 64, line 35, leave out sub section (2).
62 Clause 47, page 65, line 8, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation concerned".
63 Clause 47, page 65, line 10, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation".
64 Clause 47, page 65, line 12, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation".
65 Clause 47, page 65, line 17, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation".
66 Clause 47, page 65, line 23, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation".
67 Clause 47, page 65, line 30, leave out "British Shipbuilders" and insert "the Corporation".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reasons:
68 Because they would undesirably extend the clause.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 58 to 67 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.
When the Government accepted during Committee stage in this House the need for this clause covering shipbuilding and ship repairing, they were not accepting that the fair trading legislation introduced by the Party opposite was deficient in that in general a procedure such as that in Clause 47 is necessary or desirable when a nationalised industry is competing with the private sector in either its main line or its ancillary activities. We recognise special circumstances in shipbuilding and ship repairing where some yards will remain outside public ownership. We strongly consider that the only activities of British Shipbuilders which should be covered by fair trading provisions are the sale of ships and the provision of ship repair services; just as Section 30 of the Iron and Steel Act 1967 was also restricted to the selling of certain iron and steel products and covered no other activity.
So far as sale and provision of services is concerned with respect to aircraft there will be no private sector company in this country manufacturing complete fixed wing aircraft or guided weapons—apart from Britten Norman which assembles light aircraft mainly builtabroad. Therefore, providing for an equivalent provision to Clause 47 for British Aerospace is unnecessary. By extending the scope of the clause to all activities of the Corporation your Lordships would risk subjecting a vital part of our national heritage to restrictions which would inhibit its commercial success, on the pretext of protecting competitors who are already quite adequately protected. We see no reason why the legislation passed by the Party opposite to ensure fair trading by both very large public and private sector companies and monopolies should not be adequate for these Corporations.
Aside from the substantial fair trading legislation which will apply to the two
1240
Corporations I can of course reiterate our assurance that British Shipbuilders and British Aerospace would have no wish to extract unfair advantages. Both Chairmen of the Organising Committees have agreed to make a formal policy statement on future trading practices in due course and they are both deeply committed to fair trading. I therefore urge noble Lords not to insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, it is no good pretending that we are anything but disappointed at the Government's attitude and the decision of the other place in relation to the Amendments. I shall not ask the House to divide on this matter. I do not think it is a matter on which your Lordships would think it desirable to get into an ultimate state of conflict with the other place; but the situation is unsatisfactory because the reasons that the Government accepted in the end were valid in persuading them to include British Shipbuilders really are equally valid in relation to the aircraft side. The noble Lord said that it was recognised that on the shipbuilding side there were some yards outside public ownership. As far as aircraft were concerned, he seemed to think that no such clash could arise. I rather thought that one of the reasons why Scottish Aviation was being included in the Corporation was so that there might be a light aircraft producer within the Corporation in the future. So there could well be a light aircraft producer both inside the Corporation and outside public ownership. Therefore, so far as aircraft production is concerned, there is or is foreseeably liable to be—one does not have to use much imagination to foresee it—a likelihood of this arising. There are exactly the same circumstances as persuaded the Government that a fair trading clause was necessary for shipbuilding.
Returning to repairing, again I understand that the Government agreed to ship repairing having a fair trading clause because of the fact that there will be ship repairers outside the public sector. Indeed, they are all to be outside the public sector, but that is another matter and of course that will not be so because the ship

1241
builders themselves may undertake repairing activities. However, as I pointed out at an earlier stage, there are major aircraft repairers in the private sector and will continue to be so in the future. So, once again, the very arguments that led the Government to accept a fair trading clause for the shipbuilding and ship repairing sides apply—perhaps not on such a scale at the moment—in principle and practice equally to the aircraft side.
I shall not tonight go into all the other aspects other than sale but, if one looks only at the one activity of sale the same arguments really apply, not just in theory but in practice, to British Aerospace as apply to British Shipbuilders. I repeat that I shall not ask your Lordships to divide on this matter but here again this is a matter where there ought to be the minimum of political conflict and the maximum of desire for consensus. It is immensely disappointing that once more the Government's will to reach any consensus seems near to zero.

LORDS AMENDMENT
69 Clause 48, page 65, line 45, at end insert—
"(2) In carrying out their obligations the Corporations shall make available to the bodies corporate referred to in subsection (1) above any information or facilities which the said bodies corporate—

(a) could reasonably expect to have access to as members of their respective United Kingdom industries before vesting date; and

(b) will be made available by each Corporation to their wholly owned subsidiaries after vesting date.

(3) The information or facilities made available pursuant to subsection (2) above may be the subject of such reasonable charges as are agreed between the parties.".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
70 Because the Northern Ireland companies should not be excessively integrated in the activities of the Corporations.
8.16 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 69, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 70. The Government are anxious to see proper co-ordination between the new Corporations and publicly-owned companies in Northern
1242
Ireland which are carrying out the same activities. I hope that I have been able to make that clear to the noble Viscount and his noble friends. We believe that Clause 48 tabled at Report in another place by members of the Party opposite should secure this objective so far as British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff are concerned. The Government accepted the argument made by your Lordships that the principle is just as important for the aircraft industry in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and therefore brought forward an Amendment during Report stage in this House which extends the scope of the clause to cover British Aerospace and Short Brothers and Harland.
I should make it clear that the clause as it is extended, and as it has been agreed by another place, in no way departs from the independence of the Northern Ireland companies. But it should ensure that the Corporations and the Northern Ireland companies are in a better position to face foreign competition. However, the intended requirement in your Lordships' Amendment No. 69, that the same information and facilities should be made available to Shorts and to Harland and Wolff as to the Corporations' wholly-owned subsidiaries, could go much beyond what we consider desirable. The Amendment could result in integrating the activities of these companies in the new Corporations.
As I have explained on numerous occasions, the Government are opposed to this because we feel strongly that these firms should continue to be considered primarily in the context of Northern Ireland. Of course there is a need for co-ordination. Hence our acceptance of Clause 48 and our Amendment to extend it to aerospace. In this way the two companies can retain the separate identities, which we believe they should have without becoming isolated from the industry in Great Britain. However, for the reasons I have given now and when your Lordships last discussed the Amendment, I would ask the noble Lords not to insist on Amendment No. 69.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 70.—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I shall be very brief but, as I moved the Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed, there are one or two things that I really must say. I believe that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and I who first put down the Amendment would wish to say how glad we are that the Amendment to incorporate Short Brothers and Harland has been maintained by another place. I have always assumed that in matters dealing with Northern Ireland all Governments follow a bipartisan policy. In view of the fact that the noble Lord is Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, I should not wish to embarrass him in anything that I may say. On the other hand, I think that the noble Lord must be careful not to take undue advantage of that latitude, and the fact that he acquiesces in the line that the Commons have taken to delete our Amendment makes it rather difficult for us.
If the Bill had been an entirely non-controversial one, and if all Parties had agreed that a certain line of action had to be taken which would have adversely affected Northern Ireland, that might have been permissible, if it was seen to be in the general national interest. But as we all know, this is a highly controversial Bill, and if one has a highly controversial Bill and one allows in it something that will damage interests in Northern Ireland just to make it easier for Party political matters to go through in the rest of the country, that is not right. That is rather how one sees the line that has been taken on our Amendment. I should not have thought that it can help the credibility of the noble Lord when he wears his other hat in Belfast.
However, I do not intend to pursue this matter further, but I should like to look for a moment at the Reason given by another place for not agreeing with the Amendment. The Reason refers to excess integration. The noble Lord himself referred to those words. The word "integration", whether or not it is excessive, has never been mentioned, and I claim that nothing in our Amendment would bring about integration. The fact that these two words have been used makes me realise all the more that the Amendment has not really been studied and understood. However, the noble Lord has given certain assurances that
1244
it is the Government's intention that there should be a degree of co-ordination.
In conclusion, I would say merely that I very much hope that those who have to operate this clause in their day-to-day work will consider very carefully what has been said on this Amendment, and will consider the reasons for the Amendment which were given in considerable detail at both Committee stage and the Report stage, and will then do their utmost to use such discretion as their political leaders allow them to minimise the very genuine fears which we on this side of the House have as to how it may affect the companies.

LORDS AMENDMENT
71 Clause 56, page 79, line 23, at end insert—
"or any factory, dry-dock, graving dock, or other premises or land situated in the United Kingdom to which an acquired company was entitled to an interest in possession or a licence to occupy and which on or at any time after the initial date was being used for repairing, refitting or maintaining ships unless such factory, dry dock, graving dock, or other premises or land are either wholly appurtenant to the shipbuilding undertaking carried on at a shipyard or other works in which the acquired company had an interest in possession on 31st July 1974 or are mainly appurtenant to property or rights which are wholly appurtenant to that undertaking or cannot reasonably be severed therefrom;".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
72 Because it would undesirably exempt certain transactions from the safeguarding provisions of the Bill.
8.23 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 71 but doth propose the following Amendment, No. 72A, in lieu thereof:
72A Page 79, line 23, at end insert ("or any factory, dry-dock, graving dock, or other premises or land situated in the United Kingdom in which an acquired company was entitled to an interest in possession or a licence to occupy and which on or at any time after the initial date was being used for repairing, refitting or maintaining ships unless:

(i) that factory, dry dock, graving dock, those premises or that land is or are wholly appurtenant to the shipbuilding undertaking carried on at a shipyard or other works in which the acquired company had an interest in possession on 31st July 1974 or is or are mainly appurtenant to property or rights which are wholly appurtenant to that undertaking; Or

1245

(ii) that factory, dry dock, graving dock, those premises, that land, that property or those rights, as the case may be, cannot reasonably be severed from the shipbuilding undertaking").

This is the last of the Amendments which were discussed with an earlier Amendment concerning Vosper Thornycroft.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 71 but doth propose Amendment No. 72A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
73 Clause 57, page 79, line 42, at end insert—
"(1A) This Act shall not come into operation with respect to British Aerospace or to any of the companies referred to in subsection (1) of section 19 above, until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made on or after the date of the first meeting of the next Parliament, but shall otherwise come into operation immediately."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
74 Because it is important that the vesting date for the aircraft industry should not be so postponed.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 73 to which the Commons hays disagreed for the Reason numbered 74. This Amendment is wholly unacceptable to the Government. Although not debated in another place, there was no attempt to resist the Motion to disagree with your Lordships on the Amendment. This Amendment would impose a delay on the implementation of legislation which would be entirely unacceptable. In the Government's view it represents a fundamental challenge to the principles of the Bill and the will of the elected Chamber. The Government are particularly concerned over the industrial effects of further delay. I have spelled out many times to your Lordships how important it is to end the uncertainty over the future of the aircraft industry so that it can play an effective part in the discussions on international collaboration which are about to enter a critical phase. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not insist on the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 74.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, at this stage of our proceedings your Lordships' House has to be selective, indeed extremely selective, in what it decides to insist upon. This has not been an easy decision to take. We have decided to concentrate our attention at this stage on ship repairing, and I believe that to be the right decision. Therefore, with sadness, I am going to advise my noble friends not to insist upon this Amendment. I do this with sadness because we must now watch the aircraft industry submit to the sentence which has been imposed upon it, contrary to all informed industrial opinion and contrary to the findings following the very careful study conducted by the Plowden Committee, which was set up by a Labour Government. Contrary to all this evidence and all these recommendations the Government are hell-bent on submitting the aircraft industry to this doctrinal sentence and fate.
I fear—and if I am wrong, I am wrong, and the country will be glad that I am wrong—that the result of this in the years to come will be an industry smaller in size than it otherwise need be, less active internationally than it otherwise would have been, and of a lower technical quality in relation to other countries than it is now. This is not a sentence of death on the aircraft industry, and those working in it will struggle, as they have always done in the past, to keep it as alive and kicking as possible. But it will be far more difficult for this industry, once nationalised, to remain alive by international standards than it has been hitherto. It will be a very sad day for many thousands of people in this country who obtain their employment from this industry and a very sad day for our exports and for the general technological standards of this country when the Bill, once it is an Act, is implemented.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
75 Schedule 2, page 81, leave out lines 15 to 17.
76 Schedule 2, page 82, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert"15,000 gross tons".
77 Schedule 2, page 83, line 43, leave out "except in the case of a warship".
78 Schedule 2, page 84, line 5, leave out from "registered" to end of line 9.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
79 Because it is important that the warship-building companies referred to in these Amendments should come into public ownership.
8.27 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lord, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 75, 76, 77 and 78, to which the Commons have disagreed, for their Reason numbered 79. Throughout the passage of this Bill the Government's position on this issue has been made clear many times. These warship builders, who in the Government's view are successful largely because they are major Government contractors, form an important part of the shipbuilding industry, employing about 20,000 people out of some 70,000 people in shipbuilding as a whole. The Government consider that it would be illogical that those yards which are most dependent on Government orders should not vest in British Shipbuilders. Leaving the warship builders outside the scope of this Bill would be inimical to rational planning. We must not forget that other companies as well as the three specialists builders have warship building capability. As I said at the last stage of the Bill in your Lordships House, although it remains Government defence policy increasingly to concentrate warship orders on the three specialist yards, it has always been acknowledged that it will be necessary to place orders with other yards from time to time.
Companies such as Swan Hunter Shipbuilders, Scott Lithgow and Cammell Laird have significant warship orders. To split warship building between British Shipbuilders and the three specialist firms would be against the best interests of the industry as a whole and those who work in it. I hope that for these reasons noble Lords will not insist on these Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 79.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has said, the Government have debated this subject several times in your Lordships' House and we have given the reasons why we thought it wrong that the three specialist warship building firms should be nationalised and I shall not rehearse those reasons now. We believe that including these three companies will be detrimental to their interests and to their
1248
effective functioning. We greatly regret that the Government have not accepted these Amendments and that they have come back from another place. I would have hoped that the Government would accept them and thereby give a boost to British industry where specialist building of warships is concerned.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
80 Schedule 2, page 81, leave out lines 19 to 30.
81 Schedule 2, page 82, line 12, leave out "a shiprepairing company".
82 Schedule 2, page 82, line 42, leave out paragraph 3.
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
83 Because it is important that the ship repairing companies referred to in the said Amendments should come into public ownership.
8.32 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of your Lordships I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 inclusive, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83. We have already had our main debate on ship repairing, to which of course these three Amendments refer, and I think—I hope, at least—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said almost as much as he has to say on the subject. I certainly have.
My Lords, I was asked earlier about the article which appeared in today's Guardian, and it seems right that I should take this opportunity to respond to the questions that were asked me on that occasion. As I understand it, the article is speculating on what might happen if noble Lords opposite continue to insist on deleting ship repairing from this Bill. I do not intend to speculate on what might happen should noble Lords opposite continue on that course, but I and other Ministers, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, have never made any secret of the difficulties facing the shipbuilding industry in this country and around the world at the present time. Nor have we made any secret of the major decisions facing the aircraft industry, both in this country and around the world. We have stressed again and again the very serious effects on these industries of further delay. My Lords, I also want to make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to public

1249
ownership of all three industries covered by the Bill—aircraft, shipbuilding and ship repairing.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments Nos. 80 to 82, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, we had our debate earlier, on Amendment No. 19, and I certainly do not intend to repeat the arguments that I deployed then or to extend the debate into a discussion now. These Amendments will have the effect of deleting the ship repairing companies which are at present named in Schedule 2. But, my Lords, the noble Lord took this occasion, right at the end of our proceedings today on this Bill, to say something more about the article in today's Guardian about which both my noble friend Lord Carr and I had asked him questions. What we asked him was to deny publicly that the Government were considering, if the Bill did not go through in this Session, placing special pressure on particular companies, because the article indicated that the money would be available and that the Government might then almost blackmail certain companies by withholding money so far as they were concerned. The noble Lord has not answered that question, because he has not made any denial of the Government's intentions as apparently written in this article. He has merely said that it is speculating. We were hoping that he would be able to deny this particular speculation, and I certainly think that before I sit down he ought to say something more on that.
In any case, this Bill could go through in this Session if the Government will accept that ship repairing is inappropriate and will allow ship repairing to drop out of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was advising them very strongly about this again today. He has done so previously. We know very well that there are other noble Lords in all parts of the House who know that the ship repairing industry can be left out of this Bill without upsetting the rest of the Bill, and that this would be one small thing which the Government could accept, and one effect of the consideration of the Bill within your Lordships' House which would
1250
promote a great deal of good will towards this country and towards the Government. So there is an answer so far as the noble Lord is concerned, which is that if the Government accept the deletion of ship repairing then the Bill will not be held up. The noble Lord was speaking in terms of the Bill being held up and speculating on the consequences, but I hope that if I give him the opportunity now he can deny what the Guardian has reported about a particular line which the Government, they say, are considering.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I said I did not intend to speculate on what might happen in the future, but it is quite clear to me that the effects of further delay on the industries affected by this Bill will be so catastrophic that it would be thoroughly irresponsible of anyone—your Lordships' House or anyone else—to seek further to delay the Bill; and in view of that it seems to me that it would not be wise even to waste time thinking about it. I certainly hope that noble Lords opposite will ponder very carefully the serious consequences on the industries should the Bill be further delayed.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I really find this extremely disturbing. Here is a report in a major newspaper which really amounts almost to a blackmail threat as to what the effects would be to many tens of thousands of people working in this country, to say nothing of all their customers and suppliers, and all the rest of it, if Parliament chooses to take a certain course. I regard this as a very serious charge indeed. As I said at the beginning of this afternoon, I cannot believe for one moment that that can be the Government's intention, but I really do not understand, whatever the Government may feel about the actions we may or may not take, why they cannot flatly and categorically deny that charge. It is a scandalous charge, and I would have thought that they would have been only too eager to make quite clear that this report, in its implications, was wholly unfounded. If the Government persist in their failure to do that they really cannot be surprised if people outside this House, at home and abroad, draw deductions which I still believe cannot be true but which, for some obscure reason, the Government seem reluctant to deny.

1251
Perhaps I may say one more thing, and it is this. The Government really cannot get away with blaming any delay upon us. It is impossible for your Lordships' House to wreck this measure, even if they wished to do so. If we vote, as we shall in a moment or two, on these Amendments, carry them and remove ship repairing from the Bill, the Government can without further delay have the whole of the rest of their Bill to nationalise shipbuilding, aircraft manufacture and slow marine diesel engine manufacture. They can have that without any delay at all; and if they really still believe that ship repairing also must be nationalised, then they can introduce a Bill to deal with ship repairing at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord giving way. How can the ship repairing industry be blackmailed? It is speculation. I was under the impression that the ship repairing industry was in a first-class position financially at one time. This is what they have told us. How can the Government therefore be blackmailing it?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can have read the article. I did not say that the ship repairing industry has been blackmailed. I said that this report was attempting to blackmail Parliament by making threats about what would happen to us if we do something. By all means let the Government go and fight an Election on the abolition of this House. I for one should not be afraid to stump the country on such an Election in the next few weeks. Instead of taking it out on us, they are threatening to take it out on the industries for what Parliament
does. That is the wickedness in this report. I cannot believe that any Government would think of this. I do not understand why they do not deny what must be a false report. If they will not deny it then they cannot be surprised if some people believe that there is some truth in the report—and if there were truth in it, it would be an absolute scandal.
My Lords, may I reiterate that there is really no question of any action that your Lordships' House may take about these Amendments causing any delay at all as to the major part of this Bill, the greater part of this Bill. The only thing that could be delayed to some extent could be the ship repairing industry and as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has just pointed out there is no urgency about nationalising ship repairing even if there was some need for it.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, there is one small point. I might be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. There is no question of blackmailing ship repairing. Ship repairing fights in an international field which is totally different from that in which the other industries fight. For that reason ship repairing is all right. It fights for itself. The two other industries can indeed be blackmailed because they are Government-supported and if the Government withdraw their support they are in a nasty position. That I would agree.
8.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 80 to 82 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 83?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 51; Not-Contents, 144.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Jacques, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Aylestone, L.

Kaldor, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brockway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Grantchester, L.

Melchett, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hale, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wise, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Parry, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gage, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Amory, V.

Gainsborough, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Balerno, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Pender, L.

Banks, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Gough, V.

Platt, L.

Bathurst, E.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

Reading, M.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gridley, L.

Robbins, L.

Blakenham, V.

Hacking, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bourne, L.

Hampden, V.

Rochester, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hanworth, V.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Broadbridge, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sackville, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Burton, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Just, L.

Camoys, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Sandys, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Seear, B.

Carrington, L.

Hunt, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Selsdon, L.

Chelwood, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inverforth, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathspey, L.

Craigton, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Loudoun, C.

Suffield, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Templemore, L.

Dacre, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Teviot, L.

De La Warr, E.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Molson, L.

Trevelyan, L.

Deramore, L.

Monck, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Digby, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vernon, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Vickers, B.

Eccles, V.

Morris, L.

Vivian, L.

Elibank, L.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wardington, L.

Elles, B.

Newall, L.

Westbury, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wigoder, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wolverton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Northesk, E.

Young, B.

On Question. Motion agreed to.

8.54 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, there seems to be a little confusion. Is it right that the Government accept that these Amendments were taken together and that they are all effective? There is no point in having a Division if it is not necessary. I should like an undertaking from the Government that they consider it all right; then we shall accept this.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, certainly we do not consider it is all right; but I moved three Amendments en bloc, and I certainly accept that the Division
1254
which we have had covers all the Amendments.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, does that mean we now move on to endangered species, including the Government?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is one extinct species and that is the Liberals.

ENDANGERED SPECIES (IMPORT AND EXPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (153) as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (3),
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I should like, with the House's permission, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 76. These are I think the most important issues on which Amendments were made in another place. During Report stage in this House, your Lords-ships expressed a strong desire to enable private individuals and bodies other than Customs to bring prosecutions for offences connected with illegal import. The House then inserted the provisions which appear as subsections 1(3), 1(9) and 1(10) in your Lordships' copies of the Bill, creating specific offences and penalties for illegal import and for the handling of illegally imported goods.
The Government accept entirely the views of your Lordships that the voluntary conservation bodies can play a useful role in the enforcement of this legislation. But I repeat, as I said on Report, that Customs must remain the prime enforcement body under this Bill: it is they to whom we must look to ensure that we can fulfil our international obligations under the Convention. We must ensure that any extra activity complements the work of Customs and does not obstruct it. We must also ensure that innocent individuals are not open to harassment and that legitimate traders are not unduly hampered.
We have given careful thought to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that certain designated bodies only should be empowered to bring private prosecutions. But we concluded that there are too many bodies with an interest in this field. None is so obviously pre-eminent as to dispel all argument, and selection would be an invidious process. We have therefore sought, in close consultation with the parties concerned, a solution which would allow any person or
1256
body, other than Customs, to bring proceedings in certain cases and yet safeguard the powers of Customs and avoid so far as possible overlap with their work. The exercise has been protracted and difficult and I owe much to the positive contributions made by the Retail Consortium and by the conservationists themselves. The result is Amendment No. 6.
Our objective has been to create conditions in which conservationists can pursue suspect items which are on sale or display within the country. Their activities would then be complementary to those of Customs, whose main role is naturally enforcement at the point of importation. The new clause would make it an absolute offence to sell, to offer or expose for sale, to have in possession for sale or to display any item the unlicensed import of which is made illegal by this Bill. It does not make an offence of possession alone—it must be possession for the purpose of sale. But it covers also goods made from illegal imports provided those goods are of a kind listed in Schedule 3.
A defence is provided in subsection (2) whereby anyone charged may show that he made inquiries when he took delivery of the goods. The inquiries have to be "such as are reasonable" in the circumstances. The interpretation of the term "reasonable" in any particular case would of course be entirely a matter for the courts. The other leg of the defence, that the person charged must have had no reason to believe that the goods were illegal at the time the alleged offence was committed, is I hope self-explanatory.
Subsection (3) provides a means whereby a trader can satisfy the requirement of making reasonable inquiries. If he obtains from his supplier a certificate which complies with the terms of the subsection, he will be deemed to have made reasonable inquiry. This provision has been made in response to a request of retailers. There is, however, no need for anyone to trouble with certificates if he prefers to pursue his inquiries in other ways. Subsection (4) provides an offence for false statements on the certificate. Subsection (5) provides penalties which conform with those generally applicable to offences of this kind and have regard to the custodial penalties in the Customs and Excise Act 1952 for illegal import with

1257
intent to evade. Subsection (8) ensures that the penalties for prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Act are not affected. Amendment No. 76 would extend the scope of the Long Title to allow for the control of certain transactions, such as display, which might conceivably not be regarded as trade.
I have been given to understand that the voluntary conservation bodies support Amendment No. 6; also that traders' representatives are satisfied that it would not involve their members in excessive paperwork or improper harassment. The new clause will also clearly separate the respective roles of Customs and of other bodies and ensure that Customs legislation is not disapplied. I trust, therefore, that noble Lords will agree that Amendment No. 6 substantially fulfils the objectives they had in mind and can therefore replace the provisions which Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 would delete.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it would be churlish if we on this side of the House were not to stand up and say that we are grateful to the Government for their Amendment No. 6. This always was a non-Party political Bill, which was designed with the conservation of wild flora and fauna in mind. The Customs' point of view was very fully argued in this House, and the case against only Customs having the right to prosecute was heavily argued as well. I think that the arguments in another place were fairly put at a time of great dissension. We have achieved a very reasonable result and I must say to the noble Baroness that we on this side of the House are very grateful.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2.]
Clause 1, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State may charge for the issue of a licence under subsection (2) above such sum (if any) as is for the time being prescribed by order of the Secretary of State'.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 18. The two Amendments give the Secretary of State a permissive
1258
power to charge for licences issued under the Bill and require him to pay any proceeds into the Consolidated Fund. Amendment No. 19 is also relevant. It provides that the power may be exercised only by order, subject to Negative Resolution.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3.]
Clause 1, page 3, line 11, leave out 'for the time being specified in Schedule 3 to this Act' and insert 'to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies'.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. It is purely a drafting Amendment, bringing the wording into line with that in subsection (1)(c).
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 4.]
Clause 1, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (9) and (10).
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 5.]
Clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. It is linked with Amendments Nos. 8 and 19. The effect of these Amendments is to gather up the procedural provisions relating to most of the order-making powers of the Secretary of State and place them in one new clause.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 6.]
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Offence to sell etc. things imported contrary to section 1 or their derivatives
.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, a person who sells, offers or exposes for sale, has in his possession for the purpose of sale, or displays to the public,—

(a) anything which has been imported contrary to section 1 above, or

(b) anything which is made wholly or partly from anything referred to in paragraph (a) above and which at the time of the alleged offence (though not necessarily at the time of importation) constitutes an item to which Schedule 3 to this Act for the time being applies,

shall be guilty of an offence; and in the following provisions of this section a "restricted article" means anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above.
(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above with respect to a restricted article if he proves to the satisfaction of the court—

(a) that at the time when if first came into his possession he made such enquiries (if any) as in the circumstances were reasonable in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and

(b) that, at the time the alleged offence was committed, he had no reason to believe that it was a restricted article.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(a) above, a person shall be taken to have made such enquiries as are there mentioned if he produces to the court a certificate which was furnished by the person from whom the accused obtained possession of the restricted article (the supplier), which was signed by the supplier or by a person authorised by him, and which states that—

(a)the supplier made enquiries at the time the restricted article came into his possession in order to ascertain whether it was a restricted article, and

(b) the supplier had no reason to believe at the time he relinquished possession of the restricted article to the accused that the article was at that time a restricted article.

(4) A person who furnishes for the purposes of subsection (3) above a certificate which he knows to be false in a material particular, or recklessly furnishes for those purposes a certificate which is false in a material particular, shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (4) above shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both.

(6) In this section any reference to sale includes references to barter and exchange.
(7) For the purposes of this section a restricted article is displayed to the public if it is displayed
1260
to the public generally or any section of it, and (in either case) whether in return for money or otherwise.
(8) For the purposes of any proceedings under section 45 or 304 of the Customs and Excise Act 1952 (penalties for improper importation and evasion of restriction on importation) for an offence in connection with the importation of anything contrary to section 1 above, this section shall not be taken expressly to provide a penalty for that offence.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, again I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.7]
Clause 4, page 5, line 26, leave out from first 'may' to end of line 33 and insert make an order under this section relating to any kind of animal.
(1A) An order under this section may provide that (subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the order) it is prohibited to do such one or more of the following things as is (or are) specified in the order, that is to say—

(a) to import by sea any live animal of any kind to which the order is expressed to relate;

(b) to import any such animal by sea unless it is imported at a port or one of the ports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

(c) to import any such animal by air;

(d) to import any such animal by air unless it is unloaded at an airport or one of the airports specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind;

(e) to import any such animal by land;

(f) to import any such animal by land unless it is brought across the boundary into Northern Ireland at a place or one of the places specified in the order in relation to animals of that kind.

(1B) Any prohibition or restriction in any order under this section shall not apply to an animal which the Secretary of State authorises to be imported otherwise than in accordance with the order and which is imported in accordance with that authorisation.
(1C) In subsection (1A) above—
"airport" means an aerodrome for the time being designated as a customs airport under section 15(5) of the Customs and Excise Act 1952;
"port" means any area for the time being appointed and named under section 13(1) of that Act as a port for the purposes of customs and excise.'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree

1261
with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. In so doing, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 77. This Amendment would redraft and expand on the wording of Clause 4(1) which empowers the Secretary of State by order to restrict ports of importation for live animals. The Amendment makes specific provision not only for ports but also for airports and the land boundary into Northern Ireland, and clearly defines the terms "ports" and "airport". Amendment No. 77 is a drafting Amendment to make clear that the power to restrict ports of entry is not restricted to seaports only.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 4, page 5, line 34, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Nos. 9 to 17.]
Clause 4, page 5, line 43, leave out 'any scientific authority or' and insert 'one or more of the scientific'.
Clause 5, page 6, line 1, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert 'do so, he may give a direction under this section in relation to the animal.
(1A) Where a direction has been given under this section in relation to an animal, and has not been revoked by the Secretary of State, the animal shall, immediately after the relevant event,'
Clause 5, page 6, line 7, after 'at' insert 'the'
Clause 5, page 6, line 11, leave out `subsection
(1) above,' and insert this section'
Clause 5, page 6, line 13, leave out, knowing that a direction has been so given,—'and insert 'knows or ought to know that a direction has been so given and who —'
Clause 5, page 6,line 15, leave out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) and insert—

(a) knowingly takes the animal, or knowingly permits it to be taken, at any time after the relevant event to premises which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the taking the specified premises; or

1262

(b) knowingly moves the animal, or knowingly permits it to be moved, at any time after the relevant event, the circumstances of the removal being that —

(i) it is made from premises which he knows or ought to know are at the time of the removal the specified premises, and

(ii) he knows or ought to know that the removal is made in the absence of, or otherwise than in accordance with any condition attached to, such a requirement or permission as is referred to in subsection (1A) above; or

(c) knowingly keeps the animal at any time after the relevant event at premises which are occupied by him and which he knows or ought to know are not at the time of the keeping the specified premises,'

Clause 5, page 6, line 34, at end insert—
'(2A) In this section "relevant event" means, in relation to an animal, whichever of the following occurs later: —

(a) the completion by the animal of any period of detention (whether in quarantine or otherwise) in accordance with any provision made by or under any enactment, being detention connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given;

(b) the departure of the animal from any premises connected with the importation in respect of which the direction concerned was given.'

Clause 5, page 6, line 39, leave out subsections (4) to (7).
After Clause 5, insert the following new Clause:
Provisions supplementary to section 5.
'.—(1) Before he specifies any premises for the purposes of section 5 above or revokes a direction given under that section, the Secretary of State shall consult one or more of the scientific authorities.
(2) The Secretary of State shall not specify any premises for those purposes unless they are such that in his opinion the animal in relation to which he proposes to give, or has given, a direction under section 5 above may suitably be kept there.
(3) Any person duly authorised in writing by the Secretary of State may, at any reasonable time and (if required to do so) upon producing premises which are for the time being specified in relation to any animal for the purposes of section 5 above for one or both of the following purposes: —

(a) in order to enable the Secretary of State to decide whether the premises remain such that in his opinion the animal may suitably be kept there;

(b) in order to ascertain whether the animal is being kept on the premises.

(4) Any person who wilfully obstructs a person acting under subsection (3) above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 to 17 en bloc
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments —(Baroness Stedman.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 18.]
Clause 8, page 8, line 44, at end insert:—
'(2) Any sums received by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment on Amendment No. 2. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 19.]
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:—
Orders.
.—(1) An order under any of the relevant provisions may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order under the provision concerned.
(2) The power conferred by each of the relevant provisions to make an order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(3) In this section "the relevant provisions" means sections 1(5A), 3 and 4 above.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke also to this Amendment on Amendment No. 5. I beg to move Amendment No. 19.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment —(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 20.]
After Clause 8 insert the following new clause:—
Interpretation.
.—(1) For the purposes of this Act an individual of the family Hominidae (man) is not an animal.
(2) In this Act a reference to a dead animal of any particular kind includes a reference to the body of an animal of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

(b) which, although not complete (whether because it has been eviscerated or because it has had the whole of its inside removed
1264
and has been stuffed, or for any other reason), is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles the complete body of an animal of the kind concerned.

(3) In this Act a reference to a dead plant of any particular kind includes a reference to a plant of that kind—

(a) which is frozen, dried or preserved by chemicals, or

(b) which, although for any reason not complete, is substantially complete and externally substantially resembles a complete dead plant of the kind concerned.

(4) In this Act "enactment" includes an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or of the Northern Ireland Assembly and an Order in Council having the same effect as such an enactment.
(5) Except in so far as the context otherwise requires, a reference in this Act to any other enactment is a reference to that enactment as amended, and includes a reference to it as extended or applied, by or under any other enactment, including this Act.'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. It is linked with Amendment No. 22. They are primarily drafting Amendments. Together they place the provisions concerned with interpretation of terms in the Bill in one separate interpretation clause. The Amendment also adds a new subsection (1) which provides, I am sure your Lordships will be happy to learn, that man is not covered by the Bill. Noble Lords may remember our concern at this oversight at the Bill's Third Reading in this House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 21.]
Clause 9, page 9, line 5, leave out '(1) and 5(1) to (6)'and insert'(1B), 5 and (Provisions supplementary to section 5) and for the first reference to him in section 1(5A)'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. Clause 9(2) lists those references to the Secretary of State which in Northern Ireland are to be read as references to the Department of Agriculture. This Amendment makes two changes of substance. It removes the power for Northern Ireland to make separate orders restricting ports

1265
of entry under Clause 4(1), while leaving them with the power under Clause 4(1)(b) to authorise other ports in exceptional cases.
The other significant change is consequent upon Amendment No. 2. In Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture will have the power to collect any charges made for licences, although the power to make orders enabling such charges to be made will be confined to the Secretary of State.
There are also minor drafting changes to bring the subsection into line with the redrafted and divided Clause 5.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22.]
Clause 9, page 9, line 7, leave out subsections (3) to (6).
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 20.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 24–49.]
Schedule 1, page 11, leave out line 19.
Page 12, leave out line 25.
Page 12, line 41, at end insert—

Waterfowl

Any domestic form of Anser anser

Domestic goose

Any domestic form of Anser cygnoides

Chinese goose

Any domestic form of Cairina moschata

Muscovy duck

Any domestic form of Anas platyrhynchos

Domestic duck.'

Page 13, line 9, after 'jungle fowl' insert and domestic fowl'

Page 13, line 11, after 'pheasant' insert'(otherwise known as ring-necked pheasant)'

Page 13, line 15, leave out 'Amherst 'and insert' Lady Amherst's '

Page 13, line 21, at end insert—

'Any eomestic form of Meleagris galloparo

Turkey'

Page 13, leave out line 24.

Page 13, leave out line 29.

Page 13, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—

'Columba livia

Domestic pigeon

Streptopelia orientalis

Rufous turtle dove

Streptopelia bitorquata

Javanese turtle dove

Streptopelia decaocto

Collared dove

Streptopelia capicola

Ring-necked dove (otherwise known as Cape dove)

Streptopelia tranquebarica

Red turtle dove

Streptopelia chinensis

Spotted dove

Turtur chalcospilos

Green-spotted wood dove'

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 23.]
Clause 9, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
'(9A) In section 7 of the Protection of Birds Act 1954 (restrictions on importation of certain wild birds and eggs) subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (2) are hereby repealed; and accordingly in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) for "such a licence as aforesaid" there shall be substituted" a licence granted under section ten of this Act" and the word "other" (wherever it occurs) is hereby repealed.'
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. This Amendment would repeal an obsolete provision in the Protection of Birds Act 1954 which would otherwise overlap with provisions in the Bill. The provision relates to imports of quail, lapwing and game birds.
If in the future it should seem desirable on conservation grounds to reintroduce import control on these birds, it can be done by order under this Bill. If control seems desirable on other grounds, it can be done by order under Section 7(2)(b) of the Birds Act, which remains unaffected by this proposed repeal.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

Page 14, leave out line 9.

Page 14, leave out lines 17 and 18.

Page 14, leave out line 20 and insert—

'Agapornis cana

Madagascan lovebird

Agapornis taranta

Black-winged lovebird

Agapornis roseicollis

Rosy-faced lovebird

Agapornis fisheri

Fisher's lovebird

Agapornis personata

Masked lovebird

Agapornis lilianae

Nyasa lovebird

Agapornis nigrigenis

Black-cheeked lovebird'

Page 14, leave out line 23.

Page 15, line 17, leave out 'White-cheeked' and insert 'White-browed '

Page 16, leave out line 8.

Page 16, leave out line 10.

Page 17, leave out lines 5 to 7 and insert—

'Sporopipes squasrifrons

Scaly-crowned weaver'

Page 17, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insertx2014;

'Quelea cardinalis

Cardinal quelea

Euplectes anomalus

Bob-tailed wydah

Euplectes diadematus

Fire-tailed wydah

Euplectes gierowii

Black bishop

Euplectes nigroventris

Black-winged bishop

Euplectes aureus

Golden-backed bishop

Euplectes capensis

Yellow-rumped bishop

Euplectes axillaris

Fan-tailed wydah

Euplectes hartlaubi

Marsh bishop

Euplectes albonotatus

White-winged bishop

Euplectes progne

Long-tailed bishop

Euplectes jacksoni

Jackson's bishop'

Page 17, leave out line 30.

Page 17, line 44, after 'Bibron's ' insert' clawless'

Page 20, line 7, column 2, insert 'Mangrove frong'

Page 20, line 30, column 2, insert 'Green toad'

Page 20, leave out line 35.

Page 20, line 36, column 2, insert' Giant tree frog'

Page 23, line 19, leave out' explanation' and insert' guidance

Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 49 en bloc. Many of these Amendments to Schedule 1 of the Bill relate to Appendix III of the Convention. These are Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, 31 to 37, 39 to 43, and 47. The Convention requires us to control the species added by other countries to this Appendix and these Amendments cover the additions that have been made since the Bill was first introduced. Noble Lords will remember that, because of the way Schedule 1 works all the Amendments which delete animals from the Schedule have the effect of bringing them under control.
The remaining Amendments help to consolidate the work done in this House introducing reverse listing and common names in Schedule 1. Amendments Nos. 26 and 30 add additional common species of birds to the free list. Amendment 33 adds the domestic pigeon to the free list, although the other species there listed result from changes to Appendix III. Amendments Nos. 27 to 29, 38, 44 to 46,
1268
and 48 provide additional or more appropriate common names for the species concerned. Finally, Amendment 49 is purely a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 50–54.]

Schedule 2, page 24, line 3, at end insert—

'Gnetacae

Gnetum montarum'.

Schedule 2, page 24, line 11, at end insert—

'Magnoliaceae

Talauma hodgsonii'.

Schedule 2, page 24, line 19, at end insert—

'Papaveraceae

Meconopsis regia'

Schedule 2, page 24, line 22, column 2, at end

insert—

'Podocarpus nerifdius'.

Schedule 2, page 24, line 33, at end insert—

'Tetracertraceae

Tetracertron'.

Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments 50 to 54 en bloc. All these Amendments relate to plants added to Appendix III of the Convention by other countries.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 55–74.]
Schedule 3, page 25, line 40, at end insert—
'Aonyx (clawless otters)'.
Schedule 3, page 25, line 41, at end insert—
'Lutra (common otters)'.
Schedule 3, page 25, line 42, at end insert—
'Paraonyx (clawless otters)'.
Page 26, line 2, at end insert—
'Amblonyx cinera (oriental small-clawed otter)'
Page 26, line 5, at end insert—
'Enhydra lutris (sea otter)'.
Page 26, line 23, at end insert—
'Lutrogale perspicillata (smooth-coated otter)'.
Page 26, line 30, at end insert—
'Pteronura brasiliensis (giant otter)'.
Page 26, line 36, at end insert—
'9A. The skin and scales of any animal of the family Manidae (pangolins)'.
Page 26, line 44, leave out 'sub-species Moschus moschiferus moschiferus' and insert 'species Moschus moschiferus'.
Page 27, line 1, after 'The' insert 'whole or any part of any'
Page 27, line 5, leave out 'claws'and insert 'flippers'.
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
'15A. The meat and cartilage, including callipee and callipash, of any animal of the family Cheloniidae (sea turtles).'
Page 27, line 16, at end insert—
'Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl)'.
Page 27, line 17, after 'colchicus (' insert 'common pheasant, otherwise known as'.
Page 27, leave out line 27.
Page 27, line 33, after 'cristatus (' insert 'Indian'.
Page 27, line 34, leave out'sub-paragraphs 'and insert 'paragraphs'.
Page 27, line 38, at end insert—
'18A. Any egg, whether whole or blown, of any bird other than—

(a) a bird of any of the following species, namely—

Alectoris chukar (chukar)

Alectoris rufa (red-legged partridge)

Coturnix japonica (Japanese quail)

Gallus gallus (red junglefowl and domestic fowl)

Perdix perdix (common patridge);

(b)a bird of any domestic form of any of the following species, namely—

Anas platyrhynchos (domestic duck)

Anser anser (domestic goose)

Anser cygnoides (Chinese goose)

Cairina moschata (Muscovy duck)

Meleagris gallopavo (turkey)

Numida meleagris (Guinea fowl).'

Page 27, line 39, leave out 'the family Cyatheaceae,' and insert 'any of the families Cyatheaceae and Dicksoniaceae'.
Page 27, line 41, leave out 'explanation 'and insert' guidance'.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 to 74 en bloc. These Amendments to Schedule 3 to the Bill result from the continuing and wide consultations which we have held with the scientific authorities, conservation groups, and traders. Many of these Amendments bring additional parts and derivatives under control. Amendments 55 to 61 would place the skins of all species of otter, and certain of their products, under licence. This fulfils the undertaking we gave in this House at an earlier stage to reconsider the problem of otters. Amendment No. 62 deals with the skin and scales of pangolins, a kind of anteater with distinctive scales, and Amendment No. 63 extends control to all natural musk, not only that from the endangered sub-species. Amendment No. 64 makes clear that parts of reptile skins, as well as whole skins, are subject to control. Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 deal with products of the sea turtle family and would extend the controls to include those products used in turtle soup.
Amendments Nos. 67 to 70 deal with plumage. They place that of the wild junglefowl as well as that of the domestic fowl on the list of plumage which can be freely imported, and provide more appropriate common names for two other species. Amendment No. 72 would subject all birds' eggs, except those of common poultry, to control. Amendment No. 73 is designed to avoid possible confusion between two families of tree ferns which are not clearly distinct. Finally, Amendments Nos. 71 and 74 are minor drafting Amendments.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should particularly like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the Government for having introduced the otter family into Amendments Nos. 55 to 62. We had particularly drawn the attention of the Government to this family, and the Government were always inclined to favour this. I am grateful that they have been able to do so.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 75.]
In the Preamble, page 1, line 5, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 7 and insert 'on 31st October 1976'.
9.14 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 75 to write into the Bill the date on which the Convention came into force in the United Kingdom.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 76.]
In the Title, line 2, leave out 'trade in them' and insert' to restrict certain transactions in respect of them or their derivatives'.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 76.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 77.]
In the Title, line 4, leave out 'ports' and insert 'places'.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 7. This is the final Amendment to this Bill, which has had a chequered career over several years, so may I take this opportunity of giving my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part, and who have helped us, from all sides of the House. I particularly regret that my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones is not able to be with us tonight to see this Bill actually go forward on to the Statute Book. Officially, I should like to pay tribute to his persistence and long fight to make this Bill part of our British law. I should also like to express my thanks to all the voluntary organisations and scientific authorities for their help and co-operation. I thank noble Lords opposite for their support tonight in
1272
getting this Bill through quickly. I now revert to what I am supposed to be doing, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No 77.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Stedman.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I, too, would like to echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in regretting that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is not able to be here tonight. The noble Lord has persevered not only on this Bill, but on previous Bills which have been lost through the various ups and downs of the Parliamentary timetable. The Government have been criticised by various people, including some noble Lords on my side of the House, for being slow in getting this Bill moving. The World Convention demanded that if we were to have an influence and a vote, we had to do it by a certain time. However, at the end of the day, the Government have met the timetable and I congratulate them. We have all done a good job.

  WATER SUPPLY: NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL REPORT
  WATER SUPPLY: NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL REPORT
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND UNLAWFUL PRACTICES
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND UNLAWFUL PRACTICES
  MOTOR VEHICLES: MAXIMUM PERMITTED NOISE
  MOTOR VEHICLES: MAXIMUM PERMITTED NOISE
  THE LAYFIELD REPORT
  THE LAYFIELD REPORT
  ARTS AND SCIENCE COUNCILS: MEMBERS'EXPENSES
  ARTS AND SCIENCE COUNCILS: MEMBERS'EXPENSES
  THE GREEN POUND AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE
  THE GREEN POUND AND UNEMPLOYMENT IN AGRICULTURE