Sitting of 22 November 1976

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

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Cromarty Petroleum Order Confirmation Bill may be presented to the House in the next Session of Parliament with a declaration, signed by the Secretary of State and deposited in the Public Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was presented in the present Session:
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Public Bill Office that such a declaration had been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the Second time:
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Gregor MacKenzie.]
Hon. Members: Object.
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE

    European Community Countries
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he is still satisfied with the deficit on Great Britain's trade with other EEC countries; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): So far this year, there has been an increase of 42 per cent. in the value of our exports to other EEC countries and a 28 per cent. increase in imports compared with the corresponding period in 1975. I welcome the resulting improvement in our still large trade deficit with the EEC.
    Mr. Skinner: Does it not need to be mentioned that, according to the most recent figures, we are in deficit with other Common Market countries to the tune of £2,300 million and that the amount by which we are supposed to be benefiting from the common agricultural policy and the green pound pales into insignificance compared with that very large deficit? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that now, 30 years after the war, we are in the financial grip of Western Germany and the only answer to the problem is to get out of the Common Market, and do it quickly?
    Mr. Dell: I do not agree with my hon. Friend on that. It is true that we have a large deficit with the European Community, but I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the deficit has improved slightly so far this year and has improved to an even greater extent in respect of manufacturing products.
    Mr. Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that Great Britain has no trade deficit?
    Mr. Dell: If I were to follow the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning it would take some time, and perhaps Question Time would be better used in some other way.
    Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the Treaty of Rome, Articles 104 and 108, we are

    1853
    entitled to protect our balance of payments? In those circumstances, is it not necessary for us now seriously to consider controlling our imports from the Common Market?
    Mr. Dell: As my hon. Friend says, there are such provisions within the Treaty of Rome. On the other hand, my hon. Friend should remember that there are several countries within the Community which also have large balance of payments deficits and high unemployment. For example, I do not know whether my hon. Friend saw details of the French trade deficit for October.

    Export Markets
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied with the growth of British exports to those markets in the world where the national economies are now expanding at a relatively rapid rate compared to the international average; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Michael Meacher): Our exports in the three months to October were 11 per cent. higher in volume than a year earlier. The main impetus to growth over this period has come from the recovery in activity in the industrial countries, and our exports have grown rapidly to these countries.
    Mr. Forman: Although I welcome that news, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he and his Department have done enough to help British exporters who want to concentrate on the fast-growing economies in the world, such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, which are sucking in an increasing quantity of imports and in which British exporters could exploit many good opportunities?
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that British exporters have been increasing their volume of exports to the OPEC countries faster than have any of our competitors. In the year to mid-1976 our exports to all oil-exporting countries went up by 40 per cent. and to Saudi Arabia by 131 per cent.
    Mr. Canavan: As it is now clear that the Shadow Cabinet has been infiltrated by Right-wing extremists, will my hon. Friend reject any suggestions from spokesmen on the Opposition Front
    1854
    Bench that we should increase trade with some of their friends in Fascist countries such as South Africa? Will he also reject any suggestions that there should be an increase in trade in birches, gallows and other instruments of death and torture such as is proposed by the skinhead of Cathcart?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend knows that we have a firm embargo on arms to South Africa. I am glad to say that the main thrust of our exports is into other, more salubrious parts of the world.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister say, in clarification, whether it is still the Government's policy to seek to expand further our trade with Eastern European and Communist countries?
    Mr. Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to the Front Bench. I should like to give him the traditional greeting by saying that I am sure he will have a long time there in which to develop his skills. We shall certainly seek to expand our trade with Eastern European and COMECON countries. With the exception of the USSR, our current trade surplus in those countries is in excess of £100 million.

    Financial Institutions (Review)
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he expects to announce the terms of reference and the membership of the joint Department of Trade and Bank of England body reviewing the role and function of financial institutions in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Dell: Within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Renton: Is the real purpose of this body simply to muzzle for the time being demands of the left wing for the nationalisation of the clearing banks? If the body is to serve a useful purpose, will the Secretary of State ensure that those serving on it are drawn not just from the kitchen cabinet cronies of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) but from people who have a lifetime of interest in the matter on which the body is reporting?
    Mr. Dell: I suspect from the nature of the supplementary question that the hon. Gentleman is confused. We are not talking about the committee to be established under my right hon. Friend the Member

    1855
    for Huyton. We are talking about a joint review body established between the Bank of England and my Department to improve supervision of the securities market. That is a valuable purpose which I am sure the body will effectively carry out.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that the decision to establish this body does not pre-empt any future decision or mean that the Government are opposed to the establishment of an independent body to supervise the securities market—a body which would be answerable to the House through Ministers? Will he tell the House what the relationship between this body and the Take-Over Panel will be?
    Mr. Dell: The Take-Over Panel will no doubt consult this body when matters relating to it and matters affecting the securities market arise. It was made clear when the existence of this body was announced that it would not pre-empt the considerations of the committee of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. Nor does it pre-empt any decision that a Government might take or that that committee might recommend regarding a different way of supervising the securities market. Nothing is pre-empted here, but in the meantime it seemed to the Governor of the Bank of England and myself that a body such as this one should be set up because in the short term, too, there is a valuable job to be done and it might be that my right hon. Friend's committee would be persuaded that a body of this sort—perhaps developed in some way—was itself sufficient for the purpose.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will give an assurance that the EEC common agricultural policy will be included in the multilateral trade negotiations and that the principles and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy are negotiable.
    Mr. Meacher: Agricultural trade is included in the negotiations, and the common agricultural policy will be operated to take account of whatever agreements are reached in the negotiations.
    Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister agree that one of the advantages of the CAP and membership of the EEC should be easier access to food supplies throughout the Community? If so, what action is he taking to protect the trade in agricultural products between France and Great Britain, and what is he doing about the blacking by Southampton dockers of the proposed new service operated by Brittany Ferries between Portsmouth and St. Malo, in which the Portsmouth ratepayers have a £1 million stake?
    Mr. Meacher: I think that the connection between unilateral trade negotiations and the Portsmouth ratepayer is tenuous to the point of invisibility. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table a specific Question on that highly technical matter, I will see that he receives an answer.
    Mr. Madden: How many foodstuffs such as butter are nearly twice as dear for the British housewife if they originate from the Common Market as would be the case if they were available to us on the world market? What is my hon. Friend's Department doing to end the ramshackle policy of the CAP which was designed to benefit French farmers and which is working against the interests of British housewives and inevitably increasing the cost of all foodstuffs?
    Mr. Meacher: The question of higher butter prices as a result of the CAP depends upon the relationship between EEC prices and world prices, which fluctuate. I shall be glad to give my hon. Friend the latest figures. On the question of the multilateral trade negotiations, I would certainly hope that cheaper food imports will be one of the results. I envisage that there will be discussion of tariff reductions, of international commodity agreements and of a co-ordination of trading agreements in key products such as milk, butter and meat. I hope that the consequence will be some reduction in the cost of food imports.

    Inflation Accounting
    Mr. Parkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what reports and representations he has received regarding the introduction of inflation accounting; who will ultimately be responsible for the treatment of net monetary assets; and on

    1857
    what date he now expects inflation accounting to be introduced.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): On the first point, my officials have kept closely in touch with the work of the Inflation Accounting Steering Group in preparing the exposure draft on current cost accounting. This will be published on 1st December, and I cannot anticipate its contents on the last two points mentioned by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Parkinson: Will the Minister confirm that accounts prepared on an inflation accounting basis would show that very few British companies are making profits or have made profits in recent years and would underline still further the rather foolish nature of the criticism of British industry for its failure to invest?
    Mr. Davis: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, may I congratulate him on his elevation to the Front Bench and express the hope that he will continue to support the Government and oppose his party as effectively as he did on the recent companies legislation? The hon. Gentleman is really asking me to anticipate not only the report but the discussion of the matter of current cost accounting. It would be wrong for me to do that.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my hon. Friend accept that the implications of this are very great for the trade union movement? Has he had any discussions with the Trades Union Congress about the implementation of these recommendations?
    Mr. Davis: I have had no discussions with the TUC because at this stage we are concerned with the report of the steering group and I do not know whether the TUC has itself communicated with the steering group. I very much hope that it has done so.

    European Community (Multilateral Negotiations)
    Mr. William Sheltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals Her Majesty's Government have made to the EEC to expedite the multilateral trade negotiations.
    Mr. Meacher: Her Majesty's Government have made clear in various circles
    1858
    that we look for a rapid conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations.
    Mr. Shelton: Is not the Minister being too complacent? Should he not urge the Commission to speed the negotiations as quickly as possible, since to date little agreement has been reached, the already postponed target date for tariff cuts is now only a year away, and the American authority to negotiate under the Trade Act 1975 lapses in two or three years' time?
    Mr. Meacher: We are anxious to see an early conclusion to the MTNs and my right hon. Friend will take initiatives as may be appropriate to secure this end. We have the approach of the new American Administration and we also will be having changes in personnel in the Commission of the European Communities. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the early conclusion of powers under the United States Trade Act which end at the end of 1978. That is one reason for concluding negotiations at the latest by the early part of 1978 to ensure that Congress has time to take the necessary action.

    Tourism
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he is satisfied that the views of the private sector interests are adequately represented in the formation of policies affecting tourism.
    Mr. Meacher: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Hicks: Does not the Minister agree that the private sector activities and facilities still form the majority part of the tourist industry? Will he consider the possibility of increasing regular but informal discussion meetings chaired by himself at which all interested groups can be represented?
    Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the crucial importance of the private sector in the promotion of tourism and the carrying out of projects. The heart of consultation lies in regular daily contact between the Department's officials and Ministers and the private sector about specific projects that take place. That already takes place. I am ready to discuss the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about specific discussions if I receive representations from the appropriate bodies.
    Mr. Costain: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to an answer I received recently showing that unemployment had risen from 2 per cent. to 8 per cent. in Folkestone and Hythe, a constituency which has not a hope of getting any industry because of the priority given to development and other areas? Will the hon. Gentleman put on his thinking cap and consider ways of giving similar priority to tourism in these areas, because that is our only hope of getting unemployment down?
    Mr. Meacher: Other forms of selective assistance are available under the Industry Acts 1972 and 1975 for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry is responsible, and the hon. Gentleman can make his representations in that quarter.
    As regards changing the guidelines which were set down in November 1974 with regard to the pursuit of tourism, we need an opportunity to see whether they are working effectively. Given the limitation on funds, if we were to make an extension to certain South Coast resorts, for example, the thin spread of assistance would be likely to weaken the whole effect of the exercise.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the satisfaction expressed in his initial answer was not shared by those members of the Association of Wessex Guides to whom I was making my presidential address on Saturday afternoon? Is he aware that, on the whole, those in the tourist industry believe that successive Governments have not taken the tourist industry sufficiently seriously? Will he pay particular attention to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks)?
    Mr. Meacher: I have said that I shall respond as positively as I can to representations of that kind. The Government do not understate the importance of the tourist industry, because the industry's export earnings in the current year are likely to be about £1½ billion.

    Aircraft Noise
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a further statement relating to endeavours to reduce aircraft noise with particular reference to flights passing over the London borough of Ealing.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Our continued application of the existing noise abatement measures at Heathrow, plus the steps being taken to ensure progressive reduction of aircraft noise at source, will, I hope, be of benefit to Ealing as well as to other places near airports.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that, notwithstanding my correspondence with him, there has been no abatement of noise over the London borough of Ealing? It is causing grave concern and is having a deleterious effect on the lives of many people. What steps are to be taken in a sincere and determined endeavour to reduce the noise and abate this menace?
    Mr. Davis: It would not be right for me to hold out any hope of dramatic action in the short term, although the prospect is more hopeful for the long term. I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about his constituents. I am equally anxious about the situation. The noise in the summer months and early autumn was higher due to the increased number of easterly take-offs and landings required because of the wind conditions. I hope that the recent improvement in noise levels will continue. We are examining with the Civil Aviation Authority factors that will reduce easterly take-offs and landings, but I must always be concerned with the question of safety and the environmental benefit.
    Mr. Jessel: Has the Minister been notified of the decision by the French Government to bring in, from April 1977, a differential airport charge so that quiet aircraft are required to pay less than noisy aircraft? Can we introduce a similar scheme?
    Mr. Davis: We should seek an international harmonised scheme to deal with the matter rather than individual Governments going their own ways. We must have regard to our own British aviation interest and balance that, as we always try to do, against the environmental interests with which the hon. Member is so rightly concerned.
    Mr. Buchan: Apart from dealing with aircraft noise through the aircraft themselves, is not my hon. Friend aware that many thousands of people in my constituency, for example, remain perplexed at the criteria applied when giving

    1861
    Government grants? Is he aware that only between 200 and 500 people in my area outside Glasgow have received grants? Should not this matter be considered urgently?
    Mr. Davis: I do not think that there are any great difficulties about the criteria, but there are always anomalies in looking at criteria. I shall certainly examine any specific case to which my hon. Friend draws my attention.
    Mrs. Bain: What attention, if any, is being paid to the procedures adopted at Zurich and New York Kennedy Airports, where local residents are better looked after than they are, for instance, at Abbotsinch and Ealing?
    Mr. Davis: If the hon. Lady were to ask the residents near those airports, I am not sure that they would give her the answer that she expects.

    Japan
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what further representations he has made to the Japanese Government about the imbalance between Japanese imports to Great Britain and British exports to Japan.
    Mr. Simsasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the state of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan in the light of the recent visit to this country by a Japanese delegation to discuss trade.
    Mr. Dell: In recent discussions with the Keidanren delegation, we made it clear that the level of our visible trade deficit with Japan is unacceptable. Similar views were expressed by the other EEC countries which the Keidanren visited. I understand that these views are now being considered urgently in Japan and I hope for an early response. The European Council will be discussing these matters at its next meeting.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he is not looking to the EEC to carry out the bulk of this negotiation? Does he agree that the imbalance of visible trade is greater between this country and Japan than it is between any other Western European country and Japan?
    Mr. Dell: For its common commercial policy, the European Community has a definite interest in this matter. It strengthens our position to be associated with it in this discussion. It is true that we have a serious deficit with Japan and that it has increased, but other member countries have large deficits with Japan which are also increasing and they are as concerned as we are about the situation.
    Mr. Sims: Is it not true that the expansion of exports to Japan depends not only on the wording of Japan's regulations but on the spirit in which they are deployed? Will he use his good offices to persuade the Japanese authorities that it is in their interests as well as ours to adopt a less rigid approach and a more co-operative implementation of their regulations?
    Mr. Dell: I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have made it clear that there must be a reduction in this deficit and that it is better if that reduction takes place primarily through an increase in Japanese imports.
    Mr. Alexander Wilson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what percentage of imports from Japan is attributable to the Joseph Lucas Company, which buys all its car lighting equipment from Japan when we have 18 units capable of supplying them in Britain? There is one in my constituency.
    Mr. Dell: I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure without notice.
    Mr. Powell: Will the Secretary of State make it clear that the trading accounts which are referred to in Questions such as this are the trading accounts of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Dell: The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, quite right. I am sorry that I misunderstood his earlier question.

    Employee Participation
    Mr. John Pageasked the Secretary of State for Trade when he now expects to publish the report of the Bullock Committee on worker participation.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I expect to receive the committee's report before the end of the year, and it will be published as soon as possible.
    Mr. Page: In the light of the differences of view already expressed by a number of industrialists, trade union leaders and even, I understand, members of the committee, will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to ensure that nothing about the implementation of the Bullock Committee is put in the Gracious Speech, so that there can be proper discussion before legislation is prepared?
    Mr. Davis: I cannot anticipate what is to appear in the Gracious Speech. I regret the orchestrated campaign by the Right-wing Press to undermine the Bullock proposals before they have been published. That is a narrow, misguided and defeatist view which flies in the face of the improvements that are needed in worker-management relationships.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable pressure from all sides of industry, including management, for an advance towards industrial democracy in both the public and private sectors?
    Mr. Davis: That is a sensible approach.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that his Government are not good judges of what is good for industry? Does he not agree that there is a world of difference between employee participation and trade union participation? Will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not support, or be pressurised into supporting, any plans which would involve trade unions appointing to company boards personnel who are not employees of those companies?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Member's judgment is not impeccable. He had his own views on the Common Market, from which at one time I did not dissent. He will have to contain his impatience a little concerning the contents of the Bullock Report.

    Low-Cost Imports
    Mr. Joplingasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he will take antidumping action against imports of goods when it can be shown the landed cost of the finished article in the United Kingdom is less than the cost at which British producers can buy the raw materials required to make them.
    Mr. Meacher: No, Sir. While the relationship of these costs raises a presumption of dumping, it is not evidence which would satisfy the requirements of our legislation and the GATT Code, which are based on the relationship of export and domestic prices in the country of origin.
    Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the incorrect figure in what I said on 18th October about shoe imports from COMECON countries. How can the Government possibly justify a policy which is leading to factory closures and redundancies in the shoe industry caused entirely by shoes coming in from abroad at a price below the cost of the materials in this country?
    Mr. Meacher: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now recognises that the figure he gave in his earlier question was wildly wrong. The figure he quoted was only just over one-third of the correct figure. We have taken action with regard to shoes from Czechoslovakia, Poland and Romania. Men's shoes are retaining their level below the 1974 level of trade, and women's and children's shoes below the 1975 level. That is a substantial advance. We cannot take action in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests, because many foreign producers may well have access to cheaper indigenous raw materials, cheaper labour, cheaper hydroelectric power or whatever else than is available to United Kingdom manufacturers.
    Mrs. Castle: Is it not extraordinarily difficult to obtain evidence of internal pricing in countries such as Japan, as the European bearings industry found in preparing its recent anti-dumping case, with which it has successfully impressed the Commission? Is not the real answer for the Government and the Commission to get much tougher generally over imports from Japan and other low-cost countries?
    Mr. Meacher: My right hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about imports of tapered roller bearings and ball bearings. She is right to say that there were difficulties in obtaining up-to-date information from Japan on price relativities and discounts, but these have been obtained. As for taking firmer action against Japan, Ministers not only in Britain but in other countries in the

    1865
    West expressed their very strong concern during the recent visit of the Keidanren delegation to Britain and elsewhere in Europe about Japan's exporting policy and the need substantially to increase its purchases from the West. We are looking for urgent action on that front in the near future.
    Mr. Shersby: Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No" to the question whether he has taken action to prevent the importation into this country of shoes at less than the cost at which manufacturers in this country can produce them? In particular, will he deal with the question of sandals?
    Mr. Meacher: I have already answered that question, but obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening. I made clear that that was not a basis for operating under the 1969 Act. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the newspapers, where he will see that we have accepted for full investigation the question of men's leather sandals from Czechoslovakia.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Has my hon. Friend had recent evidence of the disastrous amount of imports of ready-made clothing, resulting in the closure of factories in the North-East of England as well as elsewhere? Is he prepared to take fresh action in that regard?
    Mr. Meacher: The case put to us by the Clothing Manufacturers' Federation was accepted for full investigation in September. I hope that we shall be able to conclude the investigation within a month or two.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that if something is not done soon to prevent the flood of low-cost imports of shoes and textiles there will be neither a shoe factory nor a textile factory left in this country within 10 years? Will he therefore seek to renegotiate the burden of proof, so that those seeking to bring in low-cost materials must prove that they are not dumped, rather than that we should have to take up to a year to prove that they are?
    Mr. Meacher: This Government have taken more action to obtain price and volume undertakings, and more action on the anti-dumping front, than any pre-
    1866
    vious Government, particularly in respect of textiles and footwear. Through the EEC we have negotiated no fewer than 13 bilateral restraint agreements with all the low-cost producers of textiles. As for the onus of proof being put on importers, it was announced in the Press on Friday—but the hon. Lady obviously missed the announcement—that we are considering what further information can be obtained and made available about the domestic price in the country of origin of goods that are being shipped to this country. We are examining this question very carefully with Customs and Excise. I hope that we shall be able to take action very soon.

    Companies (Inspection of Books)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many inquiries his Department is conducting currently under Section 109 of the Companies Act 1967.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Forty-three.
    Mr. Canavan: If my hon. Friend grants my request for an investigation into the affairs of Scottish and Universal Investments Ltd., will he try to find out exactly what happened to the £4 million discrepancy in its balance sheets? In particular, will he try to find out whether any of that money went directly or indirectly to any political party, as the company chairman, Sir Hugh Fraser, who was also involved in some of the suspicious share dealings, is a well-known financial supporter of the Scottish National Party, which in my constituency has previously been found guilty of cooking the books in its election returns?
    Mr. Davis: It is not the Department's practice to disclose when and the manner in which it carries out confidential investigations.
    Mr. Ridley: On a point of order—
    Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to follow recent custom and raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?
    Later—
    Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order arising out of Question No. 13.

    1867
    The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), in a supplementary question, implied that a citizen outside this House, Sir Hugh Fraser, had made large-scale donations to a political party, which he did not disclose in the accounts of his company. I am no supporter of the Scottish National Party to which Sir Hugh is supposed to have made these donations, but I believe that it would be quite wrong for an hon. Member to make allegations of this sort, suggesting that a citizen has broken the law, unless he can produce evidence to substantiate it. I would have thought that you would ask the hon. Member either to withdraw his allegations or to repeat them outside of this House so that the aggrieved citizen can take the necessary legal action. I hope that you will consider that it is a serious breach of the privileges of the House for the hon. Member to be able to make allegations of this sort and get away with them.
    Mr. Canavan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I merely asked the Minister to inquire into this and find out exactly what the truth is so that we may know where this £4 million went. The other point I made in my supplementary question—and it is well known in Scotland—was that Sir Hugh Fraser gives financial assistance to the Scottish National Party. That is common knowledge and I shall repeat it outside of this House.
    Mr. Speaker: When an hon. Member refers to people outside of this House he takes upon himself the responsibility for so doing. That is a long-established custom.

    Import Controls
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Trade what estimate he has made of the effect which those advocating import controls have had in accelerating imports and adversely affecting recent balance of payments trade figures.
    Mr. Dell: I have made no estimate.
    Mr. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's resistance to generalised import controls and to the lunacy advocated by some members of his party is very much to be com-
    1868
    mended? Does he realise, however, that a number of industrialists perhaps take the absurd nonsense talked by the Labour Party's National Executive rather more seriously than he does and have been stocking up in anticipation of some decisions in this respect? Will he confirm that it is his view that generalised import controls are no solution to our problems?
    Mr. Dell: The Government's position on the matter has repeatedly been made clear. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear in his Budget Statement on 6th April. That is the Government's position. There may have been forestalling. If there has, it is very difficult to be absolutely certain of its extent.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: I have heard nobody talking about a siege economy or generalised import controls, but there has been a strong representation to the Government by the TUC and CBI jointly that we should have selective import controls. Will my right hon. Friend look at the electronics industry, where something needs to be done very quickly? The Government have received representations from that industry that Japanese imports have killed off certain manufacturing industries in this country and that further industries will suffer unless the Government act quickly.
    Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has a later Question on the Order Paper about precisely this point. The paper which I submitted to NEDC on 2nd October was published in a recent edition of Trade and Industry. If my hon. Friend studies it, he will find that we have many selective controls on imports. As for consumer electronics, he will no doubt have noticed that the British industry has recently been in consultation with the Japanese industry and has come to an understanding with it about imports next year which, I understand, it found satisfactory.

    Diesel Trains (Import)
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether licences have been sought for the import of heavy freight diesel trains—Class 56—manufactured under licence in Romania; and what is the total value of the orders concerned.
    Mr. Meacher: The import of heavy freight diesel trains is not subject to individual licensing. I understand that the value of the locomotives assembled in Romania, which were the subject of recent reports in the Press, was £8·4 million, of which the import content was about 15 per cent.—namely, £1·2 million.
    Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will exert maximum pressure on British Rail to ensure that its requirements for equipment are met as far as possible from domestic British sources, as procurement from overseas will undoubtedly have an effect on both British Rail employees and employees in British manufacturing industry?
    Mr. Meacher: The purchasing policy of British Rail is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I shall see that my hon. Friend's representations are conveyed to him. I understand that British Rail sought the purchase of 60 locomotives of a type that it wanted urgently delivered mainly because of a higher forecast of freight traffic, especially in coal. Only Brush, in conjunction with a Romanian company, was able to supply within the required delivery deadlines. The order was deliberately split fifty-fifty to safeguard jobs so far as possible within Britain.
    Mr. Burden: Does the Minister agree that the best way of ensuring that the nationalised industries, including the railways, place more orders with British firms is to allow them to plan well into the future and to submit them to far less interference and control by Government Departments?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that domestic purchasing by the public sector within Britain is at a much higher level than similar purchasing by the private sector.
    Mr. Bagier: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better if the railway workshops and those who are producing for the home market were given far more scope in tendering for the home market and far more scope in going for overseas orders?
    Mr. Meacher: I appreciate the force of my hon. Friend's point, but I must tell
    1870
    him that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Special Steels (United States Import Restrictions)
    Mr. Stan Crowtherasked the Secretary of State for Trade what protest he has made against the action of the United States Government in unilaterally imposing restrictions on the import of certain special steels from the United Kingdom and other EEC countries.
    Mr. Meacher: Most recently in my right hon. Friend's speech in New York on 15th November. The EEC has protested and fully reserved our GATT Article XIX rights.
    Mr. Crowther: Does my hon. Friend accept that those engaged in the special steels industry will warmly welcome the fact that protests have been made and will strongly support what I hope will be continuing protests as long as this imposition continues? Does he agree that there is a certain tragic irony in the fact that an important section of British industry is being attacked in this way by the United States Government at the same time as our Government are still resolutely refusing to consider taking similar measures for the protection of British industry?
    Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the acute concern that is felt in the special steels industry over American action. We have ensured that the American Government are in no doubt about our view that the injury to American domestic industry is caused by the economic depression and not by increased imports. I hope that the American Administration, as a result of the strong representations that have been made through the EEC, will soon decide to remove or modify restrictions at an early date. As for protection for the British special steels industry, my hon. Friend will know that we have secured from Japan, which is the main import problem for the United Kingdom, both price and volume undertakings that will reduce the level of imports of special steels from Japan next year below the level prevailing during this year.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as a result of the "grandfather" clause in American

    1871
    legislation, especially in the American trade legislation of 1974, it is far easier for the United States to take quick, unilateral protectionist action than it is for the British Government to do so? Will the Government be discussing this matter with the United States at Geneva during the current round of multilateral trade negotiations?
    Mr. Meacher: The answer is certainly "Yes". On 15th November my right hon. Friend made special reference to this fact. It is true that the "grandfather" clause gives America special privileges. They are wearing a little thin after such a long time, but they will be on the agenda for the MTNs.

    Air Fares
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the progress being made in the negotiations aimed at reducing the scale of air fares in Europe.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: No intergovernmental negotiations are taking place. However, the Civil Aviation Authority, which has responsibility for these matters in the United Kingdom, has recently announced its intention of conducting a public consultation early next year on the level of normal economy fares between this country and the rest of Europe. The United Kingdom is also participating in a study of intra-European air fares in general which is being conducted by the European Civil Aviation Conference.
    Mr. McCrindle: Although I welcome the CAA's initiative, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that the difficulty is likely to be that any agreement that may be reached as a result of these investigations will have to be agreed with all the European operators? In these circumstances, will the Government give any consideration to the possibility of bilateral agreement between this country and selected operators in Europe?
    Mr. Davis: I think we must seek overall agreement, if that is reasonably possible, within a reasonable time scale. We shall give consideration to the hon. Gentleman's point if it is clear beyond any doubt that no such agreement will be forthcoming.
    Mr. Freud: As no one really believes that the price of air fares will come down, will the hon. Gentleman at least do something about making London Airport slightly less inefficient than it now is? In world aviation there is no question that one waits longer for luggage in London than anywhere else and finds it harder to meet anyone than anywhere else and harder to park than anywhere else.
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman may realise when he considers these matters a little more profoundly that I am not responsible for the operation of Heathrow Airport. I suggest that he communicates not with the CAA but with the British Airports Authority. The hon. Gentleman has a lot to learn.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take action to secure fairer charges by British Airways within the United Kingdom, the cost per mile from Stornoway, in my constituency, to Glasgow being double the cost from Glasgow to London?
    Mr. Davis: That is a matter essentially to be determined between the CAA and the British Airports Authority.

    USSR (Credits)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what amount of the £950 million credit offered to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has been taken up at the latest available date.
    Mr. Meacher: The total value of contracts placed under the agreement to date is approximately £42 million. Discussions are continuing on further substantial contracts between United Kingdom exporters and buyers in the USSR.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not an extraordinary situation when we are offering to lend money for the building of factories in Russia at rates of interest much lower than those which have to be paid by our own industry if it is building factories in Britain, all this being done at a cost to the British taxpayer that the Government refuse to disclose?
    Mr. Meacher: If exporters are to get a proper share of this important and expanding market, they have to offer credit and interest rates on a competitive

    1873
    basis. The conditions of the framework for our trade with the USSR were settled not by us but by our competitors. The hon. Gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he is saying to British industry—it will not agree with him—that he does not wish to see any trade with the USSR. As regards domestic industry, it is the case that if money has to be borrowed it has to be at the going interest rate. However, there are wide-ranging grants to assist industry to get money for desired investment at cheaper rates.
    Mr. Greville Janner: What is the current state of the balance of trade between Britain and the USSR?
    Mr. Meacher: We are in substantial deficit.
    Mr. Neubert: How much of the trade between the United Kingdom and the USSR is carried in British ships? What progress is the Department making on its own, or in concert with other European countries, to combat the urgent threat that is posed by cut-price Soviet shipping?
    Mr. Meacher: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures without notice, but I shall write to him on this matter.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the total amount of credits outstanding to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the auspices of ECGD.
    Mr. Meacher: The total amount of credit outstanding is not confined to contracts placed under the £950 million credit agreement. However, for commercial reasons, it has been the practice of successive Administrations not to disclose figures of ECGD's cover in respect of individual markets.
    Mr. Ridley: Since the Government seem determined to conceal this figure, may I tell the Minister that my estimate is that it has now reached £1,200 million? Why do the Government insist on investing more in Russian industry than they do in British industry when they obtain no dividends from Soviet investment but only low-priced imports?
    Mr. Meacher: We are in no way investing specially in the Soviet market.
    1874
    We are merely ensuring that British exporters who wish to take advantage of the substantially expanding Soviet market should be able to use the facilities available to them in that market as well as in other markets on a competitive basis.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many manufacturers who welcome the Government's endeavours because they will enable them to increase their trade with the Soviet Union, which is a good thing for our industry? Is he not aware that the anger among Conservatives is that such sensible and intelligent behaviour is in direct contrast to the attitude of the Opposition, and especially of the Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to abolish any talk-in with the Soviet Union, wants to see the end of detente and wishes to get down to having a first-class war?
    Mr. Meacher: I am well aware of the political myopia of the Opposition, particularly their Leader, with regard to the Soviet Union.

    United States of America
    Mr. John H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for Trade what initiatives he will now take with the new Administration of the United States of America to improve trade between the United States of America and Great Britain and provide better opportunities for British exporters.
    Mr. Dell: I made a speech in New York a week ago, during which I indicated some areas in which our trading relationships might be improved. I have put copies in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Osborn: I was hoping for a more general report. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether future negotiations will be bilateral or within the context of the EEC which is making purchases? There are obstacles, including tariffs and quotas, and in particular quota restrictions on steel. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the latest position?
    Mr. Dell: We have just discussed the subject of steel, and as a Community we have made strong representations on the subject of special steels. I referred to this matter in a recent speech and on other occasions. We have discussed this

    1875
    matter recently in bilateral talks with the United States Government, and we shall also be discussing these matters in the context of the multilateral trade negotiations.
    Mr. Powell: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that economic opportunities in the United States are of importance to all parts of the United Kingdom, not only to Great Britain?
    Mr. Dell: I do indeed.
    Mr. Loyden: What progress, if any, has been made towards reaching international agreement on standards for motor cars, bearing in mind recent events in the United States which may well be to the detriment of the British car industry?
    Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend will know that this subject arises in a number of parts of the world. We shall take up with the United States Government, and indeed with any other Government, the standards that tend to operate as non-tariff barriers against our exports.
    Mr. Adley: As President-elect Carter has shown himself such a keen exponent of pursuing the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, will the Secretary of State find out whether Mr. Carter has read the Coleman Report on Concorde, and, if he has not, will he invite him to do so? Will he also ask Mr. Carter whether his future pronouncements on Concorde will be based on fact rather than fancy and prejudice?
    Mr. Dell: I am sure that the President-elect of the United States will take seriously the evidence at Dulles Airport, Washington, in regard to arrivals and departures of Concorde which are acceptable on environmental grounds.

    Ball Bearings
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to support the representations made to the Commission of the EEC in May by the whole of the bearing industry in the EEC for protective measures to be taken against low-priced imports from Japan and the COMECON countries; and if he will ascertain when the Commission's response is likely to be published.
    Mr. Meacher: Following an application for Community anti-dumping action against imports of roller bearings from Japan by the Committee of the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the case has now been accepted for full investigation at Community level.
    Mrs. Castle: In my Question I was referring not to anti-dumping but to the massive memorandum submitted by the European bearings industry to the Commission in May, which clearly shows that the Japanese share of the bearings market in Europe and the United States has been rising alarmingly in the past few years as a result of a deliberate price-cutting policy by Japanese industry. Will Her Majesty's Government make clear to Japanese industry that, unless it increases the price of its exports and voluntarily controls their volume, Her Majesty's Government will have no alternative but to impose import controls?
    Mr. Meacher: The Government have made it clear that they are ready to consider a policy of selective import controls, but in this case it was British industry which chose the anti-dumping route. Having combined with the European Bearing Manufacturers Association, the British Government are prevented, now that we are part of the EEC, from taking action under Article 26 of the EEC antidumping regulations in terms of independent national action. We shall support the British industry in its representations, and as members of the EEC anti-dumping committee we shall consider the evidence obtained and the remedies to be applied.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Minister reconsider what the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said in her supplementary question? Is it not a fact that all the evidence was supplied to the Department early in 1976 and that what happened was that because the Department sat on the matter it went to the Commission? Is not the point at issue the price of the dumped imports rather than quota controls? Unless action is taken, are not the prospects for our industry severe?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the problem of dumped prices, which is the precise subject now being investigated at Community level. There were difficulties in regard to material

    1877
    injury criteria and in obtaining the support of the other major bearing manufacturers on the original application. Furthermore, there was a problem in obtaining the updated price relativities and discounts then ruling in Japan. That information took a couple of months to obtain, and by the time that evidence came forward application was being made at Community level.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the general dissatisfaction in the House about his answers on dumping questions concerning textiles, footwear and now ball bearings? When is a decision likely to be taken on anti-dumping action against the importation of ball bearings?
    Mr. Meacher: I hope that the case will be quickly pursued and a conclusion reached at an early stage. We shall do all in our power to ensure that that happens. A total of 22 investigations has been pursued by the EEC since 1970. Aside from four which are now being investigated, of the remaining 18 some 15 secured satisfactory price undertakings.

    Civil Aviation (Private Landing Facilities)
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority with regard to future landing facilities for private aircraft at airports in the London area.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I am awaiting the advice of the Civil Aviation Authority and the Standing Conference on London and South-East Regional Planning on aerodrome facilities for general aviation in South-East England, following consultations which they are now undertaking with all those concerned.
    Mr. Shersby: What consideration has been given to the continuing use of Gatwick Airport by private aircraft, and has the alternative of Northolt Airport been considered?
    Mr. Davis: The question of Gatwick has been considered by the British Airports Authority, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Authority published a policy statement following consultations on the subject of Heathrow and Gatwick. As for the general policy on whether Northolt or anywhere else may he used
    1878
    to the greater advantage of general aviation, the hon. Gentleman must await the results of consultations now taking place and also the national airports strategy which is being undertaken by the Government.
    Mr. Emery: Does not the Minister realise that if we go on waiting and waiting private flying, particularly commercial private flying associated with the business of taxi transportation and the like, will suffer severely? Does he accept that this area of transportation is in a much worse position in London than in most other industrial capitals, and will the Government do something about the situation quickly?
    Mr. Davis: The question of general aviation is complementary to the development of a national airports strategy. The hon. Gentleman's remarks were directed more broadly to take in the consultations on a national airports strategy. If, however, he is arguing that we should not engage in consultations but instead should embark on the policies pursued by the Conservative Government, the House will recognise that that would be utter folly.
    Mr. Ford: In connection with the national airports strategy, may I ask my hon. Friend, when he is asked to comment on the application for an extension of the runway at Leeds-Bradford Airport, to cause his Department to give the matter immediate and urgent attention?
    Mr. Davis: That issue does not arise out of this Question. My hon. Friend should make representations concerning this matter to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and myself.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1911
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement on the Government's intentions on the reform of Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. This section, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose official information without authority, has for some time been regarded as too broad in its scope. It has been described as a "catch all" and there has been uncertainty about its interpretation and enforcement.

1879
The Government have concluded that this section should be replaced by an Official Information Act on the broad lines recommended by the Franks Committee. The Committee, whose membership included representatives of Parliament—including myself-and the media, and which presented a unanimous report, recommended that the sanctions of the criminal law should be strictly limited in their application. It is, of course, with the criminal law that we are here concerned and not the practices and rules about disclosure of information in the public service. The normal sanctions of the rules of conduct against disclosures of official information will continue to apply.
The Franks Committee recommended that the criminal law should apply to disclosure of information relating to foreign affairs, defence and internal security, and currency and the reserves when that information is classified "Secret" or above or, in the case of certain defence information, classified as "Defence—Confidential", and also to the disclosure of Cabinet documents, confidences of the citizen and certain information in the field of law and order, such as information that would facilitate crime. Information in these three last categories was to be protected regardless of any security classification.
The Government accept the Committee's general approach to the problem, but in considering the categories of information that ought to be protected by the criminal law we think it right to draw a clearer distinction between home and economic policy on the one hand and security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other. The unauthorised disclosure of any official information is wrong because it is unauthorised. But in the domestic area it will generally result in embarrassment to the Government of the day and not in any serious damage to the national interest. In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other hand, such damage may well result.
In the economic sphere the Government have reached the conclusion that a criminal sanction is not justified. It is relevant that the Franks Report was prepared at a time of fixed exchange rates. In any case it would not, in the Govern-
1880
ment's view, be appropriate to distinguish between currency and the reserves and, for example, domestic interest rates and monetary and fiscal policies. Faced with a realistic choice between applying criminal sanctions to a wider economic category and the exclusion of economic information from their ambit, it seems right to us that the criminal offence should not extend to economic information.
The Government also propose to depart from the Franks recommendation that there should be a criminal sanction for the disclosure of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents, irrespective of their content and security classification. The Committee rested the case for inclusion of this category on the need to safeguard the collective responsibility of the Cabinet.
The doctrine of collective responsibility is fundamental to our system of government and the Government totally accept that the documents of the Cabinet and its Committees deserve special protection. They do not, however, consider that the protection should consist of applying criminal sanctions to the disclosure of documents irrespective of their content and classification. The bulk of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents deal with domestic affairs. The protection of these documents is a matter basically of trust and good sense among colleagues. It is also a matter of ensuring that the principles and special procedures for distributing and handling Cabinet documents are properly observed and improved where necessary. In that connection the report of Lord Houghton's Committee on Cabinet document security will be published shortly and the Government's conclusions on it made known at the same time.
The Government have, therefore, concluded that Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents should be protected by criminal sanctions only when, by their content and security classification, they fall into one of the other categories so protected.
The Government accept the need to protect by criminal sanctions the Franks Committee's proposed categories of confidences of the citizen and certain law and order information, as well as that of disclosure for gain, to which the report of the Royal Commission on Standards

1881
of Conduct in Public Life is relevant. These depend upon special considerations for which we believe that the Committee has made a case.
In the areas of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, the Government have concluded that some rearrangement and extension of the Franks categories is required. Information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. The Government propose, therefore, that this should form a separate category.
In defence, the Franks Committee recommended that confidential information relating to military weapons and equipment should be given the special marking of "Defence—Confidential" and should be protected by criminal sanctions. The Government have concluded that confidential information of a sensitive and potentially damaging kind goes rather wider than this in both the defence and international fields. It extends to certain areas of defence policy and strategy and of international relations where unauthorised disclosure would be prejudicial to British interests, to relations with a foreign Government or to the safety of British citizens. The Government therefore propose to extend this Franks concept to become "Defence and International—Confidential" and to define it somewhat more widely than Franks.
The Government believe that their conclusion represents a system more liberal than that proposed by the Franks Committee, but one which secures the highest degree of protection for information the disclosure of which may cause serious harm to the interests of the nation. Legislation on this basis will be introduced as soon as is practicable, but it cannot be during the coming Session. Although much detail remains to be worked out, I thought it right to inform the House of the Government's broad intentions.
Mr. Whitelaw: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as legislation on these matters cannot be introduced during the coming Session, there is clearly a case for the publication of a White Paper or a Green Paper so that there may be considerable discussion on a very important matter which affects a great many people in this country? Therefore, what is the
1882
point of making this statement today instead of publishing a White Paper or a Green Paper to promote discussion?
May I make two further points? First, I do not think there will be any doubt in the House that the security of the State must come first, and if questions of national security are involved the right hon. Gentleman will have the full backing of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members in taking the steps which are necessary in the interests of national security. He will also have such support on questions of private gain. If disclosures of information for private gain are involved, there will be widespread agreement in the House that they should come within the realms outlined by the right hon. Gentleman.
Having said that, would it not be better now to publish a paper to enable us to have a full discussion in the House on this subject instead of making a statement on it at the end of the present Session?
Mr. Rees: It is right that we should have further discussion in the House. I am surprised at the criticism about giving information to the House. I thought that the complaint always was that no information was given to the House. It was important that the statement should be made so that the Government's intentions might he taken into account. Although the operation of the Act is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, it will no doubt be open to the Attorney-General to take into account the Government's intention to introduce legislation on the lines I have indicated in considering whether to bring proceedings under Section 2. For that reason alone, it was vital that a statement should be made.
The question of private gain is the other side of the medal with regard to economic information, because it is one thing not to have criminal sanctions for the disclosure of economic information but another thing if the person who leaks the information uses it for private gain; and that would be covered under the Franks Report.
Mr. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, although the details of his proposals, if eventually implemented, will be most welcome, his statement can

1883
be no more than a softening-up process for the absence of a measure on this subject from the Queen's Speech? In view of the fact that it has featured in previous Queen's Speeches and has been the subject of regular promises, how can the Home Secretary justify the enormous delay in implementing recommendations in the Franks Report?
Mr. Rees: There is a lot of Home Office legislation that I should like to put through the House. I have no doubt that when we discuss the question of devolution in the next Session the Liberal Party will be very helpful in ensuring that the discussion does not become too extended, and then there may be time for legislation on this subject. We shall see.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to take note of what I said to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) about the need to be clear about the Government's intent. If the hon Gentleman considers the blunderbuss approach of Section 2 and changes which have taken place over the years, he will realise that there is no doubt that it is right that the Government should make clear their intent.
Mr. Edward Lyons: What will be the effect of the proposals on the citizen? Are the Government satisfied that the Franks Report was too restrictive in its original proposals?
Mr. Rees: Water has gone under the bridge since I served on the Franks Committee and I have indicated to what degree we shall liberalise the Franks Report. The Government, like the Franks Committee, accept that the mere receipt of official information should no longer be an offence. That answers my hon. and learned Friend's question about the ordinary citizen. A number of detailed recommendations on this matter have still to be considered.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: The Home Secretary spoke at such a great rate that I thought that he referred to the Attorney-General as the "Eternal General". May I put three questions to him?
First, is it not fair to say that what the Secretary of State has proposed could be more restrictive than the present system under which Section 2 has fallen
1884
into desuetude after the judgment of Mr. Justice Caulfield and should be put out to grass? Secondly, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his confusion about categories will make the situation worse. "Top Secret" will become "Super Secret: to be eaten by recipient". Therefore, the categorisation of information is the most stupid way that one could conceive for identifying it.
Thirdly, may I ask the Secretary of State how he managed to confine within his statement four different reports dealing with totally different matters, including Cabinet secrecy?
Mr. Rees: On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the situation. On the point before that, there is no confusion. On the first point about there being more restriction, the answer is "No". I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to read my statement before he asks questions.
Mr. George Cunningham: First, -foes my right hon. Friend accept that the important distinction is not between unauthorised information which is released with disciplinary consequences and that which is released with criminal consequences but between information which can be released and information which cannot be released? Cannot he do a great deal next year, even without a Bill, to ensure that more information within Whitehall is releasable without any con sequences at all?
Secondly, does my right hon. Friend realise that if we are to rely on disciplinary consequences to punish 'm offence it may well be that the loss (4 a pension to the person concerned is a great deal more severe in its effect than imposition of a fine?
Mr. Rees: On the first point, I think that my hon. Friend is right and chat my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have more to say about the question of open government. On the question of civil servants who abuse their position in government, my view—and it came out in the Franks Committee—was that there should not be criminal sanctions in every case but that the matter should be treated as it would be treated if a person was working for private industry and he broke the rules of the industry for which he worked.
Mr. Amery: I do not wish to express any views on the merits or demerits of the statement of the Secretary of State, but are we not running up against an important constitutional question? The Home Secretary has made a statement indicating the Government's intention. He has said that nothing will happen in the next Session. He has also indicated that the Attorney-General will be guided by his statement. What interpretation will be placed by the courts? Is it proper that legislation should be changed or modified by administrative fiat without changing the legislation?
Mr. Rees: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read carefully what I have said and will look at what is said in the Franks Report on the role of the Attorney-General and his consent on Section 2 aspects of the Official Secrets Act 1911. No doubt it would be open to the Attorney-General to take into account the Government's intention. Plainly the Attorney-General, when giving his consent under the "catch-all" aspect of Section 2, does not at the moment recommend that criminal proceedings should be taken in every case. That is one of the aspects of the broadness—the "catch-all" nature—of Section 2.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the recommendations of the Radcliffe Committee confirming the secrecy of Cabinet documents are now in force and in particular whether members of the present Cabinet have given the kind of undertaking suggested in those recommendations?
Mr. Rees: I cannot talk particularly about that matter because frankly I do not know the answer, but I shall bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. On the question of ministerial memoirs, plainly one must take into account the time when a memoir is published. If my right hon. Friend will look at the Franks Report, he will see that it is recommended that the declassification of documents should take place more regularly, and the report deals with the nature of the information that is revealed. Those two aspects would have to be taken into account.
Mr. Aitken: Is the Secretary of State aware that his surprisingly premature
1886
announcement looks at first glance like a step in the right direction but may well turn out to be a step backwards because it immediately creates many problems of definition? For example, the whole exercise will be meaningless unless the classification rules are also changed, because many Government documents are already over-classified. Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the free Press in a free country will find it almost impossible to welcome his statement until it has seen the terms of the as yet nonexistent Bill?
Mr. Rees: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read again the Franks Report in the light of what I have said. Of course over-classification is an important matter, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways in relation to a free Press. If he agrees with the announcement which I made last week, he will, I believe, recognise that the law or the rules should apply overall and not just to people, perhaps like himself, whom he might regard as in a special position.
Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he deserves to be congratulated, since it appears that the statement which he has made today has not been leaked to the Press beforehand, which indicates that our security arrangements are being improved?
Mr. Rees: That is the way I conduct my business.
Mr. Adley: Perhaps due to the unhappy coincidence in timing of the statement which the Home Secretary made last Thursday about Mr. Agee and Mr. Hosenball, there may be some confusion, so will the right hon. Gentleman make clear beyond peradventure that, as he holds the view that those two gentlemen threaten the security of the country and the personal safety of individuals in the service of the Crown, nothing which he has said today in any way changes the circumstances surrounding the cases of those two gentlemen?
Mr. Rees: I was talking about the Immigration Act, not the Official Secrets Act.
Dr. M. S. Miller: As the reduction in commercial value on the market would immediately be enormous, will my right

1887
hon. Friend give an undertaking that he will hold up legislation until my right hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) have managed to publish their memoirs?
Mr. Rees: It all depends on what they say.
Mr. Lawrence: Is the House to understand the significance of what the Home Secretary has said to be that any persons who might be contemplating releasing to the public documents which are now covered by Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act may be guaranteed immunity from prosecution because of the advice which the Attorney-General is likely to give?
Mr. Rees: No, it cannot possibly be so. The last few years have shown that if anybody releases a document which matters not at all—be it remembered that Section 2 covers everything—the practice, not what I have said, is that nothing will be done. That is what the Attorney-General has shown by use of his consent. But if anybody gives out documents which are secret, defence-confidential, or the like, the full panoply of the law will be brought into play. What has been put to me is that if the blunderbuss is replaced by an Armalite rifle, one will get to the point rather than the general.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend will recall that an Armalite rifle is a lethal instrument. Will he confirm that the basis of his statement today will be the criterion on which the Government will act from today, and, if he cannot produce a Bill this Session because of the pressure of parliamentary time, will he consider producing a draft Bill some time this Session so that we may have a good chew on what the Government intend?
Mr. Rees: There is not much time left this Session, but I shall certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said. The role of the Attorney-General in giving his consent is a matter for him, and I cannot alter that.
Mr. Whitelaw: Do not these exchanges prove conclusively to the Home Secretary that this highly complicated, sensitive and extremely important matter cannot be
1888
dealt with on the basis of a statement suddenly produced without any real notice to the House? Would it not therefore be far better, since legislation is not to be produced in the next Session, that the matter should proceed by a Green or White Paper and full debate in the House?
Mr. Rees: That must be so—we cannot proceed on the basis of a statement to the House—but since it is a long time since the Franks Committee reported, I am sure that a declaration of intent by the Government in the way I have stated it is important. We shall not reach the point of legislation shortly, and of course there will have to be more information since the Franks Report, as the right hon. Gentleman will see, covered a great deal more ground than the aspects of it which I have raised.
Mr. Whitelaw: Will the Home Secretary therefore undertake that he will produce a Green Paper or a White Paper which may be subject to debate?
Mr. Rees: Of course I undertake to give further information. I am sure that it should not be a Green Paper, because the Franks Report, in a sense, is "green". We need something far "whiter" on which people can think.
Mr. Newens: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), is my right hon. Friend aware of the wide disquiet raised by the procedure for dealing with aliens who are accused of offences involving security? Will the legislation which my right hon. Friend proposes provide an opportunity for changing the situation so that those who are not British citizens can be provided with evidence of the acts of which they are alleged to be guilty, so that they may answer then in the same way as others may, since the present position, as instanced by that case, is totally unsatisfactory?
Mr. Rees: However the law may be changed in the future, I can certainly conceive of circumstances when the information could not be provided because of the repercussions it could have in the security field.

ESSEX AREA HEALTH AUTHORITY (AMBULANCE SERVICE)
Dr. McDonald: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the action taken by the Essex Area Health Authority in suspending ambulance men serving at 19 out of its 28 ambulance stations."
The lock-out affects a wide area, but for Thurrock it now means that only two ambulances are covering the area. The Thurrock area has many factories, including two power stations and two oil refineries. In the event of a serious industrial accident, such as an explosion at one of the power stations, it would be impossible to provide adequate emergency cover. No back-up could be provided by ambulances at stations in other parts of the area served by the Essex Area Health Authority.
In view of the possibility of a serious emergency, the Minister should intervene to end the deadlock and ensure that normal ambulance services are resumed as soon as possible. I submit that this is a matter of urgent public concern dealing with a specific issue of great importance which should have priority.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she thinks should have urgent consideration: namely,
"the action taken by the Essex Area Health Authority in suspending ambulance men serving at 19 out of its 28 ambulance stations."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
The hon. Lady gave me notice that she would raise this matter. I have given careful consideration to the representations which she has made, but I have to rule that her submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I cannot, therefore, submit the hon. Lady's application to the House.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Lords Reason for insisting on their amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for their disagreement to the Commons amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments on which they have insisted.
Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that a message has been brought from the Lords by one of their Clerks, as follows:
"The Lords insist on their amendments in lieu of certain of their amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill to which the Commons have disagreed; and disagree to the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of certain amendments on which the Lords have insisted, for which insistence and disagreement they assign the following Reason:
Because the ship repairing companies named in the Bill are likely to be less competitive and less successful and to be able to provide less employment if they are nationalised."
Question,
That the Lords amendments be now considered,
put forthwith pursuant to the Order [8th November].—[Mr. Varley]—and agreed to.
4.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move, That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the amendments on which the Lords insist.
I must once again make it quite clear that it is the firm policy of the Government to take ship repairing into public ownership. That commitment was stated in clear and explicit terms in both Labour Party election manifestos in 1974. That commitment was just as firm as our policy to bring the aircraft and shipbuilding and marine engineering industries into public ownership.
Ship repairing was considered for inclusion in our programme at the same time as the other proposals. It was not included as an afterthought, and the Tory peers in the House of Lords are now taking it upon themselves to tell the Government what policies they will allow us to pursue. They, and they alone, have the arrogance and effrontery to tell this elected House of Commons what policies they will permit us to implement.
Mr. Julian Amery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having talked about the Tory peers—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was raising a point of order.
Mr. Amery: It was in fear that the Secretary of State was inadvertently misleading the House. He used the phrase "the Tory peers and they alone". Does he include Lord Shinwell in that category?
Mr. Varley: Ship repairing was included—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—in our proposals as long ago as 1973. It was included for strong and powerful reasons, and the industrial case is overwhelming. I need not go over the ground that I went over last week, but will merely point out that ship repairing is fragmented; it has a rapidly declining work force; the level of capital investment has been disastrous and there is urgent need for the injection of capital; and modernisation is needed.
All these conclusions were reached by PA Management Consultants, which was appointed and asked to report on the industry by the last Conservative Government. The PA report said that ship repairing would decline if it had not got a proper structure and there was not an injection of capital investment. Of course that can best be done under the umbrella of British Shipbuilders.
There has been, as we know, a vigorous and determined campaign to keep ship repairing out of public ownership. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has been at the forefront of this campaign. That company has conducted a highly misleading and expensive publicity campaign, and of course it has not been without effect.
In future, the House of Lords will be known as "Mr. Bailey's poodle", but I should like to inform the House that even Bristol Channel Ship Repairers acknowledges the difficulties of its own industry—that is, the poor investment, the need for capital investment—and it is only right also that I should inform the House that even after the Government's intentions were known and ship repairing was included in our manifesto, we received an application from Bristol
1892
Channel Ship Repairers asking for £20 million of Government assistance. So much for this thrusting, stand-on-your-own-feet, entrepreneurial company which now claims that it can do without Government assistance. Throughout, its attitude has been one of deceit, and it has been supported by a misleading public relations exercise, not to mention its bullying tactics towards some of its own employees.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
Mr. Michael Grylls rose—
Mr. Varley: The Bill has been before Parliament—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
Mr. Grylls rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Secretary of State is not giving way. We are limited for time in this debate, and I hope that we can hear both sides in reasonable order.
Mr. Varley: The Bill has been before Parliament for nearly a year. The Second Reading took place on 2nd December 1975 and there have been 58 Committee Sittings and hundreds of hours of debate. The Government have not lost a single Division in this House on the Bill, and if it does not reach the statute book soon the consequences for those industries will be catastrophic.
The aircraft industry's future depends on a coherent strategy based on collaborative projects with the United States and other European countries, and if we do not get it, along with the others, into public ownership, it cannot pursue those projects. The shipbuilding industry is unlikely to survive without public ownership and substantial Government help, and the same applies to ship repairing.
The Tory peers, responsible to no one and elected by no one, take it upon themselves to decide which election commitments this House should fulfil, and the only thing that we ask, and all that we have ever asked throughout, is that the Tory peers pursue the rôle that they normally pursue when a Tory Government are in office. We are and will be forced, therefore, to reintroduce the Bill

1893
in the next Session of Parliament, and I want to make it clear that the reintroduced Bill will not offer any improvement in compensation terms, that the safeguarding provisions will remain the same, and that the same effective dates will continue in effect. I say this so that there shall be no false expectations and no misunderstandings about any financial benefit resulting from the obduracy of the other place.
The impact on the industries of delaying the Bill any further will be extremely damaging to thousands of those who seek their livelihoods in the shipbuilding and ship repairing and aircraft industries, and the responsibility for that is due entirely to the Tory peers, aided and abetted by the Tories in this House.
Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State's speech was a nauseating mixture of threat and blackmail of the kind to which this House least enjoys listening. On a measure which has been before Parliament as long as this one and which has been discussed on so many occasions, one might at least have expected the right hon. Gentleman to have had enough practice to get his facts right.
His first error was picked up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The Secretary of State had said that the Tory peers, and the Tory peers alone, were responsible for the Bill once again being before the House of Commons. This is an interesting description of the vote that took place this morning, in which 16 Liberal peers, 27 Cross-Bench peers, and the only Labour Member of the other House who took the trouble to speak on the Second Reading of the Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—voted against the ship repairing provision. I shall not attempt to repeat the colourful language—nor am I permitted to do so under the rules—used by the noble Lord as to the particular ocean into which he suggests that Government Ministers should jump for their attitude to the Lords amendment.
The Secretary of State is not even implementing his own party's manifesto. He has stated once again today at the Dispatch Box that nationalisation of the ship repairing industry is in the Labour manifesto. That happens to be correct. It is in the manifesto. The only difference is that the Government are not
1894
actually seeking to nationalise the ship repairing industry. They are seeking to nationalise a certain selected number of companies—not the largest and not the main companies in certain cases but a very select number of ship repairing companies. This cannot be said to be implementation when the Government have not even achieved what the monifesto originally said that they were seeking to do.
The Secretary of State must have been bitten by his Minister of State because those of us who have travelled along the long path of the Bill have come to recognise the particularly nasty brand of vitriol that has been injected into the arguments about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. I feel that the attitude of the Government and the incredible decision today to continue the battle over the Bill are motivated almost more than anything else on the Labour Benches by a personal sense of resentment that one company has had the nerve to fight against the Government. [Interruption.] We never hear the other companies mentioned in this connection.
When the Secretary of State rises at the Dispatch Box and uses such offensive terms as "deceit"—terms which he may care to use outside the House and face the consequences—and then has the nerve almost in the same breath to say that the Government have never lost a vote in this House over the Bill, it shows an amazing amount of conceit on the Government's part.
I find the decision quite incredible. I have been involved in the fight up to now against the Bill. We have to recognise that, having fought it by every constitutional means open to us, at the end of the day we have failed over the main provisions of the Bill. It lies within the Government's power to carry into nationalisation the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry and, sadly, we are no longer able to prevent this. The Secretary of State has told us—this is his belief—that these industries face very serious problems, yet despite this he has taken the decision to put all that at risk.
The Secretary of State can have no guarantee that, at such time as the Bill may be reintroduced, he will still have a majority in this House. Therefore the whole future of these industries, as far as

1895
he and his Government are concerned, is put at risk. Although I welcome the situation—because we are determined to defeat the Bill—I personally find it a quite incredible decision. I believe that it is purely motivated by feelings of malice towards one particular company in the industry.
I take no pride in the reasons that we have sent back to the Lords with every Bill for our rejection of the Lords amendments. I think they are pretty good rubbish. You do not always get a cheer for your announcements, Mr. Speaker, but I think that the reception given to the Lords' reasons on this occasion summed up the case absolutely.
The ship repairing companies named in the Bill are likely to be less competitive, less successful, and likely to be able to provide less employment, if they are nationalised. That has always been our case, and it has never been adequately answered. We shall therefore vote, as we always have done, to ensure that this particular industry is excluded from the Bill.
Mr. Donald Anderson: We have been over this ground many times before, and on every occasion this House has voted for the Bill. There has been a shuttle, and the only losers in this shuttle are the work force in the several industries concerned and the national interest in these vital industries.
There are two basic questions before us—first, the propriety of ship repairing being taken into public ownership, and, secondly, the constitutional propriety of the other place in acting as it has.
It is clear that much of the steam about the ship repairing industry has been generated by one company, of which roughly a quarter of the work force is employed in my constituency. At an earlier stage of debate I paid tribute to the commercial record of the company and its industrial relations record. I also expressed the wish that a compromise solution could be found at an earlier stage of the proceedings. That was not to be.
4.15 p.m.
I also recognise the anxieties of the work force of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers about the future, but that future could be in jeopardy whatever the
1896
form of ownership, whether Bristol Channel Ship Repairers remains as it is or is taken, as I now hope, into public ownership. The natural anxieties of the men—they are not ideological in any way, about nationalisation or otherwise—are such that they want to ensure that their jobs continue roughly as they are now. Those natural anxieties have been fanned by a very strident and very misleading propaganda campaign on the part of the company.
Mr. Alexander Wilson: Does my hon. Friend know how much it cost the management of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers in its attempt to bribe Members of Parliament in furtherance of its own campaign against nationalisation?
Mr. Anderson: One of the Conservative Members—some of whom are very keen to accept briefs and information from the company concerned—could answer that question rather more appropriately than I can.
As the Minister said on the last occasion, over 60 per cent. of the work force in the yard in my constituency expressed their approval of the nationalisation measure, and they resent very much indeed the criticism of them by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) during the last debate on this issue.
We have now reached a stage where ultimately the will of the Government will prevail in respect of ship repairing, as well as the other two major industries. The question is what the health of these basic and major industries will be if the uncertainty is allowed to continue as a result of the action taken by the other place. The uncertainty is detrimental to jobs and to job prospects.
The continuance of the propaganda campaign by the company is also detrimental to the job interests of those employed in that company. In particular, it has inspired letters from a number of foreign companies which currently use the yard to the effect that after nationalisation they propose not to use the services of the company. One such letter was quoted by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in the debate in this House on 28th July. The company is stimulating those letters and therefore adversely affecting its prospects post-nationalisation.

1897
A brochure entitled "For Hire" contains the threat that specialists working in the company will leave after nationalisation. It is stated in this glossy brochure that the
"highly efficient South Wales ship repairing industry will … reecive no priority and inevitably die. We must safeguard the future for our specialists, some of who have already left our industry because of the threat of nationalisation."
Clearly, by such propaganda the company is adversely affecting the job prospects of the work force and, indeed, its own future.
I say again that the will of the Government in this matter ultimately will prevail. It is in the national—indeed it is in the local—interest that these companies are taken over as going concerns. I appeal to Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and to those Members of the other place who have again rejected the democratic will of this House to think again. If they do not, it will show that Members of the other place are not interested in the future of these companies but are interested simply in the political impact of this campaign. It will also show that the company is uninterested in the jobs of its work force and almost keen to leave a shell behind it as the nationalisation measure takes effect so that it can say "We told you so", and reveal its own real motives in this campaign.
In my view, it is time to remove that uncertainty for the sake of the work force and for the sake of the country. There is no reason why after nationalisation, given the commitments which my right hon. Friend has written into Clause 5 in relation to decentralisation and separate profit centres, the company should not continue in the new structure under the same management and with the same degree of commercial success.
I turn briefly to the action taken by the other place. Quite clearly it is a politically motivated campaign by another place which has no—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman the brass nerve to tell us that he believes that the majority of people in the country support this wretched Bill?
Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwelty): Before my hon. Friend answers that question, will he say whether he thinks the majority of people in this country support the idea of an unelected House of Lords ruling the country?
Mr. Anderson: I am certain of one fact in relation to both questions. It is that an unelected unrepresentative other place has no legitimacy in relation to a matter of this kind which has been the subject of a manifesto by my party and which has been debated by and has received the approval of this House on a number of occasions. The other place has no legitimacy, and its Members should keep off our pitch. As a result of their action, they have made many Government supporters believe that their delaying powers should be abolished and that, because of the partisan motives of that unrepresentative assembly, their Lordships should have their teeth drawn speedily.
Mr. Robert Adley: I thought that the speech by the Secretary of State was a disgraceful, spiteful, mean and nasty speech which was quite unworthy of him. In effect, he said that those who dared to stand in the way of this Government, however much they had the constitution on their side, would be villified, insulted and abused by him and by his sidekick, the Minister of State.
One Government supporter referred to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell as "a turncoat". In view of that, I do not think that any further comment is necessary from those people in the country who know full well that the noble Lord has not always put as his first priority the preservation of private enterprise. The other day in a radio broadcast, the noble Lord used an analogy which I thought quite proper when he asked whether, if this or any other Government decided that in the national interest it was necessary to nationalise the boot and shoe manufacturing industry, they would also feel it necessary to nationalise every cobbler's shop in every High Street in the land. Perhaps it would not be profitable to spend too long dwelling on the future of cobblers in discussing this Bill, however.

1899
The justification of the Labour manifesto was smashed by the Home Secretary less than an hour ago in this Chamber when he gave his reason why it was not possible for legislation to amend the Official Secrets Act to be introduced for the forthcoming Session, despite the fact that this was included in the Labour Party manifesto of 1974.
It is clear that the Government are out to repeat the Bill-killing exercise of 1970–71, only this time they are out to kill Mr. Bailey, and in case anyone may be left with the impression that it is merely another place which is trying to preserve Bristol Channel Ship Repairers and the ship repairing industry, I hope that the House will bear with me while I read extracts from two letters which I have received from trade unionists working for Bristol Channel Ship Repairers.
The first letter that I quote is dated 30th June and is from a Mr. A. J. Dobbs. He writes:
"We shall continue our fight to save the jobs of those employed in ship repairing in South Wales and we sincerely hope that it will be third time lucky when the Report stage is discussed. Your continued support will be much appreciated."
I assure Mr. Dobbs that he will have my continued support.
Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Dobbs is a constituent of mine and is present in the Gallery now? He is an employee of this company and, like many others, is fighting a stern battle to save the company.
Mr. Adley: I did not know that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and delighted to hear what he says.
The second letter from which I quote is dated 7th June and is from a Mr. Leslie James in Cardiff. He writes:
"The Government has said that nationalisation will protect many thousands of jobs and that is why the Bill must go through. I and many other people in our company maintain that in fact the reverse will happen and that nationalisation of our small company will inevitably reduce our efficiency and put all our jobs in jeopardy. I would ask you most sincerely to continue your efforts against this Bill and to help us in any way possible to remain as we are."
Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Leslie James from Cardiff is also in the Gallery and that
1900
he knows far more about this industry than the Government Ministers handling the Bill?
Mr. Adley: With respect, my hon. Friend's last comment does not necessarily mean that he is complimenting Mr. James very much.
It is clear that the motivation of the Treasury Bench throughout our proceedings on this Bill has not been knowledge of or even concern for the industry. It has been based on dogma. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said, what the Government are doing today is possibly—it may be, mercifully—jeopardising their Bill because they are not prepared to believe that nine-tenths of the cake is better than none. They want everything and they want it now, and anyone who has the temerity to stand in their way has to be crushed.
The people who work in the industries know perfectly well that the Government have had for many years all the powers that they needed to invest in those industries, to keep them going and to keep men working.
Mr. Peter Rost: Can my hon. Friend explain why a party which pretends to believe in industrial democracy has refused persistently to consult those who are most directly affected by the nationalisation of the ship repairing firms and to find out from them that the majority of them do not wish to be included in nationalisation?
Mr. Adley: I can answer that quite simply. It is because the creed of Socialism is "Do not do as I do; do as I say."
On 28th June, I asked the Secretary of State for Industry under what legislative powers the Concorde was funded, whether those powers had altered since 1962 and to what extent the Government's powers to effect intervention in the aircraft industry had increased during that period. The right hon. Gentleman's answer is worth reading to the House because it confirms quite clearly that the Government have all the powers that they need. The Minister of State said
"From 1962 to 1968 Concorde was funded under the Civil Aviation Act 1949. Since 1968 Concorde has also been funded under the

1901
Industrial Expansion Act 1968, later amended by the Concorde Aircraft Act 1973".
In his final sentence the Minister said
"Apart from these Acts, no Government have needed to take additional powers during this period specifically to intervene in the aircraft industry."—[Official Report, 28th June 1976; Vol. 914, c. 3.]
4.30 p.m.
Mr. Kinnock: It is obvious to the whole House and to the country that in respect of neither these companies nor any other company have we required additional powers for the Government to give them money. What we have needed is to take additional power on behalf of the people to get something back for our money in the form of accountability. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has not even been awake during this period.
Mr. Adley Mr. Adley The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and his hon. Friends are taking powers not on behalf of the people, but on behalf of themselves and the gratification of their own dogmatic views. As we all know, many of those who work in the ship repairing industry support the Lords amendment and are opposed to the nationalisation of their industry. There is no question but that the hon. Gentleman has shot his own fox when he says that the Government wish to take powers "on behalf of the people". I doubt very much whether the people of this country believe that in their dealings with nationalised industries they get a better, more adequate personalised service than from private industry.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Could we not settle this argument by putting it to the people to decide by having a General Election on the issue?
Mr. Adley: Nothing would give me—and, I imagine, a very large proportion of the people of this country—greater pleasure than to accept my hon. Friend's advice.
Mr. John Ryman: is the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) not aware that the Government were elected in October 1974 when the manifesto was clearly presented? This industry represents jobs for a great many people in the North-East. There was an express mandate to nationalise both these
1902
industries in the manifesto of the October 1974 Election.
Mr. Adley: I doubt that I shall be taking advice either from the hon. Member or his agent on methods of obtaining election to this House. I believe that the people of this country are totally opposed to the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. Ryman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. An imputation of a personal kind has been made against me by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington in a most scurrilous aside, and I would ask for your protection in asking him to withdraw that imputation. I have been fully exonerated by a High Court of law upon a criminal charge after a lengthy hearing presided over by a High Court judge. The hon. Gentleman, with his usual scurrilous mind, has made an imputation against me—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. If the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) did impute any motive he should withdraw it.
Mr. Adley: I am not aware of what I stand accused. The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) intervened and I merely replied. If the hon. Member thinks that anything I have said is in any way intended—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If indeed there is some misunderstanding about this matter it would be better for the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington to withdraw whatever the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) thought he said.
Mr. Adley: Of course I would instantly withdraw any imputation on the hon. Gentleman's character.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman's honour is now satisfied.
Mr. Ryman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth has been heard. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington has withdrawn any possible imputation. The matter is now settled.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Further to that point or order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In order to avoid

1903
doubt will you make clear in your ruling that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) made no imputation, and in so far as he was thought to have made one he properly, humbly and unreservedly withdrew? Will you make clear that the fact that the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Ryman) has been acquitted in a criminal court does not necessitate Opposition Members seeking his advice on political matters?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that is a matter of debate rather than a point of order.
Mr. Adley: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I did use the word "advice", and the hon. Member for Blyth was advising me on the views of those in the North-East.
Mr. Ryman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The House must not get into wrangles on this matter. This particular point has been well and truly debated and has been settled.
Mr. Ryman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The withdrawal by the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, in my respectful submission to you, was not broad enough. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was trying to be obtuse or whether he could not help it, but the implication and the imputation was clear. I ask for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the withdrawal was not broad enough.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I rule that the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington withdrew any imputation he may have made.
Mr. Adley: It would be in the interests of the House if I were to bring my speech to a conclusion. I am concerned that because of the interventions of the hon. Member for Blyth I shall appear to have made a very long speech.
Most people on the Opposition side of the House are aware that the Government are desperately seeking a con-
1904
frontation between the House of Commons and the House of Lords as a means of distracting the minds of the people of this country from the state into which they, the Government, have brought the economy. I suspect that the only way in which the present Government could possibly and conceivably answer the call for an election made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) would be on the basis of a Lords versus Commons clash. If the Government were to go to the country and seek to be re-elected on that basis they would be much less successful than the Conservative Government when they went to the country in February 1974.
Mr. Eric S. Heller: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has claimed that workers in the ship-repairing industry do not want public ownership of that industry. He based his case on two letters received from two workers in the Bristol Channel Ship Repairing Company. Perhaps he is not aware that the whole of the ship-repairing industry is not concentrated in Bristol. Other ports have ship-repairing concerns, the workers in which have clearly indicated by their telegrams, letters and representations to their Members of Parliament that they are more than in favour of public ownership of the ship-repairing industry. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington should also be aware that some of us have actually worked in the ship-repairing industry. I have at different times worked in those industries where joiners are employed.
The hon. Member apparently would not know about interchangeability, which is precisely the subject I wish to develop. The Opposition often talks absolute rot on industrial matters. They do not understand the interchangeability that takes place among the work forces in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries. Workers employed on building ships find that when the ship is launched and completed, their next job is in ship repairing. Therefore, the argument by the other place that ship repairing s a separate industry is a lot of rubbish. Ship repairing is as much a part of the overall industry as are shipbuilding and marine engineering.

1905
The Lords know that their argument on this point is phoney, but they advance it just the same because it suits their political objective, which is to hold up the Government's legislation. The Conservatives say that they are deeply concerned about jobs in the ship-repairing industry. If they knew anything about that industry, they would know—
Mr. Grylls: Of course we know about it.
Mr. Heffer: They have yet to prove to me that they know anything about the industry. I have heard no argument from the Conservatives to show that they know the first thing about it. I am always willing to be convinced by a convincing argument.
If hon. Members opposite knew anything about the industry, they would know that employment in it had fallen drastically since 1946, when it was at its peak, when reconversion was taking place. On Merseyside the numbers employed have dropped from 20,000 to about 3,000 or below. All that happened under private ownership, but the industry has still had public money. The Conservatives always want public money—the taxpayer's money—injected into industry, but with no public accountability or public control.
If it is logical for the Lords to accept public ownership of shipbuilding and marine engineering, it is equally logical for them to accept the public ownership of ship repairing.
Mr. Adley: Which does the hon. Member think is more accountable to the public and its customers—the CEGB or Marks and Spencer?
Mr. Heffer: It is always wrong to give way to Opposition Members, with one or two exceptions. In the main, they make no contribution whatever to intelligent discussion. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hurry up.''] I can assure the hon. Member that I can go on for a long time about shipbuilding and ship repairing. I spent many years in the industry, working on the shop floor. I know a great deal about it and I could explain at length how badly it has been organised and run and how it needs a complete overhaul.
The PA Management Consultants' report indicated clearly the need for
1906
reorganisation of the industry and for public money to be put into it, and, although it did not call for public ownership, the answer was clear. Public ownership is the only way forward for the industry.
5.45 p.m.
Why are the Lords objecting to this part of the Bill? If they are opposed to the whole concept, logic demands that they should throw it out completely. But they have not done so because they want to wound the Government as deeply as possible without destroying them, because they know that in the process of destroying the Government they would destroy themselves. I say to the House of Lords that by its action it has in the long term destroyed itself already. It has put the final nail in its coffin.
In 1909, the other place threw out the progressive Budget introduced by the Liberal Party. The Liberals were compelled to bring in the Parliament Act in 1911 to ensure that the House of Lords had no right to stop financial measures introduced by the House of Commons. In 1945 the reforming Labour Government found the Conservative majority in the other place opposing their Bills and were compelled to amend the Parliament Act in order to clip the wings of the other place. We are now faced with a further development in which a reforming Government are being opposed in their wishes and desires by an unelected and unrepresentative majority in the other place.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: In those circumstances, in which Labour Government legislation has been blocked over a period of years, why have a Labour Government never abolished the House of Lords and why have they consistently appointed superannuated Members of Parliament to the other place?
Mr. Heffer: That is a very good question. I believe that the other place should have been abolished a long time ago. I trust that when a Labour Government introduce a Bill to abolish the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman's party will openly support them in the Lobby.
The time has come to abolish the House of Lords. It is an outdated, superannuated body, and we should get rid

1907
of it at the earliest opportunity. There is one factor that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) should bear in mind. How do we know that the devolution Bill next Session, if it gets through this House, will not be blocked by the other place, which thinks that it knows better than the elected majority here? That is a thought for the hon. Gentleman and his party to consider seriously.
I end with one comment about my old colleague and friend, Lord Shinwell. Lord Shinwell and I have fought many battles both against each other and on the same side. I am not sorry that he has spoken out in the way he has. That is his opinion. He has always been renowned for openly saying what he thinks. People like myself were brought up on the words and policies advocated by Lord Shinwell. I well remember that in his early days he wanted to see the other place done away with at the earliest possible moment. Perhaps Lord Shinwell has mellowed in his old age. That is all I would say about what Lord Shinwell has said.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Before this debate is concluded I hope that the Government Front Bench will take up the point raised so appositely by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) about why the Government are not proposing some immediate action about the other place. They would find it embarrassing to take up the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, reinforced by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), about what on earth Labour Administrations have been doing since the war, leaving the other place intact, and only contributing to the agenda of reform the absurd Bill opposed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) which I also voted against because it merely substituted patronage for birth. Unless the Government Front Bench come forward with at least a sketch of some measure to deal with the other place, we shall be bound to conclude that all their rancid and angry words on this subject are just artificial thunder on a stage.
The miserable fact is that four great industries and those who work in them—aerospace, shipbuilding, marine engineering and ship repairing—are existing in a long continued state of suspense which is damaging to everyone who works in
1908
those industries as well as to the national economy. This suspense has persisted for three main reasons. First, the Government were foolhardy in the early part of 1974 in bringing forward an identical measure to this when they had not got a majority in this House. It would have been perfectly honourable and satisfactory to tell the nation that that part of their manifesto must await the acquisition of a majority of the people.
Then in October 1974 they had the temerity to bring the measure forward again, in spite of the damage it had already done, and when they had only the support of 28 per cent. of the electorate. Because of their foolhardiness the responsibility is theirs for now having landed the industry in this desperate situation.
Secondly, it became apparent at an early stage, although not apparent in precise form, that because of the inclusion of ship repairing the Bill was bristling with hybridity. Instead of acknowledging that, and facing the fact, the Government took refuge in the wholly unworthy device of scrambling through this House a measure which deprived legitimate private interests of the time-honoured procedure for letting private interests be represented in front of this House.
Thirdly, and with particular impudence, they have in the last few days strained at the gnat of ship repairing which, if exempted, would have meant that the rest of the Bill would have been theirs. Therefore, the responsibility for the continued and damaging suspense is entirely the Government's. There can be no question about the continued resistance by Liberal Members to the Government's stubborn attitudes.
I would repudiate, as far as Liberal Members are concerned, the extraordinary incentive to cowardice which appeared in The Sunday Times leading article only yesterday. Having condemned the Government's action on this Bill on every other count, the article ended by saying that because of the continued resistance in the other place, which might sour industrial relations, their Lordships ought to withdraw in spite of right being entirely on their Lordships' side. That is a supine attitude which can come only from people

1909
who are desperate to get every reader of every political complexion to subscribe to their newspaper.
The other place, armed with the powers that Mr. Attlee's Government gave them—no doubt after the sort of due consideration that Mr. Attlee gave to everything—are not wise to add to Bills or interfere in the detailed process of legislation but are wise to act as a sluice gate to hold up a flood of outdated legislation from a manifesto which is already two years old and in circumstances that have entirely changed.
Speaking entirely for myself, I see very little difference in merit between one House of Parliament that depends upon the accident of birth or patronage and another House of Parliament that depends upon the accident of first-past-the-post elections. They are both highly unrepresentative and the circumstances of their membership are now virtually discredited. For all these reasons our resistance to the Government's behaviour has been reinforced by what has happened during the last few days.
Mr. E. Fernyhough: There is an old saying that those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad. Nothing could have been madder than what the Lords have done over this legislation. They have sealed their fate.
Hon. Gentlemen who believe in democracy—and say that democracy is being imperilled by certain people outside this House—but who then subscribe to a philosophy that an unelected Chamber, dominated by Tories, should be more powerful than this House are the enemies of democracy. They may be prepared to put up with the Lords acting in that manner, but the people outside will not.
Mr. John Pardoe: This House is not democratic.
Mr. Fernyhough: If this is not democracy, why does the hon. Gentleman bother to come to this House? Why does he not go back to his constituency and say "I am not standing for election again. It is not democracy. Therefore, I do not want to stand again."?
Mr. Pardoe: The answer is that I represent more than 50 per cent. of the people who voted in my constituency at
1910
the last election while the great majority of hon. Members in this House do not.
Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Gentleman does not represent as many people in his constituency as I do in mine. Nearer 70 per cent. of my constituents who voted, voted for me.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) said that he had received two letters from men employed by BCSR. They were probably from the same ship repair employees who wrote to me. I also received several letters from the same source. Is not that funny? I doubt if there is one hon. Member who did not have letters from employees of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers. No one prompted those letters. Every lad who worked with that company knew Ernie Fernyhough and decided to write to him. I represent more ship repair workers than the entire work force of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers, and I know what they want because I have been meeting them for 30 years.
5.0 p.m.
Sir Raymond Gower: If the workmen in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency wish to be taken into nationalised ownership, do they also insist that other workmen in other parts of the country—in Bristol Channel Ship Repairers for example—must also be taken into nationalised ownership?
Mr. Fernyhough: Most of the ship repair workers in my constituency already work for a nationalised ship repair yard. That yard is doing very well and since nationalisation it has employed more workers. It is doing very much better than it did before nationalisation.
About a month ago my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and I visited that shipyard. Out of the four ships in the yard, three were from foreign countries. That yard has lost none of its overseas customers as a result of nationalisation. Its sales staff are out seeking jobs, employment is going up and tonnage is going up. Similar consequences will apply in the other yards when they are nationalised.
Had it not been for the Labour Government and nationalisation, 1,500 shipyard workers would have been unemployed now. Opposition Members did not oppose the nationalisation of the

1911
shipyards that Court Line wanted to dump.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: On the point that nationalisation can safeguard jobs, does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Government are willing to throw the Bill overboard and so lose the safety which he sees in the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries?
Mr. Fernyhough: I welcome the fact that the Government are prepared to stand up to an unelected House. I have always been a nationaliser, and I have been elected 10 times on that basis. There is no misaapprehension in my constituency about where I stand on this issue.
The hon. Members for Christchurch and Lymington and Bridgwater (Mr. King) called in aid Lord Shinwell. You and I, Mr. Speaker, have known Lord Shinwell probably for longer than any Opposition Member. You and I know that he was not always loved and treasured by the Opposition as he is now. I remember the time when he was despised and rejected by them. I remember the time when they would hardly allow him to speak because they hated the philosophy he represented.
Even without Lord Shinwell, the Liberal peers and the Cross-Benchers, there has always been a Tory majority against the Bill. The Tories have an inbuilt power in the House of Lords which enables them to win even when Cross-Benchers, Liberals and Labour Peers vote against them. The House of Lords has committed hara-kiri because it has decided to thwart the will of the people.
My hon. Friend said that if the Bill were postponed because of the decision made by the Lords, future compensation would in no way be affected. I hope that the Opposition have been following the industrial Press and have seen statements from those in top management about the uncertainty which their attitude is causing in the industry. Let them look at what has happened to share prices. When the Bill is implemented and we pay compensation, I hope that compensation will be based not on what my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend were prepared to pay earlier but on the present-day
1912
Stock Exchange prices. Share prices have tumbled because of the attitude of Liberals, Tories and nationalists. They have brought near to bankruptcy what could be good enterprising firms. This weekend a shiver went through shipbuilding and ship-repair localities.
If more public money is not forthcoming, the workers wonder what will happen to their jobs. Will the Government bail them out even if the industries are not under public ownership? Will there be more people like the gentleman from Bristol Channel Ship Repairers who objects to his small yards being taken into public ownership but has no diffidence about coming to the public purse with a big begging bowl? Will there be more who say "I can guarantee employment if the Government will dole out £20 million at a time"? That is, apparently, what Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has been asking of the Government.
Mr. Tom King: I did not deal with that point because I knew that the House was anxious to proceed. That was a standard application for regional development aid. Is the right hon. Gentleman opposed to regional development aid? According to his previous speeches, he believes that all companies in assisted areas should receive regional development aid. If the Secretary of State's intervention was meant to be an attack on companies which claim regional aid, it was a very important statement.
Mr. Fernyhough: The hon. Member for Bridgwater, especially now that he has been promoted, has to be much more careful. He cannot go round making fine weekend speeches advocating the cutting of public expenditure and then come here and defend a private company which asks the Government for £20 million. It is a contradiction in one speech to demand cuts in Government expenditure and in the next to demand that £20 million of public money be given to a private enterprise concern under the regional industrial policy. I support the regional industrial policy and I do not mind if public expenditure goes in that direction, but I shall not make a speech next week demanding cuts in public expenditure.
My constituency was crucified in the 1930s because its shipyards and ship-repairing establishments were closed. We

1913
have just celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the march from Jarrow to London. Many of those who took part in that march were ship-repair and shipyard workers. Since then in my constituency the industry has made some recovery. Tyneside is probably one of the most viable shipbuilding and ship-repairing areas in the United Kingdom. I have not received any letter from an employer or worker in my constituency urging me to oppose the Bill. All of them, as far as I know, want the Bill and I am glad that we intend to stay here long enough to ensure that in the next Session—even though we have been thwarted by the Opposition—we shall get the Bill. I am prepared to bet on that.
Mr. Anthony Berry: I have been close to the Bill in the last months and I must express my utter disgust at the way in which the Government are leaving the industry in a state of such confusion and doubt. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) for the way in which he has led our team. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) upon whom much of the work fell throughout the passage of the Bill. He, too, has done a good job, and I compliment him. It was a team effort, and we worked together in Committee. With the hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and Come Valley (Mr. Wainwright) we were united against the Bill. Since then we have gained the support of the Ulster Unionists and Plaid Cymru.
The Government like to call in support the figures which show that they received 11½ million votes in the last election, but those hon. Members who are opposed to the Bill received about 17½ million votes. Did the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) include a pledge to nationalise the ship-repair industry in his election address?
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): I have respect for the hon. Member. We spent 58 happy Sittings together. But if the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maguire) had turned our majority of one into the Opposition's majority of one, the lion. Member for
1914
Southgate (Mr. Berry) would regard his right to vote as legitimate.
Mr. Berry: The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone would not have expressed a view either way in his manifesto and he is therefore free to vote with a clear conscience. But the Minister claims that all hon. Members on his side of the House expressed their support for the nationalisation of ship repairing in their manifestos. That is not the case.
The House of Lords has acted again in the true interests of the majority of people. If hon. Members do not believe that, they should examine recent events. There have been three by-elections and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) claimed that he achieved a great victory. He has an odd idea of victory. A recent Gallup Poll shows that we have a lead of 25 per cent. That is considerable. There are also the local by-elections which clearly represent the views of the electorate. Just a mile from the Chamber, Lambeth's solid Labour support fell from 70 per cent. at the last election to below 50 per cent. last week. That is a remarkable fall.
Mr. Kaufman: Did the Conservative candidate in that by-election fight it on the ship-repair issue?
Mr. Berry: I think not.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Berry: I shall give way later, but first I must answer the Minister of State. Since voters in the conurbations tend to vote the same way, the Minister of State might reflect that in Lambeth the swing to the Conservatives was 14·3 per cent. and he would lose his seat if the swing at Manchester, Ardwick was 12·1 per cent.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Grocott.
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry—Mr. Heffer.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) referred to Lambeth, but has he not heard of the result in Lancaster—a solid Tory area for some years—where the Labour Party candidate received solid support? One example cancels out the other.
Mr. Berry: That does not really matter. The hon. Member makes a fair point, and we can all quote examples. deliberately used Lambeth as an example because I hoped that the Minister would rise to it, and he did.
Mr. Jack Jones has suggested that the Prime Minister should appoint 50 life peers. Such a list would surely include the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) and the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), all of whom have given great service to the country. If they were made life peers, we should have by-elections which could be fought on the nationalisation of these industries. But the Minister of State cannot be sure of how people would vote.
It would be fascinating for students of political history if Labour lost its majority in this House and achieved a majority in the House of Lords at a stroke. Is the Minister of State sure that his right hon. Friends, having been freed from the bond of patronage, would vote in the way in which they voted in this House? Might they not follow Lord George-Brown or Lord Shinwell? Whatever the criticism of Lord Shinwell by Government Members, he is a patriot and in recent weeks he has voted in the way he felt best for the country.
The delay in the Bill and the delay last summer following the May vote was caused deliberately by the Government. Bristol Channel Ship Repairers has constantly opposed the Bill. It and other ship builders and repairers—and we must not forget that other companies are included in the Bill—have opposed the measure. This morning I met shop stewards of the Bristol Channel company who told me of their great regret—they used stronger words—at the Secretary of State's speech in the House the other evening.
We understand that the Bill will come forward again in the next Session, thereby continuing the great uncertainty in these industries. I deplore the way in which the Government have treated them. I remember the Ports Bill in 1970. There was a General Election and we won.
The Government's action towards the workers in these industries will have the
1916
same result next year. They will be solely to blame for the harm that they have done to the industry in the meantime.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). I made a mistake when I called him earlier when I intended to call the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Not only on Merseyside but throughout the ship repair industry, workers will welcome the Government's insistence that the Bill will go through. Conservative Members who talk glibly about the industry fail to recognise that the decision taken by the other place today is cynical and ruthless. The industry has been in the doldrums for many years, since long before the question of public ownership was raised by the Government.
The Opposition argue that the Government should merely take powers under existing authority to provide the necessary capital for the industries covered by the Bill. The Government have already done that for the ship repair industry. The consequences of their feeding tremendous resources into it is not that it has been sustained and that job opportunities have been increased; the opposite is true. They have been going further and further down the spiral, and job opportunities have been decreasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has pointed out that where there were once 20,000 people employed in ship repair on Merseyside the figure is now down to 3,000-plus.
The story does not end there. We need the industry in the area. We have had close consultation with workers in it, who are hanging on by the skin of their teeth, hoping that the Bill will go through so that they will know the future of their industry. By again overturning a decision of this House, the other place has taken a cynical attitude towards the workers. Their Lordships should take into account the fact that the ship repair industry does not consist of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers alone. Those who argue for the exclusion of that company should think of the industry as a whole. If the company is so effective

1917
and efficient, it will have a massive contribution to make to the new nationalised ship repair industry. The Bill should be welcomed as providing a far broader base for the industry and a far brighter future.
The trade unions in the industry have long been in favour of its nationalisation. This has been made clear in policy statements of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Duly elected delegates have said at conferences that they supported public ownership of their industry. That is why I believe that there will be a welcome for the Government's statement that they insist on going ahead with the Bill. The House should be unanimous in condemning the attitude of their Lordships towards an industry that has been waiting for a long time to have its future determined.
Mr. F. A. Burden: I was very disappointed by the Minister's speech. Many of his remarks were questionable and some were discreditable. He said that only the Tory Peers had turned down the Bill. He must have known that that was inaccurate. Then it came out that Lord Shinwell had voted against the Bill. But it should be noted that no fewer than 16 Liberal peers and 27 Cross-Benchers voted against. None of those 44 can be described as Tory peers.
Mr. Peter Emery: For the sake of greater accuracy, I have been to the other place to obtain the voting lists, and I have analysed the results according to the way in which their Lordships record themselves in Vacher's. Only 94 take the Conservative Whip, 16 take the Liberal Whip, 87 take no Whip or are Cross-Benchers, one is Labour, and six describe themselves as Independent.
Mr. Burden: That puts the whole matter in perspective and shows how discreditable was the Minister's statement.
Many hon. Members have the illusion that public control of the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry will ensure that all those working in it will retain their jobs.
Mr. Fernyhough: Jarrow.
Mr. Burden: I remember Jarrow, and I remember that in 1931, in an extra-
1918
ordinary way, its people returned a Conservative Member. That was an illustration of how they felt about the then Labour Government, which was comparable to how many people feel about the present Government.
When I asked the Prime Minister what would happen to the shipyards and what the Government would do to ensure work in them, he said that there would be rationalisation. Rationalisation of an industry almost inevitably means that fewer people, not more, will be employed in it.
I also asked the Prime Minister whether the Government, when they had taken over the shipbuilding industry, would be prepared to give the necessary orders for ships to keep the yards open, in view of the shortage of orders in the world today. He said "You will have to wait and see what we do about that". I repeat that question to the Government now. If orders cannot be obtained elsewhere, will the Government order ships to keep the yards open and the workers busy? If they do, what will they do with the ships? Will they go to the International Monetary Fund or foreign lenders to borrow the money to order the ships?
I am also concerned about the way in which the Government intend to keep all the nationalised ship repair yards open and in full employment, as they say they hope to do. If the ships are not being built, there will not be so many needing repair. Can the Government give an undertaking that there will be a flow of ships as is necessary to keep the yards fully employed in ship building and repairing and keep the people already employed in them fully employed?
5.30 p.m.
A personal interest that I must declare lies in Chatham Dockyard and the Royal naval dockyards. What will happen to the Royal naval dockyards, which are almost entirely engaged in ship repair and refit? In the past they have been in a unique position. They have given fleet support and have been highly specialised, but what is to be their position? How are the Government to treat them? Will they treat them differently from the other ship repair yards, or will they say that the Royal naval dockyards, as ship repair yards, must be treated in the way of all others? Will some of the frigates

1919
that now go to the Royal naval dockyards be sent to ship repair yards that have never done naval ship repairing in the past? That is a question of concern to all those who are interested in the naval dockyards.
Will the Minister give an absolute undertaking—I hope that he will listen—and a categorical promise that no type of ship that now goes to the naval dockyards for repair and refit will in future be sent to the other shipyards, private yards included, that are now being taken over, or will be taken over, by the Government? The dockyard workers are entitled to know. As I represent a dockyard town, I wish to know.
Perhaps the most important question—perhaps the Minister of State will listen—is what will happen in the yards after public ownership. When the Government have nationalised the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries, will they keep the orders flowing in to ensure that all the people at present working in the industries are retained in employment in the firms in which they are now serving? I am sure that that is a question to which many Labour Members, as well as Conservative Members, want to know the answer.
We are told that public ownership will bring great benefit to the shipbuilding industry and its workers. That has to be proved. I have never seen any great benefit to the workers in any publicly-owned industry unless they have been kept fully employed. The public do not benefit unless those industries can produce the goods at the right time, at the right place and on the right delivery. We are not alone involved in what happens in this industry. Its success will depend upon how it can compete on these issues with the rest of the world.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall be grateful if hon. Members make brief speeches.
Mr. Wigley: I shall speak briefly. Although we are debating an amendment that relates specifically to the ship repairing industry, the consequence of the vote will be whether the whole Bill goes forward. It is a vote that will have a severe effect on the aircraft and shipbuilding industries.
1920
We now see an interesting reversal of positions. The Government are pressing for the House to reject the amendment, with the consequence that the Bill will be lost. It is probable that after the Stechford by-election shortly after Christmas there will be little possibility of its getting on the statute book. On the other side of the coin, the Conservative Party is pressing the House to accept the amendment. It wants the amendment carried and ship repairing to be taken from the Bill. As a result, the nationalisation of both the aircraft and shipbuilding industries would go forward. As I say, that is an interesting reversal of rôles.
It could well be that many Labour Members for whom I have great respect, and who have great knowledge of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, will rue what took place on this date. This may be the date on which the Bill was finally lost. It may well be that in February and March next year, when the new Bill is brought forward in the next Session, it will fail to reach the statute book because of one or two by-elections.
It may well be that Labour Members who represent shipbuilding and aircraft areas will have constituents asking them "Why did you insist on the small and pedantic amendment on ship repairing, thereby jeopardising the whole of the Bill?" Given their convictions and the depth with which they hold them, the only answer for the industries is nationalisation. I find it stunning that Labour Members are willing to jeopardise all that and to throw it overboard for the sake of possibly four or five ship repairing companies. I know that there are 12 in the Bill, but it is probable that only four or five would go forward if the two Houses entered into a compromise that would let everyone off the hook.
Why have the Government taken this line? It must be that there is great pressure on them from various directions. We speculated about the nature of this pressure last week. Why do they now want to lose the Bill? In the past few days the information has come to my ears—
Mr. Roger Stott: Do not be so silly.
Mr. Wigley: Labour Members are reacting fiercely, and that tells a story.

1921
In the past few days the story has come to my ears that a shipbuilding company that is not in Wales—in fact, there is none in Wales—is so near going to the wall that it will probably collapse in the early part of next year. It seems that the Government want to see that company collapse before the Bill is enacted. They will then be able to say "That is what happens when a shipbuilding company remains in private control." On the other hand, if the Bill had been enacted and the company had still collapsed because British Shipbuilders were not able to sustain it, people would say "That is the effect of nationalisation."
The Government are playing with politics. They are playing with people's jobs, livelihoods and futures. I suggest that Labour Members search their hearts deeply before they vote. Their vote tonight in favour of the Government may be the vote that loses them the Bill.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has shown how he has missed the point completely by describing the ship repairers as presenting a pedantic little issue. He has missed the point because the debate has reached the stage of not being about the ship repairers. It is not about the nationalisation of the industries, crucial and important as that measure remains. For those who can see the wood from the trees and who have some sort of historical perception in these matters, this is a constitutional debate about the relationship between the two Houses. The votes that are registered tonight will be judged largely in terms of their constitutional implications.
I shall be intensely interested in the way in which the Liberals vote. Clearly they do not have that degree of interest, judging by the emptiness of the Liberal Bench. The constitutional issue is whether another place should throw out the clearly expressed view of this place. That on its own is only part of the story. The fact is that when Labour or Liberal Governments are in majority control in this place the attitude is taken in another place—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
Mr. Grocott: No, I am not giving way in the early part of my speech. There is still about an hour and a half to go.
1922
If we had a situation where relationships between the two Houses were such that we knew that in another place there would be measured consideration of what had taken place in this place, if we had a situation in which we knew that another place, with due care and deliberation, would throw out the parts of Bills that it thought were hastily and ill-conceived and pass those pieces that it considered acceptable, and if we knew that it would do that consistently all the time with all parties, perhaps some people would be prepared to accept a second Chamber. I should not, but maybe that would be a reasonable point of view.
How long can any party such as the Labour Party—and the Liberal Party in its heyday—remain in a position in which in a game of football its goal is much bigger than that of its opponents and where the rules are different for both sides? We all know that in previous years when crucial political issues have been canvassed under a Tory Government, there was no question of the House of Lords revising or rejecting the measures so introduced. The House of Lords did not reject the Housing Finance Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill, or any of the measures relating to the Community.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will Labour Members get the situation in perspective? The House of Lords has not killed the Bill but has only amended it. Furthermore, in past years the House of Lords has amended Bills introduced by Tory Governments. Surely the present amendment should be acceptable to Labour Members. If not, they are killing their own Bill.
Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman well knows that this is a wrecking amendment—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If during consideration of the Housing Finance Bill the House of Lords had decided "We shall make this Bill apply only to county boroughs and not to districts", would Tory Members have taken the view "We have a great deal of what we wanted, and that will suffice"? Would they have taken the view that the Labour majority in the other place—because that is what would have to happen in my hypothetical example—had taken a balanced and reasonable view and that therefore they would accept only a proportion of the provisions of their Bill? Of coure they would not. They would have taken the

1923
view that a political majority in another place was seeking to damage the Government.
Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman said that in such a case there would have to be a Labour majority in another place, but that would not necessarily have to be the case. A considerable number of Cross-Bench peers and others voted against the Government today. Therefore on other occasions they could well support a Labour Government.
Mr. Grocott: The hon. Gentleman is only varying the theme which he has already spent 20 minutes developing. He intervenes on precisely the same issue.
Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my speech.
Mr. Grocott: It was not an issue in the first place. The decision could have been reached by Tory votes, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. If there was a bonus in terms of alleged Cross-Benchers' votes, all well and good, but that type of argument is worthless.
If the rôles were reversed and instead of a massive Tory majority in the other place there were a massive Labour majority, would the Tories be as tolerant as we have been? When one reads the Daily Telegraph—a chore which I usually manage to avoid—one gains the strong impression that it is the Labour Party that is intolerant, but when one examines the history of the Labour Party over a period of 70 years, one can only conclude that it has allowed the peculiar second Chamber to continue to use its majority against Labour's plans. It has allowed political opponents in the other place to defeat its aims. I can think of no other party that would allow that to happen. Therefore, it is Labour which is the tolerant party.
The Opposition have got themselves in an indefensible position. That is why they develop such phoney constitutional arguments when seeking to justify their position. They constantly claim that the Labour Government have no mandate because we gained only 39 per cent. of the vote at the last General Election. But there has been no Government since the war which have enjoyed 50 per cent. of the votes at a General Election. Have the Tories ever doubted their right to
1924
govern when they have been in control? Of course they have not.
5.45 p.m.
On the question of percentage votes as a crucial factor, one might ask what percentage of the electorate voted for the House of Lords. One of the Members of the other place, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who wants to reject the Bill, was decisively rejected by the electorate in October 1974. That seems a strange state of affairs. The people of Peterborough might wonder what was the point of having a General Election in Peterborough and of kicking out the then Member, only to find that he pops up again in the other place and helps the Lords there to throw out a provision put forward by the democratically-elected Chamber. That makes nonsense of any constitutional arrangement.
The other well-known political argument that is trotted out time and again is that the opinion in the country has changed following the results in a number of by-elections. How much longer are we to hear about those results? It is said that the Government must dramatically change their policies.
In May 1971—I was not here at the time—I worked pretty hard at a by-election in Bromsgrove. On that occasion a massive Tory majority—and that seat was much safer than Workington was for Labour—was turned into a healthy Labour majority. Was the unanimous view on the Tory Benches at that time, only 11 months after the June 1970 General Election "The view in the country has changed. Therefore, we must take account of it and scrap the Housing Finance Bill, because obviously we do not have a mandate for it. We must also scrap the Industrial Relations Bill and reconsider the terms on which we entered the Common Market"? Of course they did not, and Tory Members know that their argument is totally phoney. They know that it is quite wrong within a year or two of any Government being elected to characterise by-election results as suggesting that the Government in power no longer have a mandate. I hope that they will not use that argument again.
Mr. Richard Wainwright rose—
Mr. Grocott: I should like to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have not

1925
time. I can only say that the hon. Gentleman made one statement from the Liberal Benches that must have caused Gladstone to turn in his grave. The hon. Gentleman said that there was no real difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. He said that both Houses were undemocratic because we were elected on a first-past-the-post system. That is the kind of phoney constitutional argument that comes up time and again.
I hope that the Government Front Bench will not deal with the House of Lords on the basis of crisis management, as they have so far. I hope they will take the view that the only sensible way of dealing with the matter is to regard a second Chamber as entirely superfluous and unnecessary. Nobody suggests that there should be a second Chamber in the Assemblies in Scotland or Wales, or for any European Assembly. Nobody suggests that there should be a second Chamber for any council in this country. The second Chamber is irrelevant. About 100 years ago, Walter Bagehot—by no means a radical or Socialist—said that the cure for anybody who admired the House of Lords was to go to watch it. It costs £3 million a year to run. I hope that the IMF does not put too stringent terms to us, but if it wants candidates for scrapping, my vote would go for the scrapping of the other place. That is the way we should proceed.
The Labour Party has been far too tolerant for far too long. Let us establish a single Chamber system and abolish the Upper House. Let us have no more of this nonsensical situation.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: In a fiery speech the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) said that the Labour Party had for far too long been far too tolerant of the House of Lords. Of course it has. Any self-respecting reforming party would have got rid of it years ago. It is the fate of Labour Governments to allow institutions of government to moulder. It is one of the examples of the way in which Britain has become antiquated over the years. The House of Lords is a non-elected Chamber, it manages to go on from year to year, and it is allowed to exist by members of a so-called reforming party of the Left. My party would be happy to sup-
1926
port not only the abolition of the House of Lords but the abolition of the peers as well. It is time that recognition of these antediluvian titles was removed by the State.
This is a brief debate, but it has exposed a degree of hypocrisy that I have rarely encountered in this House—and that is saying something. Throughout the time when we have considered this Bill—for 140 or so hours in Committee and on the Floor of the House—the Government have told us that there is an emergency in shipbuilding and that the industry requires urgent nationalisation. In the course of these debates it was not infrequently pointed out to the Government that nationalisation was not necessarily the answer to the problems of the shipbuilding industry. It was agreed on all sides that a shipbuilding policy was necessary. The same was true, to a degree, of the aircraft industry.
We have had statements from the Government to the effect that there is an urgent need to take both these industries into public control. Yet we have now come to the "hint" end—as we call it—of the Session, when all measures that have not been promulgated and passed must fall and the Government have a choice. They have to decide whether to allow progress on the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The House of Lords is not blocking that. It has pulled back from that opposition. It has left the matter in the hands of the Government and individual Labour Members. It is they who must decide whether these two industries are to be taken over.
If the Government are beaten tonight the two industries will be taken over. If the Government win the Division this Bill will fall. If it does fall it will not be an unimportant event, because the Government have made it clear that should the Bill fall they do not intend to provide any more public money or other support for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries until they can secure their ideological goal of nationalisation. The Government have put it on record that they are prepared to sacrifice men's jobs for the sake of their ideology. They would have had my respect if they had said that they sincerely believed that nationalisation was the way to safeguard the industries. They have the answer tonight.

1927
They can allow these two industries to go into nationalisation.
I do not recollect that during the long debates in Committee much was said about the urgency of taking ship repairing into immediate public ownership. A lot was said about whether it should be taken into public ownership, just as a lot was said about the need to take over the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. Now these two industries are to be sacrificed in this battle over ship repairing between the Lords and the Commons. The Government have their answer. They can put forward two-thirds or three-quarters of their Bill, and in the next Session take over the ship repairing industry—if they can find the majority to do so. But they are running the risk that if they do not follow the course of action I suggest they may not get a majority in the next Session to ensure the passage of the Bill. Their strategy will then be in ruins.
Mr. David Lambie: Will the hon. Member say that when this Bill is re-introduced in the next Session he and his 10 colleagues will support it, thereby giving the Government a majority of 22?
Mr. Wilson: We have told the Minister time and again that he would have our support for a reasonable policy for the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. We have pointed out the dangers that would be encountered with nationalisation. We gave Ministers the opportunity—we were criticised by the Conservatives for doing so—to give a Scottish dimension to these two industries and safeguard jobs. The Government refused to give in on both counts. That is still their attitude. In those circumstances, harsh experience dictates to us in Scotland that centralised control, even with the amendment to Clause 5 which was eventually produced, would mean a severe loss of jobs. We know that 30 per cent. of shipbuilding jobs are likely to be sacrificed by the shipbuilding corporation, if it comes into existence.
These are the criteria that the Government should be following. They have followed them in the past. They have said that jobs are important. Now they say that jobs are unimportant when set
1928
against the method by which they intend to take these industries into control. It is essential that if the Government are to hold to their responsibilities, as they see them, to the working men who put them into power, they should not seek to abandon the shipbuilding and aircraft industries regardless. If the Government follow the middle course which they are putting forward, of pressing on with nationalisation, which may never come to pass, and do not take advantage of the opportunity that they have now to put these industries into public ownership, and if, in the meantime, there is no policy for shipbuilding or for the aircraft industry and no injection of public money, they will be following the worst possible course.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: In his opening speech the Secretary of State said that when the Government reintroduced this Bill there would be the same compensation terms and the same dates. He had, perhaps conveniently, forgotten that if those were changed he would not be able to get the Bill through under the Parliament Act and the other place would be able to debate and amend it. The right hon. Gentleman was, therefore, making a virtue out of a necessity. His right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) hoped that changes would be made. If he had bothered to look at the Parliament Act he would have known that that would do the Government no good.
This measure is a typical example of the nonsense that is spoken about a Government of national unity. How can any Conservative Member contemplate such a Government when the Labour Government persist in putting forward measures that have virtually no support in the country? Those who dream of a Government of national unity are those out of office and those who have a tenuous link with the City. Neither is in touch with the needs of the country.
Most of those who have spoken so far have taken part in the earlier debates on this Bill. I speak as a Back Bench Member who has read all of the debates and who has listened to some. We must realise that the Government have already begun a massive propaganda exercise. We read on Friday that if the Bill did not get

1929
through, it would be the fault of the House of Lords. That is the first terminological inexactitude from the Government. The facts are plain. The incompetence of the Leader of the House made this Bill come on so very late. The petulance of the Secretary of State means that the amendment excluding ship repairing cannot be accepted by the Government. It is the right hon. Gentleman who takes responsibility for sacrificing the jobs of so many people—just because he is not prepared to take the three-quarters of the loaf which he is offered.
Every bit of the Government's propaganda machine will be used to show where it is alleged the blame lies. Every union journal will be used. But all of those statements will be utterly and completely false.
If the Government had any sincerity they would admit that no jobs need be lost if they would say, even now, that they would accept the latest message from the other place and would introduce a Bill in the next Session to nationalise the ship-repairing industry. Let them say at this stage that they are prepared to go along with what has been done and will take three-quarters of the loaf. If they do not say that, they must accept responsibility for the loss of jobs and for the possibility, as the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, that they will not get their Bill in the next
Session, because it is most unlikely that they will get a majority in the House for any measure of this sort.
6.0 p.m.
The Secretary of State, in his opening speech, made much reference to what the House of Lords had done. Succeeding Members referred to Tory peers. It would be fascinating to analyse the voting record, nay the attendance record, of the Huyton creations, none of whom could be called a Conservative. It would be fascinating to look at the voting and attendance records of the political secretary who now decorates the Upper House.
Let us get away from the cant and humbug that the Secretary of State introduced. Members of the House of Lords are exercising the powers which the Labour Government gave them in the 1940s and 1950s. If they do not use it, they should be criticised. They are using it. The only people to be criticised who have thrown away the chance of the nationalisation of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries are the Government and the Labour Party.
Question put, That this House doth insist on its disagreement with the Lords in the amendments on which the Lords insist:—
The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 268.

Division No. 432.]

AYES

[6.1 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Campbell, Ian

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Allaun, Frank

Cenavan, Dennis

de Freltas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Anderson, Donald

Cant, R. B.

Dell, Rt Hon Edmund

Archer, Peter

Carmichael, Nell

Dempsey, James

Armstrong, Ernest

Cartwright, John

Doig, Peter

Ashley, Jack

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Dormand, J. D.

Ashton, Joe

Clemitson, Ivor

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael

Dunn, James A.

Atkinson, Norman

Cohen, Stanley

Dunnett, Jack

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coleman, Donald

Edge, Geoff

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Concannon, J. D.

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Bates, Alf

Conlan, Bernard

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

English, Michael

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Corbett, Robin

Ennals, David

Bidwell, Sydney

Cowans, Harry

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Bishop, E. S.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Boardman, H.

Crawshaw, Richard

Faulds, Andrew

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Cronin, John

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Bradley, Tom

Cryer, Bob

Flannery, Martin

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunningham, G. (Islington S)

Fletcher, L. R. (Iikeston)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Davidson, Arthur

Ford, Ben

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Forrester, John

Buchan, Norman

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Buchanan, Richard

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Freeson, Reginald

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Deakins, Eric

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

McElhone, Frank

Sandelson, Neville

George, Bruce

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Sedgemore, Brian

Gilbert, Dr John

MacKenzie, Gregor

Selby, Harry

Ginsburg, David

Mackintosh, John P.

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Golding, John

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

Gould, Bryan

McNamara, Kevin

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Gourlay, Harry

Madden, Max

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Graham, Ted

Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)

Sillars, James

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mahon, Simon

Silverman, Julius

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Skinner, Dennis

Grocott, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Small, William

Hardy, Peter

Marquand, David

Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Snape, Peter

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Spearing, Nigel

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Maynard, Miss Joan

Spriggs, Leslie

Hatton, Frank

Meacher, Michael

Stallard, A. W.

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Stoddart, David

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Mendelson, John

Stott, Roger

Heffer, Eric S.

Mikardo, Ian

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Hooley, Frank

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Horam, John

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Swain, Thomas

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

Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Moonman, Eric

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Huckfield, Les

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Newens, Stanley

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Hunter, Adam

Noble, Mike

Tierney, Sydney

Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)

Oakes, Gordon

Tinn, James

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Ogden, Eric

Tomlinson, John

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

O'Halloran, Michael

Tomney, Frank

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Orbach, Maurice

Torney, Tom

Janner, Greville

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Tuck, Raphael

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Ovenden, John

Urwin, T. W.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

John, Brynmor

Padley, Walter

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

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Palmer, Arthur

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Park, George

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Parker, John

Watkins, David

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Parry, Robert

Watkinson, John

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Pavitt, Laurie

Weetch, Ken

Judd, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Weitzman, David

Kaufman, Gerald

Perry, Ernest

Wellbeloved, James

Kelley, Richard

Phipps, Dr Colin

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

White, James (Pollok)

Kinnock, Neil

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Whitehead, Phillip

Lambie, David

Price, William (Rugby)

Whitlock, William

Lamborn, Harry

Radice, Giles

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Lamond, James

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Leadbitter, Ted

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Lee, John

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

Lever, Rt Hon Harold

Robinson, Geoffrey

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Lipton, Marcus

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Litterick, Tom

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Woodall. Alec

Lomas, Kenneth

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Woof, Robert

Loyden, Eddie

Rooker, J. W.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Luard, Evan

Roper, John

Young, David (Bolton E)

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Rose, Paul B.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mabon, Dr J Dickson

Rowlands, Ted

Mr. James Hamilton and

McCartney, Hugh

Ryman, John

Mr. Joseph Harper.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Aitken, Jonathan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Alison, Michael

Bradford, Rev Robert

Clegg, Walter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Cockcroft, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Brittan, Leon

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Awdry, Daniel

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Cope, John

Bain, Mrs Margaret

Brotherton, Michael

Cordle, John H.

Baker, Kenneth

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Cormack, Patrick

Banks, Robert

Bryan, Sir Paul

Corrie, John

Beith, A. J.

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Costain, A. P.

Bell, Ronald

Buck, Antony

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Budgen, Nick

Crawford, Douglas

Benyon,W.

Bulmer, Esmond

Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Burden, F. A.

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Biffen, John

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Carlisle, Mark

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Blaker, Peter

Carson, John

Drayson, Burnaby

Body, Richard

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Churchill, W. S.

Dunlop, John

Bottomley, Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

1932

1933

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rathbone, Tim

Elliott, Sir William

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Emery, Peter

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Kilfedder, James

Reid, George

Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Eyre, Reginald

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Ridsdale, Julian

Fairbairn, Nicholas

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fairgrieve, Russell

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Farr, John

Knox, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fell, Anthony

Lamont, Norman

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lawson, Nigel

Royle, Sir Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sainsbury, Tim

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Fox, Marcus

Lloyd, Ian

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Loveridge, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Freud, Clement

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Shepherd, Colin

Fry, Peter

MacCormick, lain

Shersby, Michael

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McCrindle, Robert

Silvester, Fred

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

McCusker, H.

Sims, Roger

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Macfarlane, Neil

Sinclair, Sir George

Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

MacGregor, John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Glyn, Dr Alan

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Speed, Keith

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spence, John

Goodhart, Philip

Madel, David

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Goodlad, Alastair

Mates, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gorst, John

Mather, Carol

Stanley, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Maude, Angus

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Maudling. Rt Hon Reginald

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Mawby, Ray

Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

Gray, Hamish

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Grieve, Percy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stokes, John

Griffiths, Eldon

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Tapsell, Peter

Grist, Ian

Mills, Peter

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Grylls, Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Hall, Sir John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Tebbit, Norman

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Moate, Roger

Temple-Morris, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Molyneaux, James

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Monro, Hector

Thompson, George

Hannam, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Townsend, Cyril D.

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Trotter, Neville

Hastings, Stephen

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Tugendhat, Christopher

Havers, Sir Michael

Morris. Michael (Northampton S)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hawkins, Paul

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Hayhoe, Barney

Mudd, David

Viggers, Peter

Henderson, Douglas

Neave, Airey

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Heseltine, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Wakeham, John

Hicks, Robert

Neubert, Michael

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Higgins, Terence L.

Newton, Tony

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Hodgson, Robin

Onslow, Cranley

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Holland, Philip

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Wall, Patrick

Hordern, Peter

Osborn, John

Warren, Kenneth

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Weatherill, Bernard

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Wells, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Page, Richard (Workington)

Welsh, Andrew

Hunt, John (Bromley)

pardoe, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Hurd, Douglas

Parkinson, Cecil

Wigley, Dafydd

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pattie, Geoffrey

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Penhaligon, David

Winterton, Nicholas

James, David

Percival, Ian

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

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

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Younger, Hon George

Jessel, Toby

Pink, R. Bonner

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Jopling, Michael

Prior, Rt Hon James

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Raison, Timothy

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question,
That this House doth insist on its amendments made in lieu.—[Mr. Stoddart.]
put and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for insisting on amendments proposed by the
1934
Commons in lieu of certain amendments on which the Lords have insisted to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill—[Mr. Kaufman.]
put forthwith pursuant to order [10th November], and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question,
That Mr. Anthony Berry, Mr. Les Huckfield, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. Tom King and Mr.

1935
Tom Pendry be members of the Committee—[Mr. Kaufman.]
put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question.
That three be the quorum of the Committee. [Mr. Kaufman.]
put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
Motion made, and Question,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kaufman.]
put forthwith, pursuant to the Order [10th November], and agreed to.
Reason for insisting on Commons amendments in lieu of Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.
Mr. Speaker: The House is suspended for fifteen minutes.
6.18 p.m.
Sitting suspended.
Sitting resumed—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that it is necessary for the House to wait for a further 10 minutes. I therefore suspend the sitting for a further 10 minutes.
6.33 p.m.
Sitting suspended.
Sitting resumed—

ROYAL ASSENT
6.50 p.m.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; The House went:—and, having returned:

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker (in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

1. Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976

2. Industry (Amendment) Act 1976

3.Race Relations Act 1976

1936

4. Development of Rural Wales Act 1976

5. Energy Act 1976

6. Weights and Measures &c. Act 1976

7. Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976

8. Dock Work Regulation Act 1976.

9. Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976

10. Education Act 1976

11. Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976

12. Health Services Act 1976

13. Tyne and Wear Act 1976

14. London Transport Act 1976

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919:
Endowments and Glebe Measure 1976

PROROGATION

  HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command, as follows:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  It was with great pleasure that My Husband and I visited Finland; the United States of America, where we welcomed the opportunity to join the people of the United States in the celebration of their bicentennial anniversary; Canada, where I opened the Olympic Games; and recently Luxembourg. We were very pleased to welcome President Geisel of Brazil and President Giscard d'Estaing of France on State Visits to this country.
  My Government welcomed the independence of Seychelles and their decision to join the Commonwealth.
  My Government have participated throughout the year in international efforts to promote a more just world economic order.
  My Government have continued to make their contribution to the development of detente between East and West, and to work for the improvement of bilateral relations and economic co-operation with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe. My Government have worked for force reductions in Central Europe and the prevention of the spread of nuclear weapons. They have tabled a draft convention in Geneva on the prohibition of chemical weapons.
  My Government have continued their efforts to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia based on acceptance of early transition to majority rule.
  My Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary continue to perform with distinction their difficult and dangerous task in Northern Ireland. Steps have been taken to strengthen the role of the police and their effectiveness in maintaining the rule of law, and to make the parliamentary procedures for the government of Northern Ireland more effective. The Fair Employment Act has been passed, which promotes equality of opportunity in employment for people of different religious beliefs; a Northern Ireland Development Agency has been set up; and the law on industrial relations has been brought more closely into line with that of Great Britain.
  My Government have continued to co-operate with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on security, and reciprocal legislation in both countries has been brought into effect to deal with fugitive offenders.
  Members of the House of Commons
  I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  My Government continued to give priority to reducing inflation. Following the success of the £6 pay policy, they agreed with the Trades Union Congress a further round of voluntary pay restraint. The Price Code was amended to encourage the expansion of industrial investment and of employ-
  1938
  ment. Grants were made for the setting up of more consumer advice centres and for providing consumers with information about prices.
  My Government have been deeply concerned about the high level of unemployment which we in common with most other countries have experienced; practical measures designed to alleviate the situation and to help meet the need for skilled manpower have been taken.
  Legislation was enacted to remove unsatisfactory features of the Industrial Relations Act 1971.
  My Government have sought to stimulate industrial regeneration, through the development of an industrial strategy with the close involvement of both sides of industry, through the work of the National Enterprise Board and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Development Agencies, and by initiating discussion of planning agreements with major companies.
  Legislation has been passed to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and to make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling.
  Legislation has been passed to meet the United Kingdotn's obligations under the International Energy Programme and European Economic Community obligations on energy supply and use; to control energy supplies in a domestic energy emergency; and to regulate the use of energy for the purposes of conservation.
  The British National Oil Corporation has been established and has taken over the National Coal Board's Continental Shelf assets and purchased substantial interests in Burmah's North Sea holdings, including shares in the Ninian and Thistle oilfields. Participation agreements have been concluded with the Gulf, Conoco, Tricentrol and Ranger oil companies. Negotiations with other companies are proceeding.
  My Government have continued to foster the development of our offshore petroleum resources. Following a recent invitation, 53 applications have been received and are now being considered for further licences for the exploration and development of offshore oil and

  1939
  gas, in which majority State participation will be a precondition.
  Acts have been passed to improve the law relating to companies and to insolvency.
  My Government have published a White Paper and a Supplementary Statement setting out their detailed proposals for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
  My Government have continued to work for improvements in the operation of the Common Agricultural Policy.
  Legislation for England and Wales has been passed to strengthen the legal safeguards for farm tenants and their families, and to end the tied cottage system in agriculture.
  My Ministers have placed special emphasis on areas of acute housing need in the public expenditure programme, and have continued to encourage new building for owner occupation.
  Legislation has been passed to facilitate the transfer of housing from New Town Development Corporations and the Commission for the New Towns to elected local authorities in England and Wales.
  An Act has been passed to give water authorities in England and Wales more effective powers to deal with drought.
  In pursuance of My Government's comprehensive policy for development land, legislation for a development land tax was enacted.
  Provision has been made for increases in social security benefits and war pensions; and new cash benefits have been introduced to help disabled people. Provision has also been made for the child benefit scheme to start on 4th April 1977.
  An Act has been passed to secure the progressive withdrawal from National Health Service hospitals of facilities for private medical and dental practice and to control development of large private hospitals. A Royal Commission has been established to consider the best use and management of the resources of the National Health Service in the interests of the patients and those who work in it.
  Legislation has been passed under which local education authorities in England and Wales may be required to submit proposals to abolish selection in secondary education.
  My Government have announced their intention to establish a Committee to inquire into the rôle and functioning of financial institutions in the United Kingdom, and have published proposals for strengthening and extending the system for supervision of banks and other deposit taking institutions. Acts were passed to transform the Trustee Savings Bank, to widen its banking services and to extend the facilities provided by the National Giro.
  The law on racial discrimination has been strengthened
  An Act has been passed providing for the establishment of a Police Corn-plaints Board to introduce an independent element into the procedure for handling complaints by members of the public against the police in England and Wales.
  A measure was passed to repeal and re-enact with amendments the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.
  An Act has been passed to improve the law relating to bail in England and Wales.
  Royal Commissions have been established to inquire into the provision of legal services. In the meantime, My Government have continued their support for the provision of legal services to those who need them most.
  Further progress has been made with the reform of the law and the improvement of the statute book by consolidation and the repeal of obsolete enactments.
  Acts have been passed to reform and improve the law of Scotland, including the law relating to liquor licensing, crofting tenure, freshwater fisheries, education and fatal accident inquiries.
  An Act has been passed to give greater impetus to the measures already being taken to stimulate the social and economic development of rural Wales.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  I pray that the blessings of Almighty God may attend you.
  Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read; after which the Lord Chancellor said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons:
  By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, we do, in Her Majesty's Name and in
  1942
  obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the twenty-fourth day of this instant November, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to the twenty-fourth day of this instant November.
  End of the Second Session (opened on 19th November 1975) of the Forty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Twenty-fifth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Ministerial Statements (European Community)
  Ministerial Statements (European Community)
  Members' Pensions
  Members' Pensions
  NATO CONFERENCE (TRAVEL COSTS)
  NATO CONFERENCE (TRAVEL COSTS)
  Statutory Instruments (Standing Committees)
  Statutory Instruments (Standing Committees)
ENERGY
  Nuclear Reactors
  Nuclear Reactors
  Paraffin
  Paraffin
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Gas and Electricity Disconnections
  Electricity Bills (Discounts)
  Electricity Bills (Discounts)
  Coal Reserves
  Coal Reserves
  Oil and Balance of Payments
  Oil and Balance of Payments
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  Radioactive Waste (Disposal)
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Coal
  Coal
  Gas (Beach Prices)
  Gas (Beach Prices)
  Coal Mining
  Coal Mining
  Oil-related Employment
  Oil-related Employment
  Oil Exports
  Oil Exports
  Reserves
  Reserves
  Nuclear Fuel
  Nuclear Fuel
  Government Directorships
  Government Directorships
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Coal Mining (Vale of Belvoir)
  Coal Mining (Vale of Belvoir)
ENVIRONMENT
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Sports Council
  Sports Council
  London Council of Social Services
  London Council of Social Services
  Demolition and Dismantling Industry Register
  Demolition and Dismantling Industry Register
  District Councils (Accounts)
  District Councils (Accounts)
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Statistical Surveys
  Statistical Surveys
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Wetlands (Conservation)
  Wetlands (Conservation)
  Water Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Water Authorities (Direct Labour)
  Seal Sands, Teesside
  Seal Sands, Teesside
  New Towns (Direct Labour)
  New Towns (Direct Labour)
  Okehampton Castle
  Okehampton Castle
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Local Authority Members (Allowances)
  Local Authority Members (Allowances)
  Home Owners (Inquiries and Surveys)
  Home Owners (Inquiries and Surveys)
  Local Authorities (P11 Returns)
  Local Authorities (P11 Returns)
  Mr. R. Warren-Evans (Industrial Adviser)
  Mr. R. Warren-Evans (Industrial Adviser)
  Housing Finance
  Housing Finance
  Southend (Ring Road)
  Southend (Ring Road)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Exchequer and Audit Department
  Exchequer and Audit Department
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Official Paid Envelopes
  Official Paid Envelopes
  Public Boards (Membership)
  Public Boards (Membership)
  Newspaper Advertising
  Newspaper Advertising
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  Directorate of Overseas Surveys
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Dispersal (Hardman Report)
  Dispersal (Hardman Report)
  Salaries
  Salaries
  Civil Service Unit (Costs)
  Civil Service Unit (Costs)
  Civil Servants (Deployment)
  Civil Servants (Deployment)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Classes
  Nursery Classes
  School Bus Services (Fares)
  School Bus Services (Fares)
  Student-Teachers
  Student-Teachers
  Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Student Fees
  Student Fees
  O-levels
  O-levels
  University Grants
  University Grants
  Further Education (Advisory Council)
  Further Education (Advisory Council)
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  University Students
  University Students
  Primary Schoolchildren (Costs)
  Primary Schoolchildren (Costs)
  European Schools (Protocol)
  European Schools (Protocol)
  Further Education (Costs)
  Further Education (Costs)
TRANSPORT
  British Railways (Pensions)
  British Railways (Pensions)
  Departmental Surveys
  Departmental Surveys
  Yiewsley Bypass
  Yiewsley Bypass
  Link Electronics Limited, Andover
  Link Electronics Limited, Andover
  Warkworth Harbour
  Warkworth Harbour
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Drivers
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Railways
  Railways
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Rural Transport
  Rural Transport
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  Driving Licences (Return after Suspension)
  Driving Licences (Return after Suspension)
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  Car Registration (Cherished Numbers)
  Mopeds (Accidents)
  Mopeds (Accidents)
  Vehicle Licences
  Vehicle Licences
DEFENCE
  Aircraft
  Aircraft
  Type 42 Destroyers
  Type 42 Destroyers
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Review of the Fleet
  Review of the Fleet
  Enemy Identification
  Enemy Identification
  Missiles
  Missiles
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farm Amalgamation Scheme
  Farm Amalgamation Scheme
  Beef
  Beef
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Radioactive Waste (Marine Life)
  Radioactive Waste (Marine Life)
  Milk
  Milk
  Primates (Imports)
  Primates (Imports)
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (POST OFFICE MAIL)
  GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (POST OFFICE MAIL)
  MR. PHILIP AGEE AND MR. MARK HOSENBALL
  MR. PHILIP AGEE AND MR. MARK HOSENBALL
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  Departmental Surveys
  Departmental Surveys
  BRYANT BUILDERS, (BIRMINGHAM)
  BRYANT BUILDERS, (BIRMINGHAM)
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (CONVENTIONS AND AGREEMENTS)
WALES
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Public Bodies (Borrowing Powers)
  Public Bodies (Borrowing Powers)
  Health and Social Services (Expenditure)
  Health and Social Services (Expenditure)
  O-Levels
  O-Levels
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Stamp Duties
  Stamp Duties
  Public Sector Debt
  Public Sector Debt
  Labour Costs
  Labour Costs
  Exports and Imports
  Exports and Imports
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Peers (Travel Warrants)
  Peers (Travel Warrants)
  Public Sector Shareholdings
  Public Sector Shareholdings
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Salaries)
  Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise (Salaries)
  Income Tax Rebates (Fathers)
  Income Tax Rebates (Fathers)
  £ Sterling
  £ Sterling
  Dividend Control and Industrial Strategy
  Dividend Control and Industrial Strategy
  Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco
  Alcohol, Petrol and Tobacco
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Oil and Gas (Revenue Yields)
  Oil and Gas (Revenue Yields)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Unrecoverable Taxes
  Unrecoverable Taxes
  Company Profits
  Company Profits
  Gross Domestic Income
  Gross Domestic Income
  Value Added Tax (Evasion)
  Value Added Tax (Evasion)
  Self-Employed Persons
  Self-Employed Persons
  Investment Intentions (Interest Rates)
  Investment Intentions (Interest Rates)
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefit
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefit
  Tax Relief (Companies)
  Tax Relief (Companies)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Capital Transfer Tax (Lands)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Lands)
  Nationalised Industries (Public Expenditure)
  Nationalised Industries (Public Expenditure)
  Taxes and National Insurance Contributions
  Taxes and National Insurance Contributions
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Family Allowances (Renunciation)
  Family Allowances (Renunciation)
  Undeveloped Land
  Undeveloped Land
  Building Societies (Investors' Tax)
  Building Societies (Investors' Tax)
  Social Security Payments
  Social Security Payments
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  European Community (Grants and Loans)
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Pensions
  Pensions
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Statistics
  Aid Statistics
  Seychelles
  Seychelles
  Angolan Refugees
  Angolan Refugees
  Falkland Islands (Airfield Contract)
  Falkland Islands (Airfield Contract)
SCOTLAND
  Village Halls
  Village Halls
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Airdrie (Hospital)
  Airdrie (Hospital)
  Haddock
  Haddock
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  List D Schools and Assessment Centres
  List D Schools and Assessment Centres
  Children's Panels
  Children's Panels
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Terrorism (European Convention)
  Terrorism (European Convention)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Poland
  Poland
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Angola
  Angola
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Murderers
  Murderers
  Banks (Security Grills)
  Banks (Security Grills)
  Overseas Visitors (Residence Applications)
  Overseas Visitors (Residence Applications)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Psychiatry
  Psychiatry
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Prisons
  Prisons
  Recidivism
  Recidivism
  Computers (Crime Prevention)
  Computers (Crime Prevention)
  Remand Centres
  Remand Centres
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Parliamentary Constituencies
  Prison Officers
  Prison Officers
  Commonwealth Visitors
  Commonwealth Visitors
  Indictable Offences (Manchester)
  Indictable Offences (Manchester)
  Animals (Protection)
  Animals (Protection)
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Prison Service (Recruitment Costs)
  Prison Service (Recruitment Costs)
  Detention Centres
  Detention Centres
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Mr. Tungsun Park
  Mr. Tungsun Park
  Police (Pay)
  Police (Pay)
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Polystyrene
  Polystyrene
INDUSTRY
  Courtaulds
  Courtaulds
  Washing Machines
  Washing Machines
  Motor Vehicle Components
  Motor Vehicle Components
  Government Chemist's Laboratory
  Government Chemist's Laboratory
  Toothbrushes
  Toothbrushes
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Regional Aid
  Regional Aid
  Thanet
  Thanet
  European Community Document 319/75
  European Community Document 319/75
  Government Directorships
  Government Directorships
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Shareholdings (Inquiry)
  Power Plants
  Power Plants
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
  Short Brothers and Harland Ltd.
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Traders (Assistance)
  Traders (Assistance)
  Juvenile Offenders (Parental Fines)
  Juvenile Offenders (Parental Fines)
  Prisoners (Remissions of Sentences)
  Prisoners (Remissions of Sentences)
  Parents (Duties)
  Parents (Duties)
  Sunday Market (Nutts Corner)
  Sunday Market (Nutts Corner)
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Services)
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Services)
  Murders
  Murders
  Finaghy Community Centre
  Finaghy Community Centre
  Meat Industry (Finance)
  Meat Industry (Finance)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Construction Workers
  Construction Workers
  Thompson's Court, Lurgan
  Thompson's Court, Lurgan
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Compensation
  Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Criminal Injuries Compensation
EMPLOYMENT
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Manpower Services Commission (Leasehold)
  Manpower Services Commission (Leasehold)
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Public and Private Sectors
  Public and Private Sectors
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Strike-Prone Areas (Survey)
  Strike-Prone Areas (Survey)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Company Receiverships
  Company Receiverships
  Apprenticeships (Scotland)
  Apprenticeships (Scotland)
  Schoolchildren (Equipment)
  Schoolchildren (Equipment)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Price Check Scheme
  Price Check Scheme
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Bread
  Bread
  Price Increases
  Price Increases
  Consumer Advice Centres and Price Surveys
  Consumer Advice Centres and Price Surveys
  Advertising Samples (Distribution)
  Advertising Samples (Distribution)
TRADE
  Insurance Broking
  Insurance Broking
  British Airports Authority (Chairman)
  British Airports Authority (Chairman)
  Yarn
  Yarn
  Multifibre Arrangement
  Multifibre Arrangement
  Export Incentives
  Export Incentives
  Services to Exporters
  Services to Exporters
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Venezuela
  Venezuela
  Import Controls
  Import Controls
  Cotton Yarn and Woven Cotton Cloth (Import Duty)
  Cotton Yarn and Woven Cotton Cloth (Import Duty)
  Wrought Titanium (Export)
  Wrought Titanium (Export)
  Motor Cars
  Motor Cars
  Motor Vehicles
  Motor Vehicles
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Solar Heating Equipment
  Solar Heating Equipment
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
  Registry of Business Names
  Registry of Business Names
  Foodstuffs
  Foodstuffs
  Lonrho Ltd.
  Lonrho Ltd.
  Capital Investment (European Community)
  Capital Investment (European Community)
  Exports
  Exports
  Whale Products
  Whale Products
  Anti-dumping Powers
  Anti-dumping Powers
  Footwear
  Footwear
  Textiles
  Textiles
  European Community
  European Community
  Boats and Ships
  Boats and Ships
  Poland
  Poland
  Lard
  Lard
  Shirts
  Shirts
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Retail Sales
  Retail Sales
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Royal Hospital, Richmond
  Royal Hospital, Richmond
  Infant Mortality
  Infant Mortality
  Benefit Entitlement
  Benefit Entitlement
  Mortgaged Premises (Marital Separations)
  Mortgaged Premises (Marital Separations)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  National Health Service (Management Costs)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Foster Parents (Costs)
  Foster Parents (Costs)
  National Health Service (Merrison Committee's Proposals)
  National Health Service (Merrison Committee's Proposals)
  Psychosurgery
  Psychosurgery
  Cytomegalovirus Vaccine
  Cytomegalovirus Vaccine
  Joint Financing Projects
  Joint Financing Projects
  Pendlebury Health Centre
  Pendlebury Health Centre
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  National Insurance (Refunds)
  National Insurance (Refunds)
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
  NHS Officers (Expenditure)
  NHS Officers (Expenditure)
  Official Cars
  Official Cars
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford
  National Health Service Staffs
  National Health Service Staffs
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Widows
  Widows
  Contraceptive Pill (Computerised Information)
  Contraceptive Pill (Computerised Information)
  Departmental Inquiries
  Departmental Inquiries
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Child Health Services
  Child Health Services
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  East Anglian Regional Health Authority
  East Anglian Regional Health Authority
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Patients
  Patients
  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Gas and Electricity Bills
  Kingston and Richmond Area Health Authority
  Kingston and Richmond Area Health Authority
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Patients (Medical Records)
  Patients (Medical Records)
  Health Care
  Health Care
  Medical Research
  Medical Research
  Vaccination Certificates
  Vaccination Certificates
  Pensions (Hospital Patients)
  Pensions (Hospital Patients)
  Births (Illegitimate)
  Births (Illegitimate)
  Rubella
  Rubella
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Health Services (Financing)
  Health Services (Financing)
  Family Incomes
  Family Incomes
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
  Marginal Tax Rates and Personal Incomes
  PRISONERS (HUNGER STRIKES)
  PRISONERS (HUNGER STRIKES)
EMPLOYMENT
  Part-time Workers
  Part-time Workers
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Industrial Training Boards (Scotland)
  Industrial Training Boards (Scotland)
  Health and Safety
  Health and Safety
  Termination Notices
  Termination Notices
  Statistics
  Statistics
  Company Receiverships
  Company Receiverships

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

MINERALS EXPLORATION REPORTS
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will publish an up-to-date report on minerals exploration in Scotland undertaken by the Institute of Geological Science on behalf of the Department of Industry.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, as a result of work carried out under the current programme of Mineral Resources Investigations in Great Britain, seven reports have so far been completed and are available for public inspection; three of these relate to Scotland. Fifty-two further reports are due to be completed by the end of July 1977, of which 18 relate to Scotland.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can the noble Lord say whether those reports which are available for inspection can be obtained in the Printed Paper Office, or are they so bulky that one would need a slim volume to summarise them?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, they are available at the relevant IGS Libraries, and I am advised that these are to be found at—surprisingly perhaps—Exhibition Road, London, Gray's Inn Road, London, at Leeds, at Exeter, and at Edinburgh in Murtchison House, West Mains Road.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord make arrange-
1652
ments so that the Houses of Parliament might also be a repository for these documents, so that Members of both Houses can consult them?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I shall certainly give consideration to what seems to me to be a relevant point which the noble Earl makes.

THE SVALBARD ARCHIPELAGO
11.7 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view concerning the potential strategic and economic importance to the West of the Svalbard Archipelago and the Barents Sea.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Svalbard and the Barents Sea to the east of the Archipelago constitute a region of strategic importance for East/West relations, but the area has been one of low tension for many years, and we hope that it remains so. Under the 1920 Treaty, Norway undertakes not to create or allow the establishment of any naval base in the territories of Svalbard, or to construct any fortifications there, and the territories are not to be used for any warlike purposes. In accordance with the Treaty, the parties have certain rights to exploit the natural resources of the Svalbard Archipelago.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is anxiety in the Western World regarding the Soviet's particular interest in this area?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are aware of certain concern by the Norwegians about the situation in this area, and we sympathise with their concern. We expect that activity in this area will not in any way either infringe the terms of the 1920 Treaty or conduce to an impairment of the political and strategic situation in this very sensitive area.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether there is a civil Soviet airfield on Spitsbergen, which might be a potential infringement?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I can confirm that. There are regular flights between Svalbard and the Soviet Union and between Svalbard and Norway, of course. There are also mining communities from both countries exploiting the coal resources of the Archipelago.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that the Russians are firing rockets over the sea area which is in dispute in that part of Norway?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Soviet Union has conducted training operations involving missiles in the high sea in this area.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does my noble friend think it is wise for us to go searching for items upon which there can be disputation between Britain and the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I do not think so, and I do not think that the noble Baroness thinks so, either. We are, of course, as a responsible Chamber of Parliament entitled, and indeed have a certain duty to look at these important matters from time to time—and, I hope, always in the spirit which the noble Baroness and my noble friend have shown today.

AGRICULTURAL LAND
11.11 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many acres of farm land have been taken over for housing, factories and other buildings in the years 1975 and 1976.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I regret that I am unable to give a reply in the precise
1654
terms used by the noble Baroness. Using figures for the five-year period ending in June 1975, which is the latest information available, about 39,000 acres of agricultural land in the United Kingdom were lost each year to urban, industrial and recreational use, excluding mineral workings. This information is taken from the returns in the annual agricultural census.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Has a survey been made of derelict lands and open spaces in cities and towns, to see whether these could be used for building of factories and houses in the future, which would thus save good agricultural land?
Lord PEART: My Lords, no precise survey of that kind has been made, but there have been independent assessments, such as that by the Centre for Agricultural Strategy, which I assume the noble Baroness has read. The noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, highlighted in a statement the loss of agricultural land. But the Ministry of Agriculture is naturally concerned that good agricultural land is not lost, if this can be avoided.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend give us any information with regard to the acreage which has been taken up during this period for new roads, motorways and similar purposes; and, if he has not got the particulars, would he get them and circulate them in the Official Report?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I shall see if I can get them and I shall reply to my noble friend.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will encourage local authorities, when they are building schools, to build two-storey schools, or even three-storey schools, instead of having sprawling one-floor buildings all over good agricultural land? It does the little children no harm to run upstairs.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked me to do certain things concerning the question of the height of schools which I do not think any Government have ever agreed to. I think we must accept that at every

1655
stage of development there must be a careful look at the situation from the point of view of the needs of agriculture.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is not the worrying thing about the figures which the noble Lord has given the fact that the majority of this acreage is usually good agricultural land? Are statistics kept to say how much of the 39,000 acres represents good agricultural land as opposed to relatively poor stock?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot give a figure today without notice, but I will get it for the noble Earl. Around 0·3 per cent of the total agricultural area of the United Kingdom is lost to other use each year. As the noble Earl knows, under the Government's strategy for the development of agriculture, food production from our own resources is expected to rise by about 2½ per cent. per annum on average, so I do not think we should be too pessimistic.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would that be from the existing acreage or from the decreasing acreage?
Lord PEART: From the decreasing acreage, my Lords.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, what was the point of all the work we put into the Community Land Act if no hope is to be derived from this measure in reducing the amount of good agricultural land that is taken for urban development?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the policy for protecting agricultural land applies equally to land acquired for development under the Community Land Act, and I believe that such productive use of land should be continued as long as possible.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, would the House be right in assuming that if 3 per cent. of land is taken for development every year it will be 33 years before—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: It is 0·3 per cent.
Lord KENNET:: —it will be 330 years before there is no grass left in England?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think
1656
I shall be Minister then, so I cannot answer my noble friend.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
11.15. a.m.
THE MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and Amendments in lieu be now considered.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS TO WHICH THE COMMONS HAD DISAGREED AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
[The page and line refer to Bill (314) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
1 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 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)"
2 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 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"
3 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 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

1657
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

(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."

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for which disagreement they have assigned the following Reason:
4Because they would undesirably exempt certain transactions from the safeguarding provisions of the Bill.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. I to 3 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. I will, with the leave of the House, also speak on Lords Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6, and Lords Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9, to which the Commons have disagreed and proposed Amendments in lieu Nos. 10 to 19 inclusive.
My Lords, I wish to make it clear at the outset that the Government will make no concession on their proposals for ship repair. The Amendments carried last Thursday in another place reaffirmed our commitment to vest in British Shipbuilders the nine privately-owned and three privately-owned ship repair companies named in Schedule 2 to the Bill. Those Amendments also set out the timescale for vesting—no less than three months, and no more than six months, from Royal Assent. Ship repair is now the sole remaining issue between this House and another place. My Lords, it must now be clear beyond doubt to everyone in this House that the Government's commitment on ship repairing is as firm as our commitment to bring aircraft, shipbuilding and slow speed marine engines into public ownership.
Ship repairing was included in both the February and October 1974 Manifestos. It was also specifically mentioned, in some detail, in the discussion paper which the then Secretary of State for Industry laid before Parliament on the 31st July 1974. The discussion paper set out the reasons for the Government's proposals on ship repair. The arguments for public owner-
1658
ship of the larger ship repair companies were powerfully made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place last Thursday. I do not intend going into them yet again in full. Instead, I wish to concentrate on three misconceptions about our proposals which I believe may have seriously misled noble Lords opposite, and possibly even one of my noble friends.
First, it was never the intention to nationalise the smaller ship repair companies or those for whom ship repairing is only a sideline. This was stated explicitly in paragraph 11 of the 1974 discussion paper. Instead, I was the Government's intention to nationalise two main groups of ship repair companies: first, the ship repair subsidiaries of groups like Swan Hunter and Scott Lithgow, where shipbuilding and ship repairing complement each other to a great extent, and where separation would cause loss of flexibility and inefficient use of resources; and, second, the large independent ship repair companies who operate significant dry dock facilities on the main estuaries. These were included to give British Shipbuilders an adequate industrial base for its ship repair interests, and to ensure modernisation and development of the industry in all the main port areas of the country, as was recommended in the PA Management Consultants' report.
The criteria defining the ship repair companies in Schedule 2 were deliberately chosen to fulfil the Government's intention to include only the larger companies with major facilities on the main estuaries, and not the smaller companies carrying out mainly voyage repairs, nor those companies carrying out ship repair as a sideline. The analogy which has been trade that the difference between shipbuilding and ship repairing is like the difference between garages and car manufacturers bears no relation whatever to the Government's proposals in this Bill and is completely misleading.
The second misconception I want to correct is that the workers in some ship repair companies are against nationalisation. This mistaken belief was destroyed conclusively by the evidence presented last week in another place, including the letter from three-quarters of the workforce in one of the yards of Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Limited affirming that they

1659
fully support the Bill, and the inclusion of their company.
The third misconception is that ship repair will not suffer like shipbuilding from delay in carrying out the Government's proposals. This is not true. The ship repairing industry is also facing a bleak period when work will be hard to find. Delay and uncertainty about nationalisation will make it more difficult to get through this period intact. Many companies have been planning on the basis that British Shipbuilders will be taking over soon. Indeed, one independent ship repair company has told the Department of Industry that even if ship repair was to be removed from the Bill they would still want to come under British Shipbuilders as soon as possible.
My Lords, I would like now to turn to the more general consequences of delay. But before doing so I want to deal with the spurious argument that the responsibility for delaying the proposals for aircraft and shipbuilding will be with the Government. This argument is completely false. I have shown clearly that the Government have a commitment for the ship repair proposals from the 1974 Manifestos. The proposals were clearly set out in the 1974 discussion paper and embodied in the Bill. I have explained the industrial logic behind these proposals. The proposals in the Bill have now been endorsed many times in another place. In these circumstances, the Government would be failing in their duty if they did not do everything in their power to carry out their policy.
If this House continues to insist on its Amendments to delete ship repair from the Bill, this Bill will fall in the current Session. I have to tell your Lordships that the Government will reintroduce the Bill at the beginning of the new Session. It will be the same Bill as came to your Lordships' House from the other place after Third Reading there, together with those of your Lordships' Amendments as were agreed to by the other place on 11th November. The compensation terms will remain the same. The safeguarding provisions will remain the same, with the same effective dates, and they will therefore continue in effect.
My Lords, this House does not have the power to stop this legislation being
1660
enacted. Under the Parliament Acts, your Lordships' power is restricted to delaying the enactment of a Bill for a period which can extend to the end of next Session. It is that power of delay this House will be exercising if we fail to agree with the Commons today. It is clear that the responsibility for this delay will be with this House, and your Lordships cannot escape it.
What will be the consequences of such delay? Last week in this House I called them catastrophic. The effect of delay on the British aircraft industry make it very likely that the industry will wholly or partly miss out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration and that many thousands of jobs will be lost permanently in consequence. But I would like to concentrate on the effect of delay on the problems facing the merchant shipbuilding industry, perhaps the most serious industrial problem facing the country at this time.
This country has a long tradition of merchant shipbuilding. The industry, although its share of world markets has declined dramatically, is still vitally important in certain sensitive areas. In these regions it provides productive employment for a wide range of skills of both management and work people, which go to building some of the best ships in the world. It also provides considerable employment for workers in the marine equipment industries. It is no exaggeration to say that the effect of a collapse of merchant shipbuilding would be catastrophic for whole communities in regions such as Clydeside and Tyne-side.
For many years merchant shipbuilders in this country have had to struggle for existence in the face of severe and sometimes unfair overseas competition. Governments of both parties have tried various measures of support, none of which has had a lasting effect. Some£300 million of public money has gone to the industry over the past decade. Now because of serious world overcapacity, this country's merchant shipbuilders are facing their most severe crisis, possibly in this century. Work in some yards will start to run out next year. New orders have to be fought for against cutthroat competition. Everything possible must be done to help the industry get work.

1661
The Government are sure that the best hope of surmounting the problems is to vest the merchant shipbuilders as soon as possible in British Shipbuilders. The Organising Committee has already begun to introduce a new type of enterprise to the problems of the industry. Once the Corporation is established it can plan a strategy for the industry as a whole in an orderly way. The alternative is a process of disorderly unplanned crises, which have infortunately been experienced in this industry in the past.
But, my Lords, time is short. The seriousness of the situation may be judged by two quotations from a statement made earlier this month by an experienced and practical shipbuilder. I refer to the new President of the Shipbuilders and Repairers National Association.
He said:
"In taking up the reins of office I am—in common with every shipbuilder in Britain—deeply concerned about the effects which the current uncertainty is having on our ability to meet the pressing problems which confront us."
And again:
"As an Association we have always said that if and when nationalisation were to become a fact of life we would do our best—in the interests of the industry and the people who rely on it for their livelihood—to make it work. My point tonight is that our ability to keep the industry vigorous is being negated by uncertainty and that the shipbuilders of Britain are in need of a positive policy which would encourage cooperation in this country among shipbuilders, shipowners, trade unions and Government in their mutual interest."
My Lords, the Government are completely convinced that by far the most effective way of bringing that policy quickly into action is to set up British Shipbuilders without further delay. The shipbuilding industry has for too long been a subject of intense political interest. It has now become almost a political football between this House and another place. But it is time to look at the stark realities which lie behind all this. The responsibility for further delaying the Bill rests, as I say, squarely with noble Lords opposite—that is all, as I have said, that this House now has the power to do. If the consequences of delay will be, as I firmly believe, to place in jeopardy the welfare of very many families and whole communities depending on shipbuilding, this House must take care to discharge this responsibility with full regard to the consequences. I have no doubt that the
1662
many thousands of people who are likely to lose their livelihoods and the opportunity to employ their productive skills if this Bill is delayed will lay the blame fairly on noble Lords opposite for insisting on their disagreement with legislation proposed by an elected Government and endorsed by the House of Commons. My Lords, the blame will lie on this House, and this House alone.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 4—(Lord Melchett.)
11.30 a.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has confirmed that the Government have not accepted your Lordships' Amendments, which would drop the ship repairing industry from the Bill but would leave the rest of the Bill intact. The additional Amendments which the Government have offered, and which have come to us from another place, simply provide a separate vesting date for the ship repairing industry, nothing more or less. Those additional Amendments numbered 10 to 19 would contribute only a cosmetic gloss because the time proposed for vesting, between three and six months, is about what is expected in timing in any case. So the effect of the Commons Message is therefore that the Government reject this House's Amendments and have produced others which make no material change.
This House has not insisted on any Amendments other than those to remove the ship repairing industry. The Amendments would leave the rest of the Bill fully operative and comprehensive. The nationalisation of shipbuilding, aircraft and marine engine manufacture is not affected by these Amendments, much as we on these Benches dislike those proposals for nationalisation of these three industries. The Government could have obtained the Bill last week with the nationalisation of those industries included in it. The Cabinet can still today obtain Royal Assent for it, leaving open the option to introduce a short Bill on ship repairing at the beginning of the next Session if they persist with the ntion of nationalising that industry. Whatever may be said about other industries, the

1663
question of nationalising ship repairing is not an urgent one. But the Government seem to have decided that it must be all or nothing, and that decision presumably was taken by the Cabinet last Thursday morning.
There appear to be three possible explanations. The first is that Ministers have taken leave of their senses. Another is that after what happened to the Docks Bill and at the recent by-elections, the Cabinet feel that any apparent concession would give the impression that the rot had set in even more than it has. There is a third explanation, a deplorable one if it is right. It is that the Government are determined to blame your Lordships for any reverses or distress which the shipbuilding and aircraft industries might appear to suffer during 1977, even though this Bill can be passed today with everything concerning those industries in it. There have been some signs that this could be the Government's ploy, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, added to them today.
On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, stated that further delay would be catastrophic for the industries. That was repeated by the Secretary of State for Industry, Mr. Varley, in the debate in another place on Thursday. In that debate, the Minister of State, Mr. Kaufman, spoke of the aircraft industry missing out on the next round of civil aircraft collaboration with other countries if the vesting date had not been reached by then. Many will argue that he is wrong. But where merchant shipbuilding is concerned, there is a world crisis because of the shortage of orders and overcapacity. The Governments of all shipbuilding countries have been helping their industries financially and in other ways. The Government may be using the words "catastrophic" and "disastrous" without much thought, except to try to attach the blame to this House. But if the Government are correct, if they believe what they are saying, then their failure to go ahead with the Bill, minus ship repairing, is, by their own words, an unprincipled act of cynicism.
No one can seriously contend that the question of nationalising the ship repairing industry is urgent, or that delay would matter much there. Here then are the
1664
Government delaying all the rest of the Bill, where they say that delay would cause disastrous consequences. One or two Ministers have in speeches pretended in public that this House is delaying the whole Bill. The noble Lord said that again today, and I refute that categorically. If the Government are planning to lay the blame for any ills allegedly caused by delay to this Bill at the door of this House, that would be as shabby and squalid a device as ever resorted to in British politics.
I am sure that no noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite would acquiesce in such a course of action. I find it difficult to believe that Ministers in the Commons would stoop to what, from their own statements, would be destructive folly, deliberately to cause delay which they consider would be catastrophic for the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, industries for which this Bill can be passed today. But the Government have not themselves moved with any marked celerity in decisions that have to be taken by them to accompany the Bill. For example, there is still no decision yet, even today, in what part of the country the headquarters of the British Shipbuilders' Corporation is to be. The noble Lord was speaking just now about the urgent need to get British Shipbuilders going. But they have not yet decided on where the headquarters should be. On the Second Reading at the end of September the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that he hoped it would be decided while the Bill was before this House. It is well known that there is competition between several development areas for the headquarters of the proposed Corporation. The selection of one area will disappoint the others. It would help to remove the suspicions of cynicism if the Government could tell us today the decision, if it has been taken; otherwise. it will look as if the Government are withholding an unpopular decision because delay would make it unnecessary.
The fact is clear: ship repairing is a most unsuitable industry for nationalisation. The reasons have been given more than once during the passage of the Bill. Anyone with any knowledge of the industry knows this. Most Ministers must by now know it. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, knows it, and has told Ministers in no uncertain terms. I suspect that he knows

1665
more about the ship repairing industry from his days in Clydeside than the whole of the Cabinet put together. Every informed observer knows it, as the Press has shown. The team from the IMF knows it. Our ship repairing competitors in Europe know it, and they would be content if the industry were to be nationalised.
Ship repairing is a service industry which has to take many decisions and actions, at short notice and in different places. Its units have direct and special links with the customers, the world's shipping industries. Both the British ship repairing industry and the British shipping industry believe that their interests would be damaged by the nationalisation of repairing.
I have not at any stage during the Bill suggested that ship repairing was not mentioned in the proposals for public ownership in the Labour Party Manifestos. What I have pointed out is that it has only been there in attendance upon shipbuilding, not on its own account. The Government would not suffer from any serious accusation of bad faith if, 2½ years later, shipbuilding were nationalised but not ship repairing. In any case, they could propose ship repairing again on its own merits next Session. That would indeed be a more realistic test of the merits of their case, which have so far been invisible. This House has not exceeded its powers which are limited. It has been working within the Act passed in the late 1940s when a Labour Government were in office.
Furthermore, these Amendments have been strongly supported by the Liberal Peers and a large number of Cross-Bench Peers. To speak as if only Conservative Peers have been involved, as some Ministers have in recent days, is thoroughly misleading. We are aware also that there is little enthusiasm from the Benches behind the Government for the nationalisation of shiprepairing. Far from being a conflict with the inclinations of the people, it is clear from every available opinion poll that the sense of this House's Amendments is supported by the large majority of the electorate. The Government are being given the opportunity of second thoughts. I hope that your Lordships will support my noble friends
1666
in opposing the Government's Motion and insisting upon our Amendments.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has put the case for the ship repairers very well and in great detail. I shall speak only very briefly and on one or two generalities. Today we are faced in your Lordships' Chamber with two alternatives: to climb down and give way to the Left Wing or to stand form and to do our constitutional duty. If we climb down, we are climbing down to the will of a minority Government elected by about 25 per cent. of the electorate—a Government which stagger, punch drunk, from one disaster to another, a Government, alas! controlled by their Left Wing whose ideological and nonsensical policies are totally against the wishes of the majority of people of Great Britain. We have only to listen to the voices of these extremists, who want not only to abolish the House of Lords, but to do away with a Second Chamber as well. By this, their way and purpose for governing Great Britain might be made possible; but as long as we stand firm, my Lords, our country, our freedom and our democracy will stand.
Most noble Lords will, I know, not shrink from their responsibilities for, if they do, this Chamber, which has for so long over the ages fought for the freedom and liberty of the individual citizen, might just as well not exist. Reformed in some way, we ought to be; but let us not forget the whole of Parliament in this reformation. Before the turnult of "Abolish the Lords!" has died down, let the moderate and sane democratic Members of all Parties in another place take a close look at themselves, for they must be blind or bent on self-destruction if they do not realise that it is as certain as the sun will rise that if we do not have some form of electoral reform in our ancient country we shall, in the not too distant future, become just another Iron Curtain satellite like those other unhappy countries who once—
Several noble Lords: Oh!
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: So, my Lords, I wholeheartedly support the idea of not yielding to the blustering outbursts from another place. If I should have a

1667
regret, it is that as well as removing the ship repairers from this Bill we cannot also remove the aerospace companies as well. This is a bad, malevolent and harmful Bill and, if it should ever be finally passed, future generations will live to regret it bitterly.
11.44 a.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the speech we have just heard from the Liberal Benches was to reflect the view of your Lordships' House, whichever way it decides to vote, then I think a very grave situation confronts us; because if that were so it would be a confrontation between the two Houses not on the merits of the legislation under consideration but representing a direct political attack on the Government of the day and the House of Commons. But I suspect that is not the view and that is not the approach of most noble Lords in the Chamber this morning. I had not intended to speak in this part of the debate. I thought, as one who had been leader of your Lordships' House and had so recently resigned, that it would perhaps be best to remain silent, but the two grave issues which confront the House are such that I thought I ought to participate, because one of them is an issue that I, with other noble Lords from all sides of the House who have had responsibility for leadership, have sought to avoid: that is, confrontation and conflict between the two Chambers.
There are two issues, both very grave. There is the shipbuilding industry in particular; there are thousands of jobs at stake and companies which could collapse in a matter of weeks or months, with consequent unemployment and other economic consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said it would be quite easy for the Government to say: "All right, we will take the Bill as it stands. We will accept the view of the House of Lords. We will merely nationalise the aircraft industry and the shipbuilding industry." But what the noble Lord is asking the Government to do is to accept the view of an unelected Chamber as against the view of an elected Chamber. My Lords, I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that that is not a position I would ever take; nor do I believe it is one the noble
1668
Lord himself would take if he were sitting on this side of the House.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just one point: is he really saying that this House has no right to exercise the rights which were conferred upon it by the Parliament Act back in 1948?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have only just got to my feet and I will face that issue when It comes. The issue really is conflict between the two Houses. Of course, this House has a constitutional position. It has power; we have been reminded on a number of occasions, and again this morning, that it has the power of delay, which was given to the House through a revision of legislation by a Labour Government. I believe that power of delay is right and proper. Indeed, I rather disagreed with the proposed reforms in 1969 which would have reduced the period of delay.
I believe it is right that a Second Chamber should have the power of delay, but I happen to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his predecessor, Lord Salisbury, that these powers are vested in the House of Lords, the second Chamber, for issues of very great principle—and I repeat, for issues of very great principle. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has on a number of occasions put very clearly the position of himself and his own Party. I have not got the exact words to hand, but he will correct me if I am wrong. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has always taken the position that your Lordships' House should exercise that power of delay only on issues of great principle. So the question that is before the House and which divides the Commons and the Lords today is an issue of very great principle.
I cannot help but reflect on events that happened about this time last year. I was involved in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill. I recognised that there was a genuine concern. I recognised, too, that there was an issue of principle—the question of the freedom of the Press. Your Lordships' House took a very strong view, and the House will know that I was not only conciliatory but went out of my way to see whether it was possible to meet the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and those who supported him. This House declined to pass the Trade

1669
Union and Labour Relations Bill, but it is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, when opposing it on the last stage, said that if the House of Commons were to pass the Bill in the next Session then he would be content and would raise no further opposition to it. It is interesting to note that that Act has been on the Statute Book for some months, and, whatever may have been the great principles, there has been little change, if any, to the freedom of the Press, fears about which were then expressed with very great passion. But is this an issue of principle?
If there were an issue of principle, surely it would have been on the entire nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry. What we are discussing today is not an issue of principle; it is a conflict of opinion about what fragment should be nationalised with the others. If this were a great issue of principle, I would not disagree with noble Lords going into the Division Lobby and opposing the will of another place, but it is not. It is a matter of detail, and it has been built up in such a way that this House, with its Conservative majority—and do not let us burke the issue—stands shoulder to shoulder with colleagues in the House of Commons to oppose the intentions of a Labour Government. There can be no other construction put upon the action of those noble Lords who may insist, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said today, upon their Amendments to the Bill.
I ask the House to consider what will be the consequences, because the House knows that this Bill will become an Act of Parliament as the Government intend and wish. Your Lordships have made your views clear, and you have made the House of Commons consider it again and again. But what will be the consequences? I believe that they will be profound. I believe that the relationship between these two Houses will be shattered, perhaps for all time. I have no doubt at all that one day they will bring about a reform of your Lordships' House, and none of us would wish to see the way in which it is brought about. I now share with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, a desire for an early reform of your Lordships' House, but a reform of this place as a consequence of the act that is contemplated today would be a reform of the very worst order.
1670
I want to make one other point. We have gone through our legislative programmes, whether Labour or Conservative, with a great deal of understanding. We have had our First Readings, our Second Readings and our Third. Readings, whether there has been a Labour or a Conservative Government, with the knowledge that those stages would be proceeded with without difficulty. Neither Party has ever felt it necessary to keep a quorum. As the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will know, on one occasion he failed on a Bill and the Liberal Party wanted to defeat the Tory Government at that time. But the noble Earl will remember that it was the Labour Opposition which made it very clear to the Liberal Party that we were not prepared to see that kind of relationship being built up, where legislation introduced by a Conservative Government could be defeated on Second Reading.
What would happen if the majority of this House were to use its power and its strength in overcoming this legislation? A new situation would arise, apart from the bigger one. It would mean that in future no Leader, no Chief Whip, could ever be sure of getting legislation through because there would be a new atmosphere, and I certainly would not wish to be party to it. I can well see that if one day Labour were back in Opposition, the Chief Whip and the Leader of the day would have very great difficulty in persuading their colleagues not to vote or to have wrecking Divisions at any stage of a Bill That would mean that the Conservative Party always had to keep a large number of Peers here at any stage of the Bi l, merely to ensure its position. That would be part of the change in all our relationships in this House. I believe that it would spoil all the good that we have been able to do in the past. I hope that w can see reform, and that we can see it in the right atmosphere, and not, as I suspect it will be, in a spirit of vindictiveness towards this House, because I passionately believe in the need for a second Chamber, but one which works not in conflict with but in support of another place.
11.56 a.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I rise to make a plea to the Leader of the House, but before I do so I want to make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. First,

1671
we are constantly told when there is any kind of conflict between the two Houses that we are dealing with a situation in which we are an unelected House, and down the corridor is an elected House. I am not going to bother about whether it was 28 per cent. of the electorate, or whatever it was. But this situation was known in 1948 and 1949, when the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and I passed the Parliament Act in another place. We knew that this was an unelected Chamber and there were no proposals to make it anything else. Yet we were given this power, so do not let us hear too much about the exercise of this power which was legitimately given. It is significant that when we are in conflict on a matter of principle we are told "This is a time when you should never use your power, not on a matter of principle."But when we are in conflict on a matter of detail we are also told "This is not the time when you should ever use it."
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the changes that have taken place since the 1948 Act up to the present day. He will accept that the 1948 Act changed the delaying power of the Chamber from two years to one year. It was a try-out to see whether, under the hereditary principle, noble Lords here would agree with that reform and they have done so up till now. But they have now diverted away from that principle which has operated the whole time; hence the need for another change.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I was one of the architects—if that is the right word—of the proposed change in 1969, which was defeated b y Mr. Michael Foot and Mr. Enoch Powell in an unholy alliance, and in that reform we reduced the delay to six months in the event of conflict between the two Houses. That is what was to be done, and that is what we could have done in regard to this Bill. But my real purpose in intervening at this point is to make a plea to the Leader of the House. I really do not believe that the Government's decision is a sensible one. I do not like any more nationalisation in the present economic climate, and I think it is wrong. But there are five different industries in this measure, and four of them have been accepted for
1672
nationalisation. There is no dispute on aircraft, on merchant shipbuilding, on naval shipbuilding or on marine diesel engines. I ask the noble Lord: is it sensible to stick only on this question of ship repairing? If the Government accept the exclusion of ship repairing, they will have four-fifths of what they want and I do not think that that is a bad deal. In our view, ship repairing is the one industry which is not a proper candidate for nationalisation—certainly not at the present time.
If ship repairing is excluded, as I hope the Government will agree even at this late stage, there is nothing to prevent any company which wants to be nationalised, or which wants one of its associated ship repairing companies to be nationalised, from doing a separate commercial deal tomorrow. That is what is done in business all the time. There is nothing to prevent the Government today from proceeding immediately with Royal Assent to the nationalisation of the other four industries, which, as I say, we deplore. That is why I find the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to be illogical and specious, because if the Government choose to use the Parliament Act the ensuing delay—and there will be delay, because they will have to reintroduce the Bill—will be their responsibility and not ours. Any uncertainty and any unemployment which arises from this delay will be on account of the Government, not the Opposition.
The Government say that they are determined to carry out their duty. Their duty to whom? I believe that they have a duty to think again. They still have time today not to take up a petty minded attitude against this House but to get this Bill, with the four industries in it, and exclude ship repairing. I hope very much that even at this stage the noble Lord the Leader of the House will take it back to the Cabinet. It is a wrong decision, for the sake of one-fifth of the Bill, to cause delay for another six months or so. That delay is properly laid on the shoulders of that side of the House.
12.1 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the proposition that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has made is not so absurd as at first sight it appears. It seems to have

1673
been overlooked in the course of our debates on this subject that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, nor is it their intention now, to nationalise every ship repairing company. Many of these companies are to be left out of the Bill. For what reason are they to be left out of the Bill? Because it is not worth while including them. Therefore if some of the ship repairing companies wish to be included in the nationalisation scheme and make application, it is possible, even now, for the Government to accept it. That would avoid anything in the nature of a confrontation and everybody would be satisfied. It is up to the Government.
I am less concerned about that aspect, although I would welcome a settlement avoiding confrontation, than I am about some of the speeches to which I have had to listen not only this morning but on previous occasions. I listened with respect to a very vigorous speech made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd which contained an appeal to the Members of your Lordships' House and the Opposition Benches. He spoke as though this confrontation—he used the term; I have not used it myself—would shatter the relationship between the two Houses and would be a complete disaster. But that is precisely what some members of Her Majesty's Cabinet are demanding.
Mr. Wedgwood Benn—I am sorry to mention names but I read them in the newspapers—is one, and even Mr. Michael Foot, the Leader of the House in another place, in his speech the other day described your Lordships' House as decrepit. I presume that includes me! I do not want to be at all difficult, awkward, belligerent, bellicose or many of the other adjectives that I could use, but I think that I could engage in a confrontation with Mr. Michael Foot, not intellectually but physically, which would not present much difficulty, even before breakfast. This is the kind of criticism we have had to put up with for some time. Indeed, that is the language I have read in Hansard's report of the proceedings in another place and in the newspapers. This, and what has been said of us in some of the letters I have received—some in admiration, although very few, and several of another character—describing us as traitors and disloyal is enough to make me stand firm. When the animal is bitten he likes to bite back. I was taught that in the
1674
Labour Party long before my noble friend Lord Shepherd was born, and even before his father was born—a man for whom I had great admiration and who was national agent for the Labour Party. I have been trained in this business. I believe in giving knocks and I am ready to take them, whatever anybody says. It is not a personal matter.
I agree that if one is a member of a political Party one is expected to be loyal to that Party, but excessive loyalty can be dangerous. My noble friend Lord Melchett in that vigorous speech, that stern challenge to the other Side which, in the circumstances, was inevitable and natural, referred to "commitments". Commitments where? Are they contained in the Manifesto of 1974? I shared in the Election campaign at the request of several constituency parties. Nobody ever mentioned ship repairing. I never had a question upon it. I go so far as to challenge my colleagues on these Benches who took part in that campaign to say how many questions were levelled at them about ship repairing. I would bet that ship repairing was never mentioned. Ship repairing is minor in comparison with the nationalisation of shipbuilding itself, a quite different subject.
In the course of one of our debates and in reply to my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton I referred to what happened in the Labour Cabinet of 1945 to 1951 when we decided to embark upon steel nationalisation. The question then arose of how far we were prepared to go: with the nationalisation of steel or whether we should include subsidiaries like Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, the nuts and bolts. It was regarded as a frivolous suggestion. Of course they were not to be included.
This is precisely the situation with which we are now confronted. Do not forget what the Government have gained; namely, the nationalisation of shipbuilding which is a fundamental issue. How it is going to work out is another matter. More than once I have ventured to remark that this is a highly speculative undertaking. In his speech about ship repairing, my noble friend Lord Melchett said that there was a very bleak outlook for ship repairing. What are we doing? Are we looking about for more lame ducks? Is that what we are after? Have we not other problems on our plates? Of course we have.

1675
What are we expected to do about it? The decision does not rest with me; it rests with the Opposition. Is their attitude constitutional? What is the answer to that question? The answer has been given by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Of course, it is constitutional. The Opposition have the right to delay. Is it acceptable that they have the right to delay? The situation, the constitutional principle, is that they have the right to delay and that is all they are doing. The Government have decided, in any event, that they are going to go ahead with the Bill, not immediately but later on, and that they will use the Parliamentary procedure, the relationship between the two Parties and the constitutional situation is not affected, in order to reintroduce the ship repairing element and then defeat the House of Lords. So it is just delay.
Who is going to suffer as a result? Not the shipbuilding industry because it will take some considerable time before they can get down to the business. It will not affect the ship repairing industry because they will carry on as usual. Some will falter by the wayside, some will carry on; some will be prosperous and some will go bankrupt. But that is in the ordinary course of events. So the Government will get all they want; delay—and that is all your Lordships' House is doing. Your Lordships are merely delaying something they dislike. I have no desire to enter into a conflict with Her Majesty's Government; nor do I wish to assist anybody to destroy the Labour Party. They seem to be able to do the job themselves. Your Lordships are laughing, but I do not regard it as a laughing matter; it is very serious. In our Parliamentary democracy we must have a strong Government and a strong Opposition, otherwise democracy will vanish from the scene, and I do not want to see that happen.
What is one to do in this situation? It is for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to say whether the Government will accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, or whether they will stick to their own decision or whether noble Lords will vote against the Government. Even if the whole of your Lordships' House decides to oppose the Government will not suffer—except to affect their amour proper. That is the
1676
trouble. They cannot stand defeat—though they can stand a defeat from the Left Wing, they cannot stand a defeat from noble Lords. Ho, none of that! In the circumstances, it is for the Opposition to decide but I do not believe that the relationship between the two Houses will be shattered. I shall tell your Lordships why. I read in the newspapers over the week-end that one Member of the Cabinet said, "We are going to abolish that abominable Assembly, the House of Lords. We are going to get rid of it and have no more nonsense"—to shouts of applause from his audience of 25. Then he said it would take five to ten years to do it. That will last my time, anyhow. What a lot of nonsense it all is!
In a minor matter of this kind, the question of whether or not we should take over a small ship repairing industry that in any case has a bleak outlook, are we going to have this intransigence either on one side or the other? The Government can give way without any loss of amour proper; without any loss of dignity. There is no reason for that. Even if they are attacked by the Left Wing that will not matter; they will have to deal with them sooner or later anyhow. Certainly before the next Election—or else. There are no doubts about that. So in the circumstances obviously the right course of action is to stand firm. Once you make a stand, whatever the consequences stand firm. What can happen as a result? So far as I am concerned, what can happen? They could decide to expel me but I do not think they will do that. What can they do? They will go on attacking the House of Lords, threatening to abolish it. I do not think we should worry ourselves unduly about it.
I think we should say to Mr. Callaghan and company, "Look here, you are getting a great deal out of this. You are getting the nationalisation of shipbuilding, and that is something. Make the best of it. Don't bother about this subsidiary, this minor element in the situation. Take it and if you want to proceed again after some delay and carry ship repairing through both Houses of Parliament you will have the opportunity. There is no need for confrontation; there is no need to shatter the constitutional element in our Parliamentary democracy." I say again: what we ought to do is to stand firm. It is probably the kind of shock

1677
that the country needs. I really believe that. It needs some kind of catalyst thrown into the works in order to convince the people of this country that sometimes the Government must be corrected. There is no harm in correcting the Government. I do not think it will do much harm and it might do a great deal of good.
12.16 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said so well some of the things I intended to say that I shall be extremely brief but it would be rather cowardly if I said nothing at all, as someone who led the House for three years and initiated some of the moves on which the Party talks so nearly reached agreement. There seems to be some dispute as to whether there is or is not a crisis or confrontation, but in the Daily Telegraph today, which I am sure is impeccably Conservative, we find this main heading: "Lords fight Labour to finish". So when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—and whatever else we might say about him, we cannot call him decrepit after his efforts this morning—says "We ought to stand firm" apparently he means that the Tory Peers ought to stand firm against the Labour Party.
Lord KINGS NORTON: My Lords, it is not only the Tory Peers.
The Earl of LONGFORD: Well, my Lords, the Tory Peers with some assistance from people like the noble Lord sitting near me. Everyone knows that without the Tory Peers this would not have happened. If they get some allies that is their affair, but it was the Tory Peers who reached the decision in this matter and it is a decision which is very unlike the kind of decision that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has been reaching in past years. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicated, some of us prefer the statesmanlike Lord Carrington of yesterday to the Lord Carrington of today; and when there is all this talk about pressure on our own Party—one thinks of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—we know only what we read in the papers, and we read that Lord Carrington has been pressed by Mrs. Thatcher to take these steps. That is what we read, and we are entitled to read the newspapers as much as anybody
1678
else. What the noble Lord is doing is quite out of character but the decision has been taken, the challenge has been presented, as the Daily Telegraph points out, and it is a challenge which no self-respecting Government, whether it was Labour or whatever it was, could possibly fail to pick up.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment on the point just made by the noble Earl, I should like to ask him whether he has examined the voting list wher this issue was last raised?
The Earl of LONGFORD: No, my Lords, I only want to speak for three or four minutes and I do not think it would help to give way to a series of questions. I have no emotional bias in favour of the House of Commons. I never made my way there, through the grace of God and the obstruction of the honourable Member for Oxford City, now the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. I am an unrepentant House of Lords man. I greatly value the work that we have all tried to do here in our different ways over the last 30 years, but that work has been based on the assumption that in the last resort, whatever the view of the majority, this House would give way to the elected Chamber. That has been a fundamental assumption, otherwise the achievement of tins House would not have been possible during these last 30 years.
When we come to the question of what is constitutional, of course constitutional "is an ambiguous word Constitutionally the House of Lords could do this and could make use of the delaying power on every Bill that came up here. It is a question of what is prudent. I am only expressing my conviction that the House of Lords now is cutting its own throat and is in fact embarking on a course which must seem disastrous and utter folly to many of us who love this House quite as much as any noble Lord opposite, and who believe that this House of Lords, if it is not sabotaged in this way, has a tremendous service to perform for the nation.
12.20 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know whether I should be interpreting the wish of most of your Lordships

1679
in suggesting that perhaps we might bring this towards an end, because we have had a discussion on these matters over a considerable time and, indeed, your Lordships will no doubt observe the haste with which Her Majesty's Government are trying to get this legislation through by looking round the House—with noble Lords on the Labour Benches seeking to look like ambassadors, the Official Reporters sitting on the Cross-Benches and things of this kind; so I think the sooner we get on, the better.
My Lords, I do not intend to intervene at this late stage on the merits or otherwise of the exclusion of ship repairing. My noble friends and, indeed, all noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, to my mind have made an irrefutable case against the inclusion of ship repairing in these nationalisation measures. To my mind, the Government have made no industrial case for it, and we remain as unconvinced of the rightness of their case as we did at the outset.
I rise just to say two things very briefly, first on the consequences if your Lordships should insist on your Amendments, and, secondly, about the right of this House to use the power they have to delay these measures. It has been said by noble Lords opposite, was said by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, earlier this morning, and it has been said in another place, that to insist upon our Amendments would lead not only to uncertainty in the industries concerned, but also possibly to bankruptcies and unemployment. I think that nothing in that accusation could be further from the truth, or if I may say so—and I use the mildest terms I can think of—nothing could be a less straightforward argument. Should the Government, even at this last moment, accept our proposal they can, if they so wish, end all uncertainty. They can nationalise the shipbuilding industry; they can nationalise the aircraft industry, and if they want to, they can introduce a Bill next Session, which starts the day after tomorrow, to nationalise ship repairing. The shipbuilders would be nationalised; there would be no uncertainty. The aircraft industry would be nationalised; there would be no uncertainty. The ship repairers would not be nationalised; but since they do not want to be and will fight to the last to prevent it, they would still have a chance of avoiding
1680
such a fate. Everything in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pointed to the fact that the Government want to do that, and should do it, to avoid the consequences that they see. I have an idea that when the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, comes to read later on the speech that he made this morning, he will not think it is one of his better efforts.
My Lords, if, however, the Government are not prepared to accept our proposals, then during the time that it takes to get their Bill through the House of Commons next Session, they can use the powers they have under the Industry Act in exactly the same way that they have used those powers in other circumstances to help other industries. In this present situation, if there is any uncertainty, it is uncertainty created by the Government, by their own choice; and to pretend otherwise is to stretch too far the credulity of your Lordships and of anybody else.
I heard Mr. Foot speaking on the radio yesterday morning. He said that if the House of Lords decided to insist upon their Amendments, it would be an act of the gravest irresponsibility. In my judgment, the grave irresponsibility lies in a minority Government introducing a measure of this kind at this moment, a measure which will involve the expenditure of£1,000 million at a time of grave economic crisis for no national advantage; at a time when we are seeking a loan from the IMF, at a time when Government expenditure and borrowing are clearly far too high, and at a time when it is patently obvious that the British people want no more nationalisation. To talk of irresponsibility of this House in that context is ludicrous.
As for the right of the House to use their powers, there can equally be no question. There is no question of confrontation. The Parliament Act takes care of that. I remember the debates in 1948 to 1949 when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House were in another place. I was in this House, and remember those debates very clearly. I remember the Labour Party and the Labour Government in this House and in another place accepting the fact that the second Chamber must have some power, otherwise its usefulness would be marginal. I have two quotations which are quite interesting, one from

1681
Mr. Morrison, as he then was, who subsequently became the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, who lead noble Lords in the Labour Party in opposing the Second Reading of the Greater London Bill. On the Second Reading of the Parliament Bill in 1947 he said:
"If the position were that the Lords sent their Amendments to the Commons but the Commons could indifferently ignore them and pass the Bill into law without further ado, then the Lords would be entitled to say that there was no guarantee that any serious consideration would be given to their Amendments and that we might as well resort to single-Chamber government. The present Bill"—
the Bill under which your Lordships are now operating, which gives a delay of one year—
"adequately safeguards the reasonable rights of the House of Lords".
My Lords, a predecessor of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, Lor d Jowitt, when the Bill was passing through this House, said:
"I believe the arrangement in this Bill is one which enables the Second Chamber to perform its functions and give sufficient time"—
that is, one year—
"to enable the opinion of the electors to be ascertained and to enable the electors to be instructed in what is taking place."
At that time, your Lordships had no Life Peerages, no women as Members, and very few Members of the Party opposite. The Labour Government of that day decided that that totally unreformed House would have power to delay for one year measures coming up from another place.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is quite right; that power has been used very sparingly. But it is in exactly such a situation as we now find ourselves, that it was envisaged that the House would act when, in a period to put it at its lowest, there is uncertainty as to the reaction of the public to what the Government are proposing. The argument then, as now, was that there should be a brief period of delay, during which time the Government could reflect on what has happened, and the people could express themselves on the merits. So far from your Lordships acting unconstitutionally, we should, and I hope we shall, be acting precisely in accordance not only with the Parliament Act, but with the thinking of that Labour Government which led to it.
1682
Many of your Lordships will remember the discussions we had nearly ten years ago on the reform of this House. In the end, the Government of the day (again a Labour Government) agreed to a proposal for the reform of this House. Your Lordships overwhelmingly voted in favour. As we have said often, but not too often, it was thwarted by an Opposition combining the talents of Mr. Foot and Mr Enoch Powell. Let me remind your Lordships of the essential elements of that reform.
The House, which was to be nominated, was to be composed in such a way that the Government Party had a small majority over all the other political Parties, but there was to be quite a substantial element of Cross-Bench independent Peers, whose approval of Government legislation would be necessary for the Government, in face of the Opposition of all the other Parties, to pass their Bills. In other words—and I hope the noble Lord will listen to this, because it is quite important—the Opposition plus the Cross-Ber ch Peers outnumbered the Government Peers. This was an idea, a proposal, accepted by the Labour Government of the day and in point of fact negotiated by Mr. Callaghan, the Prime Minister, as one of those who were doing the negotiations; and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was not unconcerned with it.
What has happened on this Amendment? The Conservative Party is wholly against the Government, the Liberal Party is wholly against the Government, almost all the Cross-Bench Peers have voted against the Government What would have happened if the House had been reformed? All the Opposition Parties are opposed to the Government, the independent Peers are opposed to the Government, and under the proposals of 1968 this Amendment would have suffered exactly the same fate as it suffered in this unreformed House.
The truth of the matter is that the Government are in a minority on this issue but are determined to go their own way, and in order to go their own way they will accuse your Lordships of unconstitutional behaviour, of he hereditary intransigence and all the rest of it, and, of course, they will threaten your Lordships with abolition, extinction and hellfire. In my judgment there is no point in having a Second Chamber which gives

1683
way to blackmail and to threats in order to save its own existence, for what use is it if it dare not use the powers it has in order to reserve them for a future occasion when it would not dare to use them either? I hope your Lordships will disregard these threats and do what you think is right.
12.32 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think it is the general wish of the House that we should now conclude the debate. Much has been said on both sides. I want to make a short speech; indeed I want to follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, although I think I gleaned part of his speech from the Press either at the weekend or two or three days ago. No argument that I put forward will ever convince him to change his point of view, and I do not think any arguments today will change the views of noble Lords who are here on both sides. So I do not want to argue the details of the Bill; I think this has been done very fully on many occasions by my noble friend Lord Melchett, and my other noble friends. I doubt whether there is anything new to say on the subject of aircraft, shipbuilding or ship repairing that has not been said many times over in recent weeks.
Nor do I have anything to say about this House as a revising Chamber. I believe that its role basically is that. I believe in a reformed House of Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Carringtpn, is quite right; I was then Leader of the House, having succeeded the late Richard Crossman, and I took part in discussions with their noble Lordships here. I was sorry that that Bill was frustrated, even though there may have been defects in it—if I were to indulge in the hypothetics of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. All I am saying is that I am reasonable and sensible on this matter, and I have nothing to say about this House as a revising Chamber. We have also covered that subject recently.
I am unable to accept that there is any question of revision before the House at the moment. The proposal to leave out one of the main parts of the Bill is not revision. I know my noble friend Lord Shinwell seems to think that ship repairing is not of such consequence as the national-
1684
isation of the aircraft industry, to give one example. I believe it is an integral part of our policy, the policy of the Government. That is what I believe in.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords—
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his contribution. I said I wished to be brief. I did not interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I want to make my point. I will not convert the noble Lord. He knows it. Let me make my speech. Nor do I want to use threats about the House. I do not accept the views of those who make threats; I do not like people who threaten. First, I am certain that all those who are arguing that we should disagree with the Commons recognise the seriousness of what we are doing. I know one can argue that the Government are a minority, but so was the Government of the Conervatives after the 1951 Election. It was a minority Government; it had fewer votes than the Labour Opposition polled in that Election.
Secondly, I think we have reached the present position, at least in part, because there has been too much emotion involved at the end of a long Session, and so much concentrated lobbying, that the House are reluctant to change their mind about the stand they have taken. I would prefer to do away with some of the emotion and look forward to the future in a calm and rational way. I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has tried to be rational, sensible and constructive, unlike what I thought was the dreadful speech of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. I think he will regret it when he reads it. So I want to avoid this emotion. I would prefer to do away with the emotion and look forward to the future in a calm and rational way. After all, when seen in the cool light of day—and it is really cool light at this unexpected time on a Monday morning—the issue is a narrow one. In the event of a fundamental disagreement between the two Houses, whose will really ought to prevail? This is what we have been arguing about today. Should it be the Commons or the Lords?
To begin with, I accept that the Parliament Act has laid down the basic rules. If the Commons pass a Bill in two successive Sessions, then the Bill will be enacted,

1685
whatever we do in this House. The Parliament Acts recognise that this House should be able to suggest to another place that they think again, and there may even be circumstances when the electorate might want the chance to express an opinion on a really exceptional disagreement. I accept that. But I must also point out that the Commons have already thought again. In addition to the many hours spent on the Bill before it came to this House, they have now thought again not once, but twice. On each occasion the majority in another place have confirmed their decision that the ship repairing industry should be nationalised together with the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I do not see the value of asking them to take this decision a fourth time.
Secondly, the people of this country have also expressed their view on this subject. It is all very well for my noble friend Lord Shinwell to say that he had few questions about this during the Election campaign. The people expressed their views; as my noble friend Lord Melchett said, there was a specific promise in the Labour Party's Manifesto, in both February 1974 and October 1974, to nationalise the ship repairing industry. The electorate therefore also had a chance to think again and did not change their minds.
I urge the House to look at the effect of what noble Lords opposite are asking us to do. There is a built-in Conservative majority in this House. I say this as a statement of fact, not in any way as criticism of noble Lords opposite, many of whom, I believe, share my wish that they had no such majority. But the majority is there and it does not change. To cope with this, our Parliamentary system relies on conventions to guide us when the majority in the unelected House is different from the majority in the elected House. My noble friends Lord Shepherd and Lord Longford stressed this eloquently. Among these conventions one of the most important, if not the most important, is the theory of the mandate. As a theory, it is not, I agree, very refined, and there are times when it may be pretty blurred at the edges, but the basic principle is well established all the same. When a Party is brought to power at a General Election, it comes in with a programme set out in its Manifesto. The electorate, intending the consequences of their actions, accept
1686
the programme of the Manifesto—at least, so long as their elected representatives in another place vote in favour of the measures included in the programme. The unelected House is bound by this. We can, and should, question the Government, of course, raise points of detail and make considerable improvements to Bills brought before us; but where a Manifesto commitment is clear-cut, as it is in this case, the unelected House should not challenge the principle of the commitment. In 1974 the Labour Party's programme said:
"We shall also take shipbuilding, ship repairing, and marine engineering, and the aircraft industries into public ownership and control."
It did not say that we shall take some of these; it said we shall take each of them. So if the House insists on disagreeing with another place it is contradicting a clear programme, and it is undermining the conventions under which this House operates. Without these conventions, Parliament, as we know it, will not work.
I have not been long here in this House, even though it feels like a lifetime from my point of view, and the eight weeks since my introduction may not be the most typical that have ever been seen. But I believe I have—and I think this sincerely—a true understanding of the way in which this House has worked. I know that, if the conventions on which our Constitution is based are to be broken like this, this House will become unworkable. This convention is, as I have said, one of the most important, and once it is broken I do not see why any of the others should be secure. I am not going to forecast, and I do not forecast, anarchy overnight, but I expect a gradual breakdown of our Parliamentary system as we know it if this House is to pick and choose between those Manifesto pledges which it will accept and those which it will reject. In conclusion, I urge your Lordships to think again and not to insist on your Amendments. I ask this, first, to respect the will of the electorate. I ask it, secondly, in the interests of the House for the reasons I have just given. Thirdly, I ask it in the interest of the industries which we have been discussing. As my noble friend Lord Melchett explained at the beginning of the debate, this is a Bill of crucial importance for the shipbuilding and aircraft industries. I want there to be no misunderstanding about that or about the

1687
risks involved in delaying enactment of the Bill any longer. If this Bill fails and damage comes to these industries as a result, it will be noble Lords opposite who will be responsible. It is they who have broken the traditions of our democracy.
Several noble Lords: No!
Lord PEART: And it is they who are forcing the industries to wait. I earnestly hope they will not come to this. I still trust that noble Lords opposite will not put the interests of some pressure groups before the interests of nationwide industries. If my trust is misplaced, I still hope the
industries will survive the damage, but I stress that the stakes are very high and that noble Lords opposite will have a lot to answer for in the industries in this country. I ask them therefore to ignore the lobbying to which they have been subjected and to think about the far wider issues at stake. If they do so, they will recognise that the right course would be to accept the decision of another place and not to insist on their Amendments.
12.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 90; Not-Contents, 197.

CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pargiter, L,

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Parry, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hacking, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Bernstein. L.

Hale, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

Blyton, L.

Hayter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Bowden, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brimelow, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brown, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kagan, L.

Segal, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kaldor, L.

Serota, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Caradon, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Soper, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Stedman, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Listowel, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

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

Stone, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Darwen, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Vaizey, L.

Diamond, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, B.

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

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Oram, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Barrington, V.

Byers, L.

Airedale, L.

Bathurst, E.

Caccia, L.

Aldenham, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Camoys, L.

Amherst, E.

Belstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Berkeley, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Amory, V.

Birdwood, L.

Carrington, L.

Ampthill, L.

Bolton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Amulree, L.

Boothby, L.

Chelwood, L.

Argyll, D.

Bourne, L.

Chesham, L.

Ashdown, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Clancarty, E.

Astor, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Auckland, L.

Bradford, E.

Clwyd, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Braye, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Banks, L.

Brock, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Barnby, L.

Burnham, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Reigate, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Renwick, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Howe, E.

Robbins, L.

Daventry, V.

Hunt, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Davidson, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

De Freyne, L.

Ilchester, E.

Rochester, L.

De La Warr, E.

Inglewood, L.

Romney, E.

Denham L. [Teller..]

Kemsley, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Deramore, L.

Killearn, L.

Sackville, L.

Derwent, L.

Kilmany, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Digby, L.

Kimberley, E.

St. Davids, V.

Dudley, B.

Kings Norton, L.

St. Helens, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Just, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Salisbury, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Leathers, V.

Sand ford, L.

Eccles, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L.

Effingham, E.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sempill, Ly.

Elles, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharples, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McNair, L.

Shinwell, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Margadale, L.

Sligo, M.

Exeter, M.

Merley, L.

Spens, L.

Faithfull, B.

Merrivale, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Forbes, L.

Molson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monck, V.

Strathspey, L.

Gainford, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Garner, L.

Monson, L.

Tenby, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Terrington, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mottistone, L.

Teviot, L.

Glendevon, L.

Moyne, L.

Thomas, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Munster, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Thurlow, L.

Goschen, V.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray, L.

Norfolk, D.

Trevelyan, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, B.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Vickers, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Vivian, L.

Haig, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Onslow, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Hampden, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Wardington, L.

Hankey, L.

Pender, L.

Waverley, V.

Hanworth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Westbury, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Polwarth, L.

Wigoder, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Porritt, L.

Willingdon, M.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wolverton, L.

Hawke, L.

Rea, L.

Young, B.

Hereford, V.

Reading, M.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Redesdale, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

A Committee appointed to prepare Reasons for the Lords' insistence; the Committee to meet forthwith.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
5 Clause 38, 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
1690
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 above Amendment for which disagreement they have assigned the following Reason:
6 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.
12.55 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lord, I beg to move that this House doth not insist

1691
on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6.—(Lord Melchett.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS ON WHICH THE LORDS HAVE INSISTED
7 Schedule 2, page 81, leave out lines 19 to 30.
8 Schedule 2, page 82, line 12, leave out ("a shiprepairing company")
9 Schedule 2, page 82, line 42, leave out paragraph 3.
The Commons insist on their disagreement to the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
10 Page 21, line 40, leave out "Part I" and insert" paragraph 1, 3 or 4".
11 Page 21, line 41, leave out "fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule" and insert—

"(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

(b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being for the purposes of that paragraph shipbuilding companies, manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines or training companies,"

12 Page 21, line 43, at end insert—
"(2A) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, on the shiprepairing industry vesting date all securities of the companies which on that date were known by the names specified in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act, being the companies other than any excepted company which on that date—

(a) fulfilled the conditions in Part II of that Schedule, and

(b) fulfilled the condition specified in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 5 of that Schedule as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of that paragraph

shall, by virtue of this section, vest in British Shipbuilders free from all trusts and incumbrances."
13 Page 77, line 15, after "Shipbuilders "insert" by virtue of section 19(2) of this Act"
14 Page 77, line 16, at end insert" and
(c) in relation to a company which becomes, or would but for the provisions of section 27 of this Act become, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Shipbuilders by virtue of section 19(2A) of this Act, the shiprepairing industry vesting date;"
15 Page 77, line 34, at end insert—
""shiprepairing industry vesting date" means such date not less than 3 nor more than 6 months after the passing of this Act as the Secretrary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify for the purposes of section 19(2A) of this Act;"
16 Page 80, line 44, at beginning insert—
"1. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being shipbuilding companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
17 Page 81, line 18, at end insert—
"2. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2A) above as being shiprepairing companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
18 Page 81, line 31, at end insert—
"3. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above as being manufacturers of slow speed diesel marine engines for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
19 Page 82, line 1, at end insertߞ
"4. The companies whose securities are to vest in British Shipbuilders under section 19(2) above, as being training companies for the purposes of paragraph 5 below are:—"
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 19 inclusive en bloc in lieu of the Lords Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 inclusive on disagreement with which the Commons have insisted.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 10 to 19 en bloc in lieu of the Lords Amendments Nos. 7 to 9, on disagreement with which the Commons have insisted.—(Lord Melchett.)

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
Returned from the Commons on Friday last with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to; with certain other Lords Amendments disagreed to but Amendments proposed in lieu thereof; and with the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments in lieu and Reasons printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47.

HEALTH SERVICES BILL
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments be considered forthwith. I am in a little difficulty, because I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is not at the moment in her place. I would therefore ask for the

1693
indulgence of the House because your Lordships have shown indulgence to me in a similar situation on more than one occasion.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: There is no necessity for any apologies, my Lords. The Opposition Front Bench is represented and will listen with the greatest interest to the noble Lord.
Moved, That the Commons Reasons and Commons Amendments in lieu thereof be considered forthwith.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS PROPOSED IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (340). Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out "five" and insert "seven"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 2. This Amendment was considered at length both here and in another place. When we discussed it, I did not advance the Reason to which the Commons have now drawn attention, that of privilege. Perhaps I should have reminded your Lordships that as the effect of Amendment No. 1 would have been to increase the expenses of the Health Services Board to the Exchequer, the size of the Board is very much a matter affecting the privilege of the Commons. I do not think that there is any need for me to say anything more, other than that the Commons Reason is that this would involve charges on the public funds and that the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that their Reason may be deemed sufficient by your Lordships.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which
1694
the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I suppose that the only thing that can be said on this matter is that we should congratulate the Government on having thought up this Reason which was not produced during the Committee or the Report stages. We shall of course accept what has been said, but I am bound to comment that, on the question of the use of public funds, if one considers the amount of money that will be lost to the National Health Service by the phasing out of pay beds and the terrible loss to teaching and research which will be a tragedy for the country, I find it extraordinary that it should be thought that there could be financial reason for not having two extra members of the Board.
On Question, Motion agreed .

LORDS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 2, page 2, line 43, at end insert—
"(3) Nothing shall be done under or by virtue of this Act, and nothing in this Act shall be construed, so as to operate to the detriment of any person (whether or not a consultant), who was on 12th April 1976 employed whole-time or part-time in one or other of the national health services or concerned with the interests of patients at NHS hospitals, whether or not such detriment occurs under, by reason or in consequence of the terms of his employment."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
4 Because provision against detriment is unnecessary.
1.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. Your Lordships will remember that the effect of this Amendment required nothing to be done under the Act that would cause detriment to National Health Service employees. This Amendment is drafted in rather broad terms and acceptance would put the Secretary of State at risk of being challenged in the court in attempting to implement the Act. I mentioned this when this matter was before your Lordships. There is little danger, in our view, that any employee will suffer serious detriment as a result of the pay bed phasing out authorisations. Maximum part-time consultants will be entitled to exercise their option

1695
to convert to whole-time contracts and it is highly unlikely that any National Health Service staff will lose their jobs, although I should be the first to admit that that cannot be guaranteed. The Commons have taken the view that they cannot accept your Lordships' Amendment because provision against detriment is. in their view, unnecessary.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we find it deeply disappointing that the Government feel unable to accept this Amendment. My colleagues and I think it very unlikely that there will be no one who is employed in the National Health Service or who is a consultant who will suffer. Therefore, not to make any kind provision for this in the Bill is disturbing and could have very serious consequences for a number of individuals. However, we shall not insist on our Amendment.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
5 Page 3, line 1, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
"(1) Within 12 months after the passing of this Act the Board shall submit to the Secretary of State proposals for reducing, in the case of each Area Health Authority, Health Board and group of preserved Boards in Great Britain, the number of beds at NHS hospitals administered by that Authority, or by Boards within that group, authorised under section 1(1) of the 1968 Act to be made available to resident private patients, provided that the total number of beds proposed for such reduction shall not exceed 1,000.
(2) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to the said proposals by revoking the authorisations for those beds, and to make those beds available for use by resident patients who are not private patients."
6 Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 13 to "due" in line 18 and insert "In making such proposals the Board shall have"
7 Page 3, line 25, leave out "and"
8 Page 3, line 28, after "facilities" insert "at a satisfactory standard"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
9 Because the Amendments represent a major change in the proposals which were discussed between the Government and the medical profession, and which were announced to Parliament on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.
The Commons point out that the Amendments represent a major change in the proposals discussed between the Government and the medical profession. We have so often been through the Goodman Proposals that I am sure that it will not be your Lordships' wish to go over that ground again.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 9.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is quite right in saying that we have been over the ground of the Goodman Proposals too often to wish to repeat them. We find it disappointing that the Government have taken such a very narrow interpretation of what could have been done in the Health Services Bill, but we shall not insist upon these Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 Page 3, line 30, at end insert"; and
(c) the extent to which, in the case of each NHS hospital, the resources exist to put the beds so withdrawn to good use for resident patients who are not private patients."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
11 Page 3 line 30, at end insert—
"(3A) The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable ensure that the beds released by the reduction made under this section are made available for the use of patients other than private patients."
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 10 but propose Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof. The Amendment provides that the Secretary of State shall, so far as is practicable, ensure that the beds released by the reduction made in this part of the Bill are made available for the use of patients other than private patients.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we on this side of the House are at any rate grateful that we have half a loaf as a result of the discussions that we have had in this House. I feel that this proves that there is some point in a revising Chamber and of course we are grateful for the Amendment that has come forward. I would be the first to say that it is better drafted because it enables the beds to be used for out-patients as well as for in-patients. I entirely accept that. The drafting of our Amendment was not as good or as clear as it should have been and I feel that the present wording has the advantage. I am sorry that there is any question that the phased-out beds could be used for anybody other than patients in the National Health Service but this is not a point over which we shall quibble at this late stage, and we are glad that the Government have gone at least part of the way towards accepting our Amendment.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, this was a question on which, although I sympathised with the views of the Opposition, I felt that their Amendment was too restrictive. I was not alone in that and I think that the Commons Amendment is a reasonable compromise, though perhaps it does not go quite as far as we should have liked.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that the only point that I want to make is that I was glad that we were able to go some way towards meeting the noble Baroness.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
12 Page 3, line 38, leave out "progressive" and insert grant or"
13 Page 3, line 39, leave out first "the" line 41, leave out from "patients"
14 to "and" in line 43.
15 Page 3, line 44, leave out "the"
16 Page 3, line 46, leave out from "patients" to end of line 2 on page 4.
17 Page 4, line 38, after "the" insert "grant or"
18 Page 5, line 6, after "the" insert "grant or"
19 Page 5, line 21, after second "the" insert "grant or"
20 Page 5, line 36, after "be" insert "granted or"
21 Page 5, line 38, after "necessary" insert "grants or"
22 Page 6, line 42, leave out from "granted" to end of line 45 and insert "or"
23 Page 6, line 48, at end insert "or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below."
24 Page 7, line 3, leave out from "granted" to "to" in line 6 and insert "or"
25 Page 7, line 7, at end insert "or subsection (4) below, or on a temporary basis by virtue of subsection (5) below."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
26 Because the Amendments represent a significant departure from the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 12 to 25 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 26. This is similar to a Reason given earlier. I want to take the same point as I took before; that is, we have been through Goodman Proposals time and again and I think that no useful purpose would be served by covering that ground again. Therefore the Commons state that they are unable to accept the Amendments because they represent a significant departure from the proposals announced on 15th December, 1975.
Moved, That this House Both not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we are not going to insist on these Amendments. Here again we have gone over the ground in great detail on both Committee and Report.
On Question, Motion agreed t

LORDS AMENDMENTS
27 Page 4, line 21, leave out "and"
28 Page 4, line 30, at end insert"; and (c) give its reasons;"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
29 Because it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals.
1.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not sist on their Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 to which the Commons have disagreed for

1699
the Reason numbered 29. Your Lordships will notice that it is the view of the Commons that,
"it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 29.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this is one of the Amendments which we felt extremely strongly about and I feel that I will not be taking up over much time of the House, and certainly I will not be taking it up for an unnecessary reason, if I speak to this matter at a little further length. First, the Government took issue with us on this matter. In the Reason given it is stated:
"Because it is unnecessary to require the Board to give the reasons for its proposals, having regard to the principles and factors on which the Board is required to base its proposals."
I should like to refer to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as reported at column 1342 of the Official Report of 17th November. The noble Lord said:
"In this case there is a set of principles, or four criteria. The Board has got to work to them; it cannot depart from them. When it reaches a decision, it is based on criteria which have been prearranged, to which it must keep. Because of that, we feel that there is no need for it to give its reasons. We want the Board to be completely independent. The noble Lord himself has pointed out that it must submit a report to the Secretary of State, who in turn is responsible to the House of Commons. I do not think one can have any greater safeguard than that. I should have thought that that is all one needs."
The noble Lord went on to tell us about the report which is to be published, and he said (also as reported at column 1342):
"The Board is, in effect, answerable to Parliament by virtue of its annual report, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament."
Here is an issue which we consider to be of the greatest public importance, when public boards are not answerable in any other shape and form than in an annual report. I would in no way impugn either the chairman or the members of the Board with the information which they are to supply in their first annual report, but from practical experience of reading the annual reports of other boards I can say that we are supplied in the reports with
1700
the following information. We are given the membership of the board, and then a very substantial exposition, couched in language which is not always easy to read for any length of time without a weariness overcoming the reader, about the practices which have been adopted by that public body. But nothing of any real importance is ever disclosed.
I believe that the Government, in ensuring that no Minister is going to be answerable in another place for this Board, are not making the Board in any way accountable in a public manner. We believe that this Amendment was vital so far as the public accountability factor is concerned. We felt that when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred to four criteria his argument was not a very sound one. A little later in his speech, at column 1343, he said:
"The Board will not have to have a Minister answering for it, because in the long run the supremacy will rest with Parliament itself, and for that reason we do not see the necessity for these Amendments."
The answer does indeed lie to some extent with Parliament, but unfortunately the Parliamentary procedures are somewhat slow, and the Board may take its decisions rather more rapidly than Parliamentary questioning or procedures can allow.
In the first of our group of Amendments which have been rejected by another place, we dealt with the situation relating to the membership of the Board, which we felt to be of great importance so far as the substantial management of the Board's affairs is concerned. One of our problems, which we aired copiously on both Committee and Report, related to the situation regarding deputies, and I acknowledge that the Government, in one of their Amendments, have made the position clearer. However, we believe on this Amendment that there is a point which the Government have manifestly overlooked, and that they have been totally unwilling to listen to reasonable arguments advanced both in another place on Standing Committee and in this House. I feel that this is a matter of very considerable regret.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to remind the noble Lord—because I am sure he has read Hansard—that the matter was debated at considerable length and the Divisions in another place show very clearly that the Opposition's point of

1701
view was rejected by quite substantial majorities. I am not trying to make anything out of that; all I am saying is that the Opposition's proposals were rejected by quite substantial majorities because the matter had been ventilated. I want to add a word to what the noble Lord has said, although we have covered this matter very carefully. It is not necessary to require the Board to give its reasons, because under Part II of the Bill it is not acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and it is not the normal practice to require reasons to be given for decisions which are administrative in character; and this is largely the function of the Board, certainly in respect of the matter that we are discussing. It is certainly unnecessary and undesirable to place an obligation to do so on the Board because under Part II of the Bill it is to prepare proposals for phasing out strictly and in every case having regard to the principles under the Bill which are clearly set out in Clause 4(7), as the noble Lord knows. The Board cannot depart from that. When it reaches the decision it is based on criteria which have been prearranged. That plainly distinguishes this Board, making proposals within a set of principles approved by this House, from many other bodies taking administrative decisions. The Board's reasons for making its proposals will always be that it is satisfied that it has met the requirements of the Act in respect of the function. The reasons to which I have referred, although I am sure unacceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are we feel valid in our objection to the Board being asked to give its reasons.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord because I was not in my place when he began the discussion on this Amendment; I did not realise that we had gone ahead so fast. I think he will remember that during preceding stages I took part in the proceedings on this particular additional duty being imposed on the Board. The question I want to put to him is this: Can he imagine himself answering questions in this House on these matters? I ask this because under Clause 10 the Secretary of State has to publish and submit to Parliament,
"every set of proposals submitted to him under section 4 or 5 above",
so presumably the Government are answerable to Parliament for those proposals. But these proposals are not the
1702
Government's proposals, as the noble Lord has told us: they are the proposals of the Board. The Board puts forward the proposals, which the Government cannot alter—that is part of the Goodman compromise; the Government have to accept them—but the Government do not know the reasons for the proposals, because those reasons are the business of the Board, and the Board is not obliged to give its reasons.
The answer of the noble Lord is that the reasons will be self-evident because the criteria under which the Board work are laid down in the Bill, and therefore it will be obvious what the Board's proposals are aimed at, because the Board can only be trying to carry out its duties under the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can imagine himself in the position of having to come to this House to answer questions from, let us say, my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside about what is happening under the Board's proposals for the revocation of authorisations in North Tyneside, he will have to say that he is not able to speak for the Board because he has not taken the decisions, the Board is not allowed to give its reasons for the decisions it has taken, and the Government do not want it to be allowed to do so. That answer will not satisfy my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside; she will want to know the reasons.
My Lords, I am sure that there is good precedent for the Board not being allowed to explain what it is doing and why, and no doubt it may seem to those who prepared this Bill and to those who work in the Department that what the Board does will be self-evidently wonderful; but there may be others who do not agree. Are the Government not preparing difficulties for themselves when a Minister will be called to account for decisions when he does not know the details of them and when the Board which has taken the decisions is not under a duty to publish its reasons? I still have not resolved this dilemma in my mind. Will we not end up in the situation in which we end up so often in the case of the Post Office, when everybody in this House gets increasingly dissatisfied because no concrete answers can be given by the Minister? And, whereas the Post Office is quite capable of explaining what it is trying to do, and does so, as I understand it the Health Services

1703
Board will not be allowed to do so. Does the noble Lord not see some future difficulties here?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this may well be so, but I think it is quite impossible, in any legislation at all, to guard against or provide for everything that is likely to happen. We know this. Every Bill produces difficulties and problems which sometimes have to go to the High Court for a decision. What we are saying here is that the Board's activities are clearly set out and defined in the Bill; and the Board is a competent body which, if I may say so, has a comparatively simple job to do in the sense that it has to work within guidelines which have been set down. It may well be that at some stage or other somebody is going to question its decisions—I do not know—but I recally cannot say at this stage how that can be dealt with. They have got to report to Parliament, and in the case of anything which is reported to Parliament it is within the competence of a Member of either House of Parliament to question it; but I cannot take it any further.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it had not been my intention to intervene on this particular point, but as this is really not a Party political matter—it is not the centre of the Bill at all, but is really just a matter of judgment about these affairs—perhaps I may say this. I always find that if one can understand the reasons oneself one can attempt to explain them to someone else; and I still, I think, have not quite understood the Government's reasons for not accepting this Amendment. One completely accepts what has happened in another place, and that is fair enough; but let us take the two reasons which the noble Lord has given. They are, I understand, first of all, that guidelines for the way in which the Board shall reach its decisions are laid down in the Bill; and, secondly, that the decisions are themselves administrative in character. I would have thought that in both cases the question arises: What happens if the Board (in the opinion of at any rate some people) has not kept to the guidelines and has not in fact explained why it has not kept to the guidelines because it has not been asked to give its reasons?
Secondly, if it is simply an administrative
1704
matter, although, as my noble friend Lord O'Hagan has said, administrative matters are not matters that will be answerable for in Parliament in any event, they are matters which can be questioned by the parties involved. I do not myself expect to be in the position of having to question the Board's decisions, but there will be people who will, either people who are interested in phasing out the pay beds or those who are interested in providing private facilities, and I would have thought that under both those sets of circumstances there would be occasions on which it would be helpful for either party to know why the Board reached the decision that it did. It is because I cannot understand why the Government should object to asking for this that I would find it very difficult to explain to anybody why the Government have declined to bring forward an Amendment on this point.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can take it any further. I can see that where there are 4,444 pay beds involved it is going to take an enormous number of meetings and quite a substantial number of decisions, and if the Board is to be asked to give its reasons on every decision it makes then those decisions are obviously going to have to be considered by somebody, or a group of people, and there is going to be a tremendous amount of delay. Let us face the fact: there is going to be not only a tremendous amount of delay but a tremendous amount of work because, the Board having arrived at these decisions, the decisions have themselves got to be considered, and there is going to be a great deal of protraction. I think we are right in saying that we want to avoid this.
My Lords, it is a competent Board; people will not be appointed to it unless they are; and, as the noble Baroness has said, more often than not nothing will arise. Let us assume that something does arise. Let us assume that there are consultants who are dissatisfied. Let us assume that there are people on the other side—there may be a community health council, or all sorts of people—who are dissatisfied. I cannot for the life of me think that if there is very real dissatisfaction about a decision, whether it comes from the medical consultants or whether

1705
it comes from the lay side, then it will not find its way on to the table of the Secretary of State; because in the last analysis I suppose everybody, if they are very aggrieved about something that is happening in the National Health Service, has access to him—and when I say that I do not mean physical access. I would have thought that if there was something very serious you could not keep it within the knowledge of a few people. It would be bound, I think, to find its way to the Secretary of State, and my submission is that presumably, because he is Secretary of State, he would have to do something about it.

LORDS AMENDMENT
30 Page 5, leave out lines 29 to 33.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
31 Because it is desirable that there should be a time limit for the Board's report on private diagnostic out-patient facilities.
1.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 31.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we believe it may be that the Board may take a very long time over its affairs and I refer to Clause 4(2)(a) which tells us that the Board:
"… shall submit its first proposals under this section within the initial period or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow …"
This Amendment refers to the latter part of the clause—to subsection (6)—and is contingent on the subsection which I have read out. I referred to this at a much earlier stage of our debate when we were considering what the Board were going to do.
We on this side of the House believed that at the very first meeting the chairman would want to seek the advice of his colleagues on the Board to make a different time-scale for the programme. We believe that what shall take place within the first 12 months should be subject to
1706
considerable review. The phasing out of equipment mentioned in the Amendment which another place has rejected refers to just this. It refers to a situation which the Board may find it much better to organise in a different fashion. The Government want to pre-empt that. They want to ensure that a rigid time-scale is adhered to. It may be totally inconvenient for many people but, for political reasons, they believe that the time-scale should be stuck to. Neither I nor my noble friends consider it in the best interests of the Health Service as a whole that it anyone other than the chairman of a Board shall decide; but here is a set of pre-empting arrangements under Clause 4 which will make the life of the Board quite unnecessarily difficult.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would suggest to the noble Lord that not having a time limit could create not only the very thing he said might happen in respect of the Board only but could lead to a great deal of chaos and confusion. The noble Lord knows as well as anybody how desirable it is in most things to have a time limit if you want to get something done. It is very desirable in matters like this in which there are going to be some fundamental changes—and I accept that they are fundamental changes—that this kind of situation should not go on indefinitely.
I would remind noble Lords that in the Standing Committee there was a great doubt in our minds whether, when it came to looking at private out-patient facilities, the Board had set a sufficiently fastpace for phasing out. The Bill at Second Reading included provision for an early report from the Board on phasing out consulting room suites—that is Clause 4(5)—a report within the initial period—which, as the Bill left the Commons, was six months. There was nothing so definite relating to other out patient facilities, but we wanted to ensure that after a reasonable (but not too long) interval a report would be prepared by the Board on other outpatient facilities. That was provided for in an Amendment which the Government moved on Report as your Lardships will remember.
The Government have considered what was said in another place on the matter of a time-tabling report but are satisfied

1707
that they were justified in putting this provision (which noble Lords opposite wanted to remove) into the Bill. I end where I began that in matters of this kind if something is to be achieved a time limit must be set otherwise one is facing a good deal of chaos and confusion in letting things go on and on without a decision being made.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, to bring a lighter element into the debate, you will remember the story of Samuel Johnson listening to some music not too well performed by the daughter of a lady he knew. She said, "You must realise, Doctor, that this is very difficult". He said, "Difficult? Madam, would that it had been impossible!" As a note of satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I may say that I think this will make the Board's work almost impossible and that will be greatly to the advantage of the Health Service.

LORDS AMENDMENT
32 Page 6, line 8, after "facilities" insert "at at satisfactory standard"
33 Page 6, line 9, leave out "available" and insert "accessible to patients and the practitioners of their choice"
34 Page 6, line 10, after "hospitals)"insert "and available at reasonable cost"
35 Page 6, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
36 Page 6, line 22, leave out paragraph (d).
37 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
"() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should be revoked only if in the opinion of the Board those attempting to provide alternative accommodation or services have met with no unreasonable obstruction from any local authority or other organisation;"
38 Page 6, line 30, at end insert—
"() that the authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should not be revoked if the revocation would result in a substantial reduction in the freedom of resident or nonresident hospital patients to engage the services of medical or dental practitioners of the sex, race, colour, language, religion or national or social origin of their choice."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
39 Because they considerably alter the four principles which were an integral part of the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 inclusive en bloc to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 39.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am surprised that the Government have stated their Reason in the terms that the Amendments "considerably alter". It is a matter of judgment, but in this case we did offer Amendments which we felt were going to ensure that both the spirit of Goodman was preserved and the drafting was greatly improved. On the drafting point I should particularly refer to page 6, line 13 and our Amendment to leave out paragraph (c). I should like to refer once again to the grammar here. It is a most astonishing piece of English to be written into a Statute. The Government intend to write it into the Statute because it is the wording agreed in the Goodman Proposals but I think that there is a very unfortunate precedent being set here, that when a Government of the day agree a principle with another party in whatever English, however hastily it has been drafted, the words are still retained. The words are these, and I must say that we find them incomprehensible. Paragraph (c) reads:
"that the continued authorisation of any such accommodation or services under those provisions for use in that connection should depend on there having been or being taken all reasonable steps to provide, otherwise than at NHS hospitals, sufficient reasonable accommodation and facilities for the private practice of medicine and dentistry to meet the reasonable demand for them in the area or areas served by the hospital or hospitals in question."
What we object to here is this astonishing use of the impersonal passive in a Statute, to the phrase: "there having been or being taken all reasonable steps …" It is very difficult to appreciate quite how this is going to be interpreted. This will be interpreted with great care at some stage before the courts, or it could be interpreted before some other legal body. Nevertheless, I have stated our objection to that and, indeed, to paragraph (d), which I will not weary the House in reading. That is equal nonsense so far as its drafting is concerned. It is a great

1709
pity that the Government have not listened to our arguments in this connection, because the Bill could have been re-drafted, the Government could have introduced their own Amendments which would have adhered to the Goodman Proposals and taken the main sense from our suggested improvements. This is not a Party matter; it is a drafting matter. The Government should have listened to reason which was put forward with universal concern in this Chamber.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord does the Government an injustice. He starts off by saying that he is astonished that the Government did nothing about it. We were equally astonished that the noble Lord and his friends should seek to alter substantially the principles to which the Board is to have regard when drawing up proposals for the progressive phasing out of pay beds. Nothing has been said in your Lordships' House during Committee and Report stage, and, if I may say so, the few Amendments on Third Reading, that has not been looked at very carefully. If I say that I know that the noble Lord will take my word for it. As I tried to explain at the end of the Third Reading, in our view we have struck the right balance. We are just as astonished that the noble Lord should feel that his view in this matter is any better than the Government's because the Amendment would substantially alter the principles of the Bill. He must not say that the Government took no notice; we took a good deal of notice—in some respects perhaps not enough—and we have been able to make certain Amendments which noble Lords have put forward.

LORDS AMENDMENT
40 Page 8, line 45, at end insert—
"(4) The Board shall make no recommendation which (were it to be carried into effect) would or might require any medical or dental practitioner to disclose to any person any information obtained by him in confidence from any patient (whether resident or non-resident and whether private or not) and the Secretary of Sate shall not carry into effect any recommendation which would or might require any such disclosure."
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
41 Because it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement in order to ensure that confidentiality of medical records is maintained.
1.43 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41 which, as your Lordships know, is because it is unnecessary to introduce a statutory requirement in order to ensure that confidentiality of medical records is maintained. I know how strongly certain noble Lords opposite feel about this. There is no one in your Lordships' House who is more concerned over the question of confidentiality than myself. It has been a concern in my own professional social work field for a good many years. This Amendment would impose on the Board an undertaking which requires the presentation of the confidentiality of medical information. This would be without precedent, for it has never been considered necessary to deal with this highly important issue by Statute. We ought to look at this carefully.
I can readily understand the anxiety that doctors may feel about he paramount need to preserve the confidential relationship between their patients and themselves; and equally I understand and sympathise with any anxiety that there may be among potential patients on that score. The House will recognise it does not require a statutory undertaking to ensure that the confidential position of medical records is maintained. The Amendment places on the Board a requirement not to make recommendations about common waiting lists which could require doctors or dentists to disclose to anyone confidential information given by patients.
Since the beginning of the National Health Service not only doctors but many others, such as hospital staff, have handled the medical records of NHS patients and have faithfully observed their confidentiality. I do not want to go over the ground time and time again, but I am almost tempted to say there is a vast army of people in our hospitals who, of necessity, have access to confidential records, but I know of no instance at all where there has been any serious breach. I cannot think of any breach.
I can assure the House categorically that there is no question of any recommendation made by the Board on the

1711
best way of achieving common waiting lists and requiring confidential medical information about patients on waiting lists to be made available to people who have not been accustomed to handling such information responsibly in the past. Let us face the fact that it really has worked very well. If I may say this without being misunderstood, members of the medical profession over a long period of time have handled this situation very well. We see no need for it to be put in a Statute. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 41.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord PLATT: My Lords, the situation about confidentiality of records gets more difficult day by day and year by year. I could, if the noble Lord wished me, cite some instances where confidentiality has been broken; and of course there is the Road Traffic Act of 1947 which places a duty on a doctor to expose certain information to the car licensing authorities, and so forth. This is a subject which needs eternal vigilance. The Amendment was a good one, although no doubt we shall not press it.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I intervene for the reason that, having read what the Minister said in the Commons I do not think that he grasped the objective of the Amendment; and while the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has, it was not apparent from his answer. We are dealing with Clause 6 which covers common waiting lists. This Amendment should be seen, in the context of Clause 6, with the aim of this Bill to make sure that admissions to NHS hospitals are on the basis of medical priority alone. When the Minister in another place said that he was not sure how it could be argued that the situation will be a new one, I think he was wrong because the situation is a new one; the preparation of common waiting lists is the novelty.
This Amendment attempts to deal with a situation created by the introduction of these common waiting lists which are to be based solely on the grounds of medical priority. If these waiting lists are introduced, somebody may get it into their heads to question whether a patient has
1712
been admitted as fast in their view as his medical condition demands, or whether somebody else has been admitted too fast. He may question some person outside the medical profession who may think that the intention of the Government in introducing common waiting lists has not been observed by a doctor in a particular case. He may think that, in spite of the introduction of common waiting lists, a doctor has not carried out the Government's intention of having a waiting list based on medical priorities alone. Somebody may say, "Why have you not done X or Y?"or, "Why have you done that?" and the person involved will find himself under considerable pressure to show that he has been carrying out the objective of the Government in introducing a common waiting list. Therefore, while I agree that what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said about the way in which the medical profession have observed the tradition of confidentiality in the past and I would not dissent from that in any way, I am saying that the Government have introduced a new factor. It is to cope with the additional stresses imposed by the Government's own proposal that this Amendment was put forward: at least, I supported it for that reason.
I wonder whether the noble Lord envisages a situation in which doctors will be questioned as to whether or not they are carrying out the Government's intentions. A doctor may be criticised for not admitting somebody solely on the basis of medical priority, but it would be different if he could turn to the Statute, or knew that he could quote it and say, "I am not allowed to explain this. It is the custom we have always observed, but I also have this additional protection in the law which puts me under an obligation to introduce a common waiting list." I believe that this Amendment would have preserved what both sides of the House wanted to preserve, and I wonder whether perhaps the noble Lord does not recognise that there is a new situation here—a situation of the Government's own making—which this Amendment was designed to improve by giving additional protection to those who would be called upon to carry out the Government's wishes.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, as an example of how difficult it may be for a doctor to keep confidentiality, a

1713
case came to my notice the other day of a young man who had committed some petty felony. He was not sleeping well and went to his doctor, who gave him sleeping pills and asked a social worker to help the young man. He was indeed helped; but the social worker's notes went to be filed in the local authority offices where, by some means, they came to the notice of the police. The next thing the doctor heard was that the young man had been charged with the petty offence. That was not the fault of the doctor or of any one person, but the fault of the system. It is an example of how difficult it is for a doctor to be sure of confidentiality.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am quite sure we all accept the good faith of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in this matter and that he is as concerned as we are about the question of confidentiality. I entirely take his point that it has not been on the Statute Book before, but I do not think that anyone could have put the case better than my noble friend Lord O'Hagan, because this is in fact a new situation. I accept absolutely in good faith, as we have all accepted, the point about the common waiting-list, but the fact is that if admittance is based entirely on medical need there will be people who will question who should be in hospital, because there are going to be a lot of people looking at lists and seeing who is admitted. It is a matter to which I believe the Government ought to give very close attention, because it is absolutely fundamental to the relationship between a doctor and his patient that there should be medical confidentiality. It is the most fundamental of points and has existed for, I should say, thousands of years now. Once it gets about that this could be broken in a number of new circumstances, it will be very undermining to the Health Service. Therefore, although regrettably we must accept that the Government are not going to look at this, I would end by making a plea that when the Government issue their circular about the Bill they will make some observations about confidentiality in the new situation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we ought to get away from the feeling that this is something new. There is actually nothing new about this at all.
1714
In every hospital, every day of every week, decisions are being made as to whether A or B should be accepted, and it is done on medical need or medical priority. What we are grumbling about is that it does not happen in the private sector; and because it does not happen in the private sector one can go in for social purposes and not always need. In the National Health Service, by virtue of the number of people waiting to go into hospital, this is being done every day by doctors deciding, "This person ought to go in before that person". One hears, "I get a notification putting me off for a week because they have discovered that somebody else is more important." It is not a new situation; it has been going on for a long time, and there is no reason for people to have reservations about it.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble Lord may complain of that particular situation obtaining in the Service, but I venture to suggest it is really an administrative problem, because statutory powers already exist. If the noble Lord turns to the Public Health Act 1968 he will read the following words in Part , Section 1(6):
"Nothing in this section shall prevent accommodation from being made available for a patient other than one mentioned in subsection (1) above if the use thereof is needed more urgently for him or medical grounds than for a patient so mentioned and no other suitable accommodation is available."
The statutory powers are there but are not being used.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
42 Page 9, line 19, leave out "satisfied" and insert "advised by the Board".
43 Page 9, line 21, leave out" to a significant extent "and insert "substantially".
44 Page 9, line 25, leave out "to a significant extent" and insert "substantially"
45 Page 9, line 28, leave out "otherwise than as private patients".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
46, Because the Amendments lead to a weakening of the safeguards which the Bill requires for the interests of NHS patients.
1.57 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 en bloc,

1715
to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 46, which, as your Lordships will have noted, is:
"Because the Amendments lead to a weakening of the safeguards which the Bill requires for the interests of NHS patients."
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 46.—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I find it very difficult to accept that Reason, that by including these further provisions damage would be done to National Health Service patients. On this side of the House we have believed all the way through—and I think the future will prove it to be true—that as a result of this Bill the National Health Service will be worse than it was beforehand. We are not going to insist on these Amendments, but I find it very extraordinary that the Government should give that as the Reason for not accepting them, when in fact they are out to damage National Health Service patients by this Bill in any event.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
47 Page 9, line 38, leave out "satisfied" and insert "advised by the Board"
48 Page 9, line 41, after "skills" insert "or that the need for specialised equipment or skills is reasonably likely to arise during the course of treatment for another condition"
49 Page 9, line 45, after "patient" insert "and to the practitioner of his choice".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
50 Because the Amendments go significantly beyond the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 inclusive en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50:
"Because the Amendments go significantly beyond the proposals announced on 15th December 1975."
I do not propose to make any comment upon what those proposals were. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not
1716
insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50.—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not think we wish to go over all the Goodman Agreements once more. I feel quite certain that this will be subjected to enough textual criticism in the future, no doubt books will be written about it, no doubt legal cases will be based upon it and no doubt doctors and patients alike will look to see whether the comma was really there, or whether it should have been somewhere else. It is so extraordinary, that perhaps we on this side of the House must be forgiven for wondering what on earth it was that persuaded everyone to agree with the doctrine contained in the agreements drawn up last December without any alteration being accepted at any time, in any particulars at all. However, we are not going to insist on these Amendments. I am bound to say that they were the kind of Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, thought would be an improvement on his first thoughts in December, but clearly the Government are not going to have any further thoughts on this matter and, once again, history will tell whether or not these were the right words.
2.1 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
51 Page 10, line 10, leave out "his" and insert "the"
52 Page 10, line 10, after "opinion" insert "of the Board"
53 Page 10, line 17, after "not" insert", save on the advice of the Board"
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
54 Because it is inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 51 to 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 54, which reads:
"Because it is inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 54.—(Lord Well-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is the kind of reason which I should have thought aroused all the suspicions of everyone concerned with this Bill. It is precisely because the Government clearly consider it inappropriate for the Board to be concerned with the exercise by the Secretary of State of his discretionary powers that we wonder how much of the trust on which the Goodman Proposals are based will, in fact, be fulfilled, because there can be no alternative facilities at all and no alternative use by doctors of NHS facilities, if the charges are so high as to be uneconomic. Again, we shall not insist on our Amendments, but I am bound to say to the Government that if they are seriously interested in getting this scheme to work this, again, is a matter which the Secretary of State will have to interpret reading carefully the Goodman Agreements, and making quite sure that any charges fixed will not make it impossible for private patients to use the facilities.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot let the comments of the noble Baroness pass without making some myself, because we must get this into the right perspective. Quite apart from the fact that another place did not seem very excited about this, it is necessary to remember that the Secretary of State has at present, and has had since 1968, discretionary powers under Section 31 of the 1968 Act. The Amendment, by taking away the Secretary of State's discretion and transferring it to the Board, would involve the Board in deciding how the day-to-day provision of services in National Health Service hospitals should be organised. That was never intended to be a function of the Board which is not equipped to do that; nor, in my view, will it ever be equipped to do that. The Board will nave no locus whatsoever for deciding in what circumstances patients should be admitted under Clause 8, and to take away this power, which is a crucial power of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, would not be right
1718
and proper when it involves somebody in making day to day decisions.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
55 Page 10, line 42, at end insert "provided that the Secretary of State shall not determine the charges for the services of any consultant"
56 Page 11, line 7, leave out paragraph (c).
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
57 Because the Amendments remove important elements contained in the proposals announced on 15th December 1975.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 57, which reads:
"Because the Amendments remove important elements contained in the proposals announced on 15th December 1975,"
I am sorry that we are back on that date.
Moved, That this House cloth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 57.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think that the easiest way to deal with these Amendments is to refer the House to what I said on Amendments Nos. 47 to 49, because, although this is unlikely to be the last word on the Goodman Agreements, it is likely to be my last word on this set of Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
58 Page 13, line 41, at end insert "'district' shall have the meaning set out in section 9(7) of the National Health Service Re-organisation Act 1973".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
59 Because it is unnecessary.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 58, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59, which reads:
"Because it is unnecessary."
My understanding of the situation is that the Amendment is consequential on

1719
Amendment No. 15, which was carried in the Lords Committee.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 59.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, we come back to the argument about the word "district". But, as the noble Lord said, this Amendment is consequential, so we feel we shall have to leave it at that. No doubt there will be a problem later about the words "district" and "area", and distance to be travelled. However, we will leave it at that.

LORDS AMENDMENT
60 Page 14, line 1, leave out "six" and insert "twelve".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
61 Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61, which reads:
"Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed."
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 61.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
62 Page 17, line 9, leave out from "means" to end of line 12 and insert "premises which would be controlled premises but for the fact that the number of beds which they provide or will provide is smaller than that specified in section 12(2) above;"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
63 Because the definition provided by the Amendment is undesirably restrictive for the purposes of the notification system under the Bill.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 63, which reads:
1720
"Because the definition provided by the Amendment is undesirably restrictive for the purposes of the notification system under the Bill."
The Amendment defines "hospital premises" as premises which would have been controlled premises but for the fact that they provide fewer than 100 beds in London, or 75 beds outside London. The purpose of the notification system is to provide the Board with a body of information about the scale and nature of private sector developments, to enable it to perform effectively its duties under Parts II and III of the Bill. The Government are consulting on a definition which goes slightly wider than the definition in the Amendment, which would provide the Board with valuable and necessary additional information. We have been through this on two previous occasions and I hope that the House will accept the Commons Reason for disagreeing to this Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to comment upon this matter. We laid particular emphasis on this Amendment when we were discussing the definitions in Part III. When the Bill was introduced we believed that the definition of "hospital premises" was much too widely drawn and proposed an Amendment which was rejected. An alternative suggestion was then put forward. I think that the wording set out on the Marshalled List is still unsatisfactory. Therefore we revert to the original situation. We believe that the definition is unnecessarily widely drawn and that "controlled premises" is a much better definition.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
64 Page 18, line 33, leave out paragraph (d).
65 Page 19, line 26, leave out "including" and insert" excluding"
66 Page 19, line 27, leave out "the Secretary of State considers" and insert "are".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
67 Because they undesirably restrict the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers in relation to Part III of the Bill.
2.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth not insist on

1721
their Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 67. This Amendment removes from the Bill the Secretary of State's power to make provisions in regulations for the quorum and procedure of the Board in relation to applications for authorisations. The Secretary of State intends to carry out the required consultation, which includes the Board, on regulations which would not lay down what the Board quorum should be when it meets to perform any of its functions under Parts II and III of the Bill but which would lay down, for the benefit of applicants and other interested people, the procedure the Board would follow when dealing with authorisation applicants. The Government wish to provide the Board, so far as is possible, with the independence which was proposed for it in the Goodman Agreement while ensuring that people with an interest in an authorisation application should have information available to them enabling them to be quite clear what steps they should take to apply for an authorisation or to make their views known to the Board.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 67.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
68 Page 20, line 41, leave out "and (2)".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
69 Because it should remain an offence to give a notice under Clause 14 of the Bill which does not contain the prescribed information.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 68, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69. The effect of this Amendment is to remove from Clause 18, concerning offences under Part III, the offence of failing to comply with the requirements of Clause 14(2). This is the requirement to submit a notice containing the prescribed information for the purposes of the notification system. This Amendment was limited to a number of other Amendments which were withdrawn in another place but which would have removed the provisions of Clause 14 for a notice in a prescribed
1722
form containing prescribed information. However, since the Bill still contains the requirement that under the notification system a notice should be supplied to the Board in the appropriate circumstances and should contain the prescribed information, it is clearly necessary to replace in the Bill the penalty for failing to comply with this requirement. If it is not replaced, there is no sanction at all on those who do not choose to comply with the requirement.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 69.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have always considered that this is an unnecessary requirement. Furthermore, the penalties which go with it seem to us to be particularly severe. Again, we are not going to insist upon the Amendment, but it seems to us that in a number of cases it will duplicate a great deal of effort on the part of those applying both to the Board and for planning permission.

LORDS AMENDMENT
70 Page 24, line 42, leave out "two' and insert "twelve"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
71 Because it creates an unacceptably long delay before Part III of the Bill can come into effect.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 70, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 71. The Amendment brings Part III of the Bill into effect 12 months after Royal Assent. The Bill as it left the Commons provided that Part III should come into effect two months after Royal Assent. This was considered to be the minimum period necessary to carry out the required consultation on and to make the regulation, under Clause 16. Longer delay than this would place developers in an intolerable position because no authorisations could be given until late 1977.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 71.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, under this Amendment, Part III of the Bill is, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will agree, in a rather different situation from the rest of the Bill. It is not a matter which was contained in the Labour Party's Manifesto, nor was it in the Queen's Speech of last year. It was added to the Bill at a later stage. In those circumstances I should have thought that before it was brought in it was not unreasonable to have a longer period than simply two months. This is not a matter upon which we are going to insist, but it is a part of the Bill which it is very difficult to maintain is not a new issue.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, can I exact a promise from the noble Baroness that her Party will never introduce anything unless it is either in a Manifesto or in the Queen's Speech?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not know that I can speak on behalf of my entire Party but I hope that we shall never reduce ourselves to Government by Manifesto.

LORDS AMENDMENT
72 Page 25, line 10, leave out "two" and insert "three"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
73 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons o not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
2.20 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope we may be in complete agreement with regard to this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 72 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
74 Page 25, line 13, leave out "two" and insert "three"
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
75 Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 74, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 75, which is similar to the last one:
"Because it would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient."
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 75.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
76 Page 25, line 14, at end insert "of whom one shall represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one shall represent the interests of hospitals patients generally".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
77 Because it affects the members of the Board in an unacceptable way.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 76, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77. Perhaps I should just say one or two things about this. This Amendment and the following two Amendments were consequential to Amendment No. 1 and were carried at Report stage, to increase to seven the size of the Board, consisting of a chairman three medical practitioners and three other members, one of whom would represent the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, and one would represent the interests of patients generally. The Amendment runs counter to the proposals which we have come to regard as the Goodman Proposals, and we feel that it would in fact disturb the balance of the Board.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 77.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this of course is consequential on the situation

1725
in Clause 1, but I should like to say that, in taking the line they have and in making no arrangements for the voices of the interests of nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine which we dealt with in the earlier stages of our discussions, the Government are making a mistake. Only last Thursday on the Third Reading of the Bill a very unhappy event took place in the North Thames Health Area, the taking out of commission of no fewer than 4,600 beds. This will inevitably occasion some unemployment among nurses and, further, although the noble Lord has stoutly denied that the removal of 4,444 private beds under this Bill will affect the situation, there will inevitably be some unemployment among the staff. Therefore it seems that the nurses and the professions supplementary to medicine, which include all those professions concerned with the management of the Health Service other than the consultants and general practitioners, should have a voice on the Board.
This is yet another example of the restrictive way in which the Bill is drafted and of the restrictive thinking behind the construction of the Board as a whole. We have discussed it at length; we are not going to insist on it, but we are perfectly certain that the voices of those concerned will not be heard even though the noble Lord has stressed the fact that it will be done through the Whitley Council.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I have been wholly persuaded by his argument and I should like to ask him why he is not insisting upon the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think in the course of one's life in this House there are many things on which one would like to insist, as indeed there are in many other circumstances; but for a whole variety of reasons we feel that if we were going to insist on Amendments this would perhaps not be the first one we should choose in any event. It happens to be one that we believe to be important, and it is one that we greatly regret the Government themselves have not felt able to meet, as it would not cut across the principle of the Bill. However, we feel that in the circumstances we cannot insist upon it, much as we should like to do so.
Lord HACKING: My Lords, what are the circumstances?

LORDS AMENDMENTS
78 Page 27, line 26, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members"
79 Page 27, line 28, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members"
80 Page 27, line 31, leave out "or deputy member" and insert "and deputy members".
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
81 Because they are unnecessary.
2.27 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in moving en bloc, as I shall do in a moment, Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 inclusive, I think that Amendments Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 89 probably come within the same field so, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 inclusive en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.
These provisions relate to deputies, about which we had considerable debate both in Committee and at the Report stage. Although the Government have not accepted the Opposition Amendments, they have, as your Lordships will see, attempted to meet their point by proposing clarifying Amendments in lieu, namely, Amendments Nos. 85, 87 and 89 on the list. For that reason I do not propose to say anything more.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 81.—(Lord Wells-Pesrell.)
On Question, Motion agreed o.

LORDS AMENDMENT
82 Page 28, line 33, after "Board" insert "for the taking of any final decision shall be 7 (including deputies)".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
83 Because it is undesirable to fix the Board's quorum by statute.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 82, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 83.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the quorum and the setting of the right numbers concerned us very much at all stages of this Bill. I should like to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at the Report stage of the Bill, because I think he made the case for us. He had to rely on an assumption. We were dealing, of course, with the question of deputies and the broad issue of how the Board should reach its decisions and manage its affairs, and he said this,
"We should assume—I know that is a dangerous word to use in your Lordships' House—and I think it would be made quite clear, that the chairman of the Board would, if a decision of some importance had to be made, postpone that decision for a few days until that other member could attend so that there would be a full attendance of the chairman and the four members of the Board."—[Official Report, 17/11/76; col. 1291.]
Here is a situation in which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is casting his mind into the future. He casts it with an assumption. He is so right here in suggesting it is dangerous, because this danger could well occur. Further, the danger would be overcome if the noble Lord had advised his right honourable friend to adopt this Amendment, and the Government had thought fit to make further arrangements whereby no important decisions were reached unless a sufficient number of people were present.
The situation is acknowledged by the Government—indeed, in the terms which I have quoted—that there is a doubt, a dubiety, a hesitation, a possibility, that important matters should be decided without a sufficient number of people and without the backing of a statutory number within the quorum. I think this is an omission from the Bill.

LORDS AMENDMENT
84 Page 27, line 27, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
85 Page 27, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
'(a) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Board and, for each other member of the Board, a deputy member to act in his place;'
2.31 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 84, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 85 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof. Amendment No. 85 reads:
"Page 27, line 26, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
' (a) a deputy chairman shall act in place of the chairman of the Board and, for each other member of the Board, a deputy member to act in his place;'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 85 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before commenting on this, could I make it clear that what the noble Lord has read is what is in my printed list? My printed list says, "a deputy chairman to …"; the noble Lord said, "a deputy chairman shall act in place of the chairman of the Board …" I take it the noble Lord means," a deputy chairman to act …".
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I said "shall" I was incorrect. The noble Baroness. Lady Young, has read it correctly.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are very grateful for this Amendment and the two which follow, which made points we raised on report. It is important to make quite sure that there is a deputy for each member of the Board and for the chairman of the Board, because the Board have only five members and will have to make very important decisions. The Amendments clarify the position and therefore, make it much better. We are glad about this. We are also glad to recognise that the House of Lords have an opportunity to work in this revising function and are in fact able to achieve three Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENT
86 Page 27, line 29, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
87 Page 27, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
' (b) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Scottish Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place;'.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 86, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 87 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof which reads:
"Page 27, line 28, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Scottish Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place;'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 87 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
88 Page 27, line 32, leave out "a" and insert "any".
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
89 Page 27, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Welsh Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place.'.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 88, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree to Amendment No. 89 proposed by the Commons in lieu thereof, which reads:
"Page 27, line 31, leave out paragraph (c) and insert․
' (c) a deputy chairman to act in place of the chairman of the Welsh Committee and, for each other member of that Committee, a deputy member to act in his place.'."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, but agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
90 Leave out Schedule 2.
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
91 Because this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 90, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 91, which reads:
"Because this Amendment is consequrntial upon the Amendment made by the Lords in page 3, line 1, to which the Commons have disagreed."
I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 91.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is making a Statement in another place this afternoon on the Official Secrets Act. The Statement will be repeated in this House by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 3.40 p.m. when the Statement will be made.
[The Sitting was suspended at 2.37 p.m. and resumed at 3.40 p.m.]

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement on the Government's intentions on the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. This section, which makes it a criminal offence to disclose official information without authority, has for some time been regarded as too broad in its scope—it has been described as a 'catch-all'—and there has been uncertainty about its interpretation and

1731
enforcement. The Government have concluded that this section should be replaced by an Official Information Act on the broad lines recommended by the Franks Committee. The Committee, whose membership included representatives of Parliament—including myself—and the media, and who presented a unanimous report, recommended that the sanctions of the criminal law should be strictly limited in their application. It is, of course, with the criminal law that we are here concerned, and not the practices and rules about disclosure of information in the public service. The normal sanctions of the rules of conduct against disclosure of official information will continue to apply.
"The Franks Committee recommended that the criminal law should apply to disclosure of information relating to foreign affairs, defence and internal security, and currency and the reserves when that information is classified 'Secret' or above or in the case of certain defence information classified as 'Defence—Confidential:' and also to the disclosure of Cabinet documents, confidences of the citizen and certain information in the field of law and order, such as information that would facilitate crime. Information in these three last categories was to be protected regardless of any security classification.
"The Government accept the Committee's general approach to the problem, but in considering the categories of information that ought to be protected by the criminal law we think it right to draw a clearer distinction between home and economic policy on the one hand and security and intelligence, defence and international relations on the other. The unauthorised disclosure of any official information is wrong because it is unauthorised. But in the domestic field it will generally result in embarrassment to the Government of the day and not in serious damage to the national interest. In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, on the other hand, such damage may well result.
"In the economic field the Government have reached the conclusion that
1732
a criminal sanction is not justified. It is relevant that the Franks Report was prepared at a time of fixed exchange rates. In any case it would not in the Government's view be appropriate to distinguish between currency and the reserves and, for example, domestic interest rates and monetary and fiscal policies. Faced with a realistic choice between applying criminal sanctions to a wider economic category and the exclusion of economic information from their ambit, it seems right to us that the criminal offence should not extend to economic information.
"The Government also propose to depart from the Franks recommendation that there should be a criminal sanction for the disclosure of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents, irrespective of their content and security classification. The Committee rested the case for inclusion of this category on the need to safeguard the collective responsibility of the Cabinet. The doctrine of collective responsibility is fundamental to our system of government, and the Government totally accept that the documents of the Cabinet and its Committees deserve special protection. They do not, however, consider that that protection should consist of applying criminal sanctions to the disclosure of documents irrespective of their content and classification. The bulk of Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents deal with domestic affairs. The protection of these documents is a matter basically of trust and good sense among colleagues. It is also a matter of ensuring that the principles and special procedures for distributing and handling Cabinet documents are properly observed and improved where necessary; and in that connection the report of Lord Houghton's Committee on Cabinet document security will be published shortly and the Government's conclusions on it made known at the same time.
"The Government have therefore concluded that Cabinet and Cabinet Committee documents should be protected by criminal sanctions only when by their content and security classification they fall into one of the other categories so protected.
"The Government accept the need to protect by criminal sanctions the

1733
Franks Committee's proposed categories of confidence of the citizen and certain law and order information, as well as that of disclosure for gain (to which the report of the Royal Commission on Standards of Conduct in Public Life is relevant). These depend upon special considerations for which we believe that the Committee has made a case.
"In the fields of security and intelligence, defence and international relations, the Government have concluded that some rearrangement and extension of the Franks categories is required. Information relating to security and intelligence matters is deserving of the highest protection whether or not it is classified. The Government propose therefore that this should form a separate category. In the defence field the Franks Committee recommended that confidential information relating to military weapons and equipment should be given the special marking of 'Defence—Confidential' and be protected by criminal sanctions. The Government have concluded that confidential information of a sensitive and potentially damaging kind goes rather wider than this in both the defence and international fields. It extends to certain areas of defence policy and strategy and of international relations where unauthorised disclosure would be prejudicial to British interests, to relations with a foreign Government or to the safety of British citizens. The Government therefore propose to extend this Franks concept to become 'Defence and International—Confidential' and to define it somewhat more widely than Franks.
"The Government believe that their conclusion represents a system more liberal than that proposed by the Franks Committee, but one which secures the highest degree of protection for information whose disclosure may cause serious harm to the interests of the nation. Legislation on this basis will be introduced as soon as is practicable, but it cannot be during the coming Session. Although much detail remains to be worked out, I thought it right to inform the House of the Government's broad intentions."
3.48 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Well, my Lords, there is scarcely a dull moment, is there? I am sure that the House is deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for retailing this Statement to us. The Government on this occasion are not exactly racing into improvident legislation. We heard, and probably it is the main thing that emerges from this document, that we are not going to legislate next Session. I suppose the Government are too busy putting ship repairing back into the Bill we have been discussing this morning. But on the other hand, one recollects that the report to which this is a commentary was signed, so far as I remember, in August 1972. Therefore the Government, and indeed their predecessor, have had ample time to consider what they were going to do about it.
I think it is obvious that after the Sunday Telegraph prosecution something had to be done, and on the main recommendation of the Franks Report that Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act should be replaced by a narrower and more specific set of provisions to be known as the Official Information Act, I think that there will probably be very little dispute in either House of Parliament, and certainly none between the Parties. Nor do I think that there will be much complaint about the priority given by the Government to defence and foreign affairs security information. But are the Government quite right in saying that economic information is so unimportant nowadays?
The Franks Committee reported that the Official Information Act should apply to official information relating to any
"… proposals, negotiations or decisions connected with alterations in the value of sterling or relating to the reserves, including their extent or any movement or threat to them".
Unless I am mistaken, the only reference I find to that recommendation in what the noble Lord just read is the sentence:
"In the economic field, the Government have reached the conclusion that a criminal sanction is not justified".
They back that up by saying that of course in the old days of Franks, many years ago, there were such things as fixed foreign exchanges.
Are the Government really satisfied that if, for instance, one disclosed information which would affect the value of

1735
sterling, in these so much more enlightened times that would not be something which should not be governed by a criminal sanction? Are they really sure that is right? Does their new-found liberalism carry them that length? What about Budget secrets? That is economic information and I always thought that the documents relating to it were protected by a very high degree of secrecy.
One is left with the conclusion that the Government would have been very much better, as they have proceeded in this leisurely fashion—a leisurely fashion for which I must accept my own measure of responsibility when I was a member of their predecessor—if they had produced a White Paper on the subject being much more precise and detailed in the arguments which they approached. I wonder whether, regarding the Committee's recommendation about discussions with the media, such discussions have taken place at any time in the last four years, before this announcement was made. If so, with whom were the discussions held and what was the result of them? At any rate, we shall at some time during the next 12 months have time to discuss the matter, as there will be no legislation, so I will not detain the House with any further comment.
3.53 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the fact that at long last the Government have adopted the view of Mr. Justice Caulfield in the Sunday Telegraph case that it is time that Section 2 of the 1911 Act should be pensioned off. It was an absurd situation under which, if that Act were interpreted strictly, a civil servant and a journalist would be committing a serious offence if they exchanged information about the colour of the carpet in the civil servant's room or about the time at which he took his tea break; and we welcome very much the fact that a somewhat more realistic view will be taken in future as to what information is important and what is trivial.
I have three queries to raise about the Statement which has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. My first query, which has already been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is
1736
whether on reflection it may not appear that economic information may not be at least as important, and indeed in some circumstances even more important, than military information and should not come within the provisions of the new Bill when it is drafted.
Secondly, the question of the classification of Government documents, because a great deal of trouble arises at the moment because of the inevitable tendency of civil servants to classify their documents in grades of confidentiality several degrees higher than are really necessary. Indeed, I remember well that in the Sunday Telegraph case it emerged that the very document giving instructions to the Civil Service on how to classify documents was itself classified as confidential, and the civil servant who was giving evidence was therefore reluctant to inform the court of its details. Does Lord Harris accept the finding of the Committee presided over by my noble and learned friend Lord Franks that the whole question of classification should be looked at with care, that the civil servant's view of the correct degree of classification should not be accepted as final and should be subject to the certificate of the Minister in an appropriate case to the effect that the classification had been properly carried out?
Thirdly, may I ask Lord Harris whether he agrees with the view of the Franks Committee that the mere receipt by a person of classified information should not in itself be an offence under the new Bill, whenever it is prepared? Lord Hailsham pointed out that the Franks Committee reported in September 1972. The Government appear to be adopting the attitude of Saint Augustine, who prayed in Latin in the words:
"Give me chastity and continence, but do not give it yet."
May I ask the noble Lord to consider very carefully whether it might not be possible for the Government to introduce a measure to reform the present Act in the immediate future during this coming Session? Would it not perhaps be an appropriate Bill to introduce into your Lordships' House while we are doing nothing but awaiting the return of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill?
3.55 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble

1737
and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, have said. It is sometimes rather difficult to give pleasure to your Lordships' House. There has been a constant stream of reproaches to this Government and—and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would no doubt agree—to the previous Government that there has been over-hasty legislation and far too much of it. Undoubtedly, it has been the case in this matter that both the previous and the present Governments have taken some time to reflect before coming forward with proposals.
I must say at the outset that it will be quite impossible to fit this into the programme for next year's legislative timetable. There is a substantial programme of legislation that will be set before Parliament in the gracious Speech and I must make it clear, as did my right honourable friend in his Statement in the other place, that we could not possibly fit an important measure of this sort into the programme for the next Session of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, both referred to the Sunday Telegraph case, where Mr. Justice Caulfield made a number of very critical references to Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Indeed, that is why the Franks Committee was set up and why I have made the Statement that I have made today. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, both asked whether it was not the fact that economic information should be protected, and suggested that there should be some fairly harsh restriction, with breaches being dealt with rather more seriously than the Government were proposing. Certainly, I do not for a moment suggest that disclosure of economic information cannot be damaging. Of course it can. The question is whether there should be a criminal sanction. It is the Government's view that there should not be a criminal sanction.
On the question raised by the noble and learned Lord as to what is the position if there is disclosure of a Budget secret, I believe that the answer to that is that there are other disagreeable consequences if there are disclosures of Budget secrets and that the criminal law is not necessarily the best way of dealing with that problem.
1738
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put the point—which was covered by the Franks Committee—about whether the mere receipt of information should be a criminal offence. It is our view that it should not be so, and that will be part of our proposals.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I press the noble Lord to go a little further into the possibility of having a White Paper on this subject, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham? These are complicated matters, as I remember well from some discussions that I had to have many years ago about the matter at the Home Office. It seems to me that a lot of points could be thought about and discussed with advantage before we get to the point of legislation and that a White Paper might therefore be very useful.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord and I shall certainly discuss that matter with my right honourable friend.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I supplement what the other speakers have said about the economic aspects of this matter? Clearly, we cannot expect the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to produce a detailed reply, but it may help him if I suggest that there will have to be some kind of borderline between international affairs that are deemed to be economic, and international and economic affairs that may touch upon international affairs yet not be international. It does not seem possible to say simply "economic" under one system and "international" under the other. There really are very delicate questions which affect our international relations and which are substantially economic, and somebody will have to decide, not only ad hoc but also on definitions.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, while completely endorsing what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has said, I should like to suggest that even as regards the domestic scene there are lines which should be drawn. I imagine that most of us, certainly most members of my profession, will welcome the increased elbowroom for the discussion of economic affairs in general. But it is very easy to imagine partial disclosures which enable people to make large sums of money,

1739
which I suggest should still be the subject of criminal prosecution. I think that that could be enlarged upon a great deal, but the time now is not appropriate.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think it is perfectly right that there are going to be a number of difficult dividing lines. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, is quite right; I take the point he has just made. But of course this is a matter which can be discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill, which will be an important measure for that reason and for the reason which the noble Lord has just given. I welcome, too, the general welcome given by the noble Lord because I think it is important to try to move out of the area of criminal law so far as discussion in the areas he has just mentioned is concerned.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, will the noble Lord be so good as to tell your Lordships whether any change at all is contemplated in the 30-year rule?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this is not covered by the Official Secrets Act.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, when we consider this Bill would it not be possible to link it with what in many countries is called the "Right to Know Act" or something equivalent, so that in general the ordinary citizen has an access to the files of the Civil Service if they bear upon his own private affairs, as a matter of right instead of as a matter of privilege? I suggest this so that something could be done to remove what I have always felt to be the obsessive security and the obsessive sense of secrecy which envelops all the operations of the Civil Service.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that that matter goes substantially wider than the Statement I have made this afternoon.
4.2 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until 5.15 p.m. when a Royal Commission for Prorogation is expected. My Lords, after all the disagreement and hard words of the last few weeks I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of saying something with which I am sure noble Lords
1740
in all parts of the House will agree. The period since the Summer Recess has been one of the hardest that the House has ever gone through. I feel that we owe a very real debt of gratitude to all those in the House who have worked so patiently for our benefit. I hope, therefore, that I have the support of the whole House in saying "Thank you" to the staff. First, I should mention the staff of the Parliament Office and I should like to make particular mention of the Public Bill Office. This is only because I know that the burden on them has been even greater than on every-one else.
Secondly, I should mention the Hansard staff, who have coped unflaggingly with a very heavy task. Thirdly, there are the staff of the Refreshment Department who have fed and watered us and kept up our spirits. We have also imposed greatly on them and relied far more than we should on their devotion to duty to keep the Refreshment Department working. Next I can thank the Doorkeepers and the rest of Black Rod's staff who have kept the watches of the night with us.
Last, but not least, I should like to add a mention of my own secretarial staff in the Leader's Office. One of the best known and prettiest members of that office is leaving at the end of this Session, and I know that the House will miss her very much and wish her well. To all the staff and to all your Lordships I can say that I hope that the next few weeks will be rather quieter than the last few.
Moved, That this House do now adjourn until 5.15 p.m.—(Lord Peart.)
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, all of your Lordships would join with the Leader of the House in that tribute, and all of your Lordships, wherever you sit, will look to the Leader of the House to see that nothing as awful as the past eight weeks will ever happen again. I think that a certain tribute is also due to your Lordships on all sides of the House; we have kept our tempers and we have been courteous and polite, whatever our disagreements may have been. Only very rarely have there been flashes of temper, which in the circumstances were only too understandable. My Lords, both Front Benches have had to put up with a great deal of hard work and do a lot, and I think we ought to acknowledge that.

1741
Of course I agree with what the noble Lord has said about all the various categories of people whom he has mentioned: the Table, that has to listen to the interminable argument; the Official Reporters, who have to take down the interminable argument; the Doorkeepers and the Custodians, and those behind the scenes who work so hard; and not least, as the noble Lord has said, the Refreshment Department. Where would we have been without Miss Wilson and the Refreshment Department? If I may pick out, invidiously, one particular person, where would we have been without the Bishops' Bar? The cheerful and efficient dispenser of spirits there, who has have kept our spirits up and, incidentally, enabled them to go down as well, if your Lordships follow me, has really been invaluable to us in these last few weeks. My Lords, I think that we in this House are particularly fortunate in the people who work here with us. Whatever the circumstances, we are always greeted with a cheerfulness, a courtesy and a kindness which we have absolutely no right to expect but always get.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to support what has been said by the two noble Lords who have preceded me. The whole House is of course extremely indebted to all the members of the staff who have worked so hard and so long in recent weeks. I only hope—and I think I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—that it will not become part of our Parliamentary life. That this should be the pattern for the period at the end of every Session is too much to bear.
My Lords, I do not know whether we have had to recruit a considerable number of new staff or whether the burden of the last few weeks has taken its mental toll, but this morning I was handed my Order Paper by a very courteous Doorkeeper. He took a good look at me and said, "It is very good to see you again, my Lord; we do not get that pleasure very often nowadays". I am still trying to work out with which particular Liberal backwoodsman he confused me! My Lords, we wish to support the Motion which has been moved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
House adjourned during pleasure until
5.15 p.m.
House resumed.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons for insisting on the Lords Amendments in lieu and for disagreeing to the Commons Amendments in lieu, read and agreed to; Bill returned to the Commons with the said Reason.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I understand that the business in another place has not yet been completed as we had hoped. I very much apologise for having brought your Lordships here earlier than was perhaps necessary. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to move that we adjourn during pleasure for another half-hour, until a quarter to six.
Moved, That this House do adjourn during pleasure until 5.45 p.m.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I fully understand how this situation has arisen. In the circumstances we can do nothing other than accept the Government's proposal.
House adjourned during pleasure until
5.45 p.m.
House resumed.
5.46 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid that I must apologise to your Lordships once again because business is not yet completed in another place. I think it may be best and for the convenience of your Lordships if we adjourn during pleasure until a time which will be announced on the annunciator, which I hope will not be too far distant.
Moved, That this House do adjourn during pleasure.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments in lieu agreed to; and with the Amendment to the Lords Amendment not insisted on.
EDUCATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment in lieu agreed to.
AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with their Amendments in lieu insisted on; and with their disagreement to the Lords Amendments in lieu insisted on, with a Reason for such insistence; the said Reason to be printed.
  JOB CREATION: EXPENDITURE
  JOB CREATION: EXPENDITURE
  FLUORIDATION
  FLUORIDATION
  CABINET COMMITTEES
  CABINET COMMITTEES
  ROYAL PARK OF GREENWICH: PARK VISTA
  ROYAL PARK OF GREENWICH: PARK VISTA
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS: ADMISSION
  OVERSEAS STUDENTS: ADMISSION
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT RULES OF CONDUCT
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT RULES OF CONDUCT
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PLACING OF CONTRACTS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: PLACING OF CONTRACTS
  HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FROM EEC COUNTRIES
  HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES FROM EEC COUNTRIES
  NATIONAL FLAGS: FABRIC
  NATIONAL FLAGS: FABRIC
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS IN LONDON
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS IN LONDON
  QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS
  QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS
  RHODESIA: GENEVA CONFERENCE
  RHODESIA: GENEVA CONFERENCE
  POLICE DUTY: LOBBYING
  POLICE DUTY: LOBBYING
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES: BACK-UP DUTY
  SPECIAL CONSTABLES: BACK-UP DUTY
  POST OFFICE: POSTAGE RATES
  POST OFFICE: POSTAGE RATES
  MINTING OF HALFPENNIES
  MINTING OF HALFPENNIES
  GILBERT ISLANDS
  GILBERT ISLANDS
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  ROYAL COMMISSION
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH
  PROROGATION: HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH