Sitting of 25 June 1979

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

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Industry what proposals he has to encourage the development of small businesses.
    The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): We shall make risk-taking more worth while—for instance, by the measures we have taken in the Budget—and we shall prune unnecessary constraints to enterprise.
    Mr. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is now common agreement that higher output and an increase in the number of new jobs will come from the small and medium-sized business sector? Is he also aware that in inner-
    2
    city areas the biggest inhibiting factor on small businesses is the high level of rents? Will he give what encouragement and assistance he can to those operations in the private sector, such as Clerkenwell Workshops, which seek to provide premises for small businesses at attractive commercial rates?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State explain how he thinks the recent Budget helps small businesses? For example, does he think that the recent increase in interest rates will help them? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about the 15 recommendations on small businesses made by the Wilson committee, including a guarantee scheme?
    Sir K. Joseph: The increase in interest rates was a necessary response to the legacy we inherited from the last Government and will, I hope, be temporary. We are consulting widely about the recommendations of the Wilson committee.

    Insac and Inmos
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Secretary of State for Industry what are his plans with respect to the future of Insac and Inmos Limited.
    The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement

    3
    in due course about all the National Enterprise Board's operations.
    Mr. Spicer: Will my hon. Friend give some indication whether it is the long-term strategy of the Government to continue to support either or both of those organisations?
    Mr. Butler: I should like to give my hon. Friend such an indication, but he will have to await the statement which my right hon. Friend will make in due course.

    Consett and Stanley (New Industries)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Industry what measures he is taking to assist the development of new industries in Consett and Stanley, Co. Durham.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): The measures announced in the Budget will help to stimulate industry throughout the country. Regional industrial policy is currently being reviewed.
    Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that there is the gravest concern in my constituency about the future of the steel industry? Is he further aware that, notwithstanding what he has just said, the only proven way of stimulating new industry in the area is, as it has been, by active Government intervention, the continuance of which is supported by, amongst others, the northern regional council of the Confederation of British Industry?
    Mr. Mitchell: The problems of unemployment in that area form part of the regional policy review. It is not necessarily a matter for Government assistance only. The work of Enterprise North will be known to the hon. Gentleman. The study commissioned by the British Steel Corporation into the scope of the future industrial development concept will also receive our attention.
    Mr. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware that, without a strong regional policy over the years, areas such as the Northern region, which are so dependent on traditional heavy industries and which have suffered job losses, will be disaster areas? Therefore, any withdrawal of regional grants and incentives would cause devastation in the Northern region. Will the
    4
    Minister also bear in mind that there are special areas such as West Durham, represented by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins), which need special incentives so that we may work towards the prosperity enjoyed by the rest of the country?
    Mr. Mitchell: In the course of our review of regional policy we shall take into account the points made by the right hon. Gentleman. I was in Durham last Wednesday, hearing about and learning about the problems at first hand and I have reported back on them.

    British Leyland
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Industry when next he will meet the chairman of British Leyland.
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he plans to meet the chairman of British Leyland
    Sir Keith Joseph: I see the chairman of British Leyland as frequently as is necessary.
    Mr. Durant: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Leyland, will he discuss with him the joint venture with Honda, particularly in relation to component manufacturers, who are obviously concerned to see that they have a fair share in the whole deal?
    Sir K. Joseph: It is not my policy to interfere with the management of British Leyland, but I shall certainly make sure that the chairman sees the comment of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Park: Is it the Government's clear intention to continue their support of British Leyland, in view of the impact this will have on the West Midlands, and Coventry in particular?
    Sir K. Joseph: The future of British Leyland depends upon the combined efforts of its management and work force.
    Mr. John Silkin: May I first offer the Secretary of State my congratulations on his appointment. I should like to press him further on the answer that he has just given. As British Leyland is the largest overseas currency earner in the United Kingdom, and the jobs of nearly 1 million people are directly or indirectly dependent upon its success, will he reconsider his answer and assure the House

    5
    that the investment programme which obtained under the Labour Government will continue in the future?
    Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy. He and I have crossed swords before, and I am sure that we shall have lively exchanges during this Parliament. I do not see that there is any need for me to qualify my answer. After all, it is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends have given in the past, and we intend to adhere to it.

    Shipbuilding Industry (Clydeside)
    Mr. Dewarasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will now make a statement setting out how the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde will be affected by British Shipbuilders' corporate plan and the Government's attitude to this.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will be making a policy statement about shipbuilding as soon as possible.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm or deny the report in The Daily Telegraph on 19 June that he specifically asked for estimates of the cost of closing yards? If that is so, and any closures are contemplated, will he make sure that the costs are made public and published so that we can all judge the need for any particular closure? Does he also accept that there is now great anxiety on Clydeside about the future of the industry, and that that has not been allayed by the visit of the Secretary of State, which was compared in industrial terms by one of my constituents with the passing of the Angel of Death?
    Mr. Butler: We recognise that there is anxiety in the shipbuilding industry about the future because of the gravity of the situation. That is why we hope to make a statement as soon as we can. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am sure that, like me, he does not believe every word which he reads in newspapers. The Government have asked British Shipbuilders to review the options which it put to the previous Administration, which lay on the table for a number of months. Circumstances have changed. We are looking at the facts, and when we have examined them and carried out
    6
    various other consultations we shall be in a position to make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that there is also worry and anxiety on the east coast of Scotland about the future of the shipbuilding industry, largely because of the shortage of orders and the lack of any sign that orders are coming forward? Will he indicate why, in view of those facts, he was not prepared to give help in order to bring to Scotland the Shell-Esso contract for the multipurpose vessel, which would have provided the employment that is badly needed? The view is forming that it is the Government's intention to assassinate the industry.
    Mr. Butler: The circumstances surrounding the decision about the Shell-Esso vessel have received a certain amount of publicity. It is not for me to comment on the detail that was published. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the degree of subsidy required of Government was not justified in the circumstances.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: When my hon. Friend the Minister is considering the submissions with regard to the future of British shipbuilding, will he bear in mind the necessity for the covered facility at Barrow, which is a very profitable yard—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ought to have stopped the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). This question relates to shipbuilding on the Clyde. If there are questions about other parts of the United Kingdom, they ought to go on the Order Paper.
    Mrs. Kellet-Bowman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, if too much money goes to the Clyde, too little will go to Barrow. That is why I raised the matter. May I therefore continue? I have not finished my question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady has not finished. I do not like crossing swords with a lady, but the hon. Lady will realise that this question is about industry on the Clyde. It is unfair to others if we extend it to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Will not the hon. Gentleman now give an unequivocal assurance that it is the Government's

    7
    intention to maintain a viable British shipbuilding industry?
    Mr. Butler: The Government would like to see a viable merchant shipbuilding industry, if that is possible. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am of the shortage of orders and the seriousness of the situation in the yards. It is exactly those circumstances, and others, that we must take into account.
    Mr. Gregor MacKenzieasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his visit to the shipyards on Clydeside.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend will make a policy statement about shipbuilding as soon as possible.
    Mr. MacKenzie: We all want to maintain the maximum number of jobs on Clydeside and to modernise Clydeside. There is fierce competition from other shipyards. Can we be sure even at this stage that the right hon. Gentleman has not ruled out the possibility of a reasonable intervention fund to help?
    Mr. Butler: When I arrived in the Department the intervention fund had lapsed by some weeks. One of my first actions was to try to arrange a transition period until a new intervention fund could be established. I hope that that will happen very shortly.
    Dr. Bray: Is it true that British Aerospace positively steered the order for the new Shell-Esso offshore support vessel to Finland as part of a counterpart trade deal for the purchase of aircraft by Finland? Was that done with the Department's knowledge?
    Mr. Butler: If the hon. Gentleman had been here earlier during Question Time he would have heard that question asked and the answer.
    Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the hon. Gentleman being less than straight with the House? Had not the previous Administration already announced their intention to re-establish the intervention fund at £85 million? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government will comply with that?
    Mr. Butler: It is correct that a statement was made by the previous Administration about the future of the interven-
    8
    tion fund. The fund had lapsed and I had to negotiate immediately for a transitional arrangement—at least—with the Commissioner.

    British Aerospace
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the future of British Aerospace.
    Mr. Butler: The Government are still reviewing the position on British Aerospace. No decisions have yet been taken, but my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: In drawing up the proposal for British Aerospace, are the Government looking for a partial sale of equity in the corporation or are they seeking total denationalisation? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the need for a measure of stability in aerospace, in view of the convulsions caused by the unnecessary nationalisation by the last Government?
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a truth, which is that one must start from the position as one finds it. There are various options before Ministers. We shall make a statement on policy as soon as we are in a position to do so.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the report in two reputable newspapers that the award of the shipbuilding contract to the Finnish yard resulted from the intervention of British Aerospace, which wanted to do a package deal in the sale of aircraft?
    Mr. Butler: As I have already indicated, the decision on the vessel to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was taken on the grounds that the subsidy which was needed was excessive in the circumstances. With regard to British Aerospace, I understand that there is a possibility of an offset arrangement.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In considering the future of British Aerospace before making a statement, has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked for reports on the future of the HS 146 project?
    Mr. Butler: When we carry out our review, all the projects with which the corporation is occupied inevitably come

    9
    under review, particularly those which involve, or may involve, the use of public money. To that extent, I can tell my hon. Friend that the HS 146, along with other projects, forms part of that review.
    Mr. Benn: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that before any decisions whatever are taken about the future of British Aerospace there will be discussions with the trade unions concerned, particularly in view of what his right hon. Friend said a few minutes ago about British Leyland? It is absolutely essential that the trade unions should be brought into discussions on the future of the industry in which so many of their members work.
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman will find that this Government will consult the employees concerned in any industry over which they have responsibility.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have regular meetings with the shop stewards of British Aerospace at Christchurch, many of whom express views about the Government's proposals somewhat different from those put forward by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) as well as those put forward officially as the political view of the trade unions concerned? Will he therefore ensure that he does not speak only to the same old union hacks when he carries out this consultation with those who work in the industry?
    Mr. Butler: I am sure that my hon. Friend will make certain that I get a cross-section of views from the employees.
    Mr. John Silkin: As there would be no civil aircraft projects now without nationalisation, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that none of the shares will go back to those who failed the industry in the past?
    Mr. Butler: I can give no such assurance to the right hon. Gentleman.

    National Giro (Bootle)
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will give assurances that his policy towards National Giro will not mean any reduction in its activities or its potential for employment in Bootle.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The Government expect the National Girobank to compete on equal terms with other bodies offering similar services. Subject to that, the level of Girobank employment in Bootle is a matter for the Post Office Board.
    Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister please go further than that reply, if possible, to reassure the 3,500 people who are employed by Giro in Bootle, and will he state publicly that Giro is a good example of public ownership which is effective and profitable? Also, will he give an assurance that he will look at the possibility of expanding Giro to make it the banker of the nationalised industries and to give it the Paymaster General's work? Will he also consider amalgamating Giro with the National Savings Bank and expanding Giro to create a State bank?
    Mr. Marshall: To the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question I can certainly answer "No, Sir". In order to be helpful—and I recognise the concern of the hon. Gentleman and of his predecessor as Member for Bootle—I can say in answer to the first part that as far as we are aware the Post Office Board has no proposals to reduce employment in Bootle.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be an expansion of Giro activities, given that these bring a great deal of work not only to Bootle but to all other parts of Merseyside, including my constituency? In view of the high levels of unemployment, it would be absolutely disastrous if we did not have a clear policy of expansion for Giro.
    Mr. Marshall: The Government's attitude towards the expansion of Giro is that if Giro is competing on fair and equal terms it has every opportunity, but that is distinctly a matter between Giro and the Post Office Board in the future.

    Fairey Engineering (Stockport)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement about the National Enterprise Board and Fairey Engineering Limited in Stockport.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement in

    11
    due course about all the NEB's operations.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister appreciate how much disappointment that statement will cause in Stockport, where the continuing uncertainty is causing much concern? Will he give an assurance to the work force there that they will be able to get on with the job, as they fought hard to become part of the NEB and would like to remain part of it?
    Mr. Marshall: At this stage it would be not only invidious but positively unhelpful to comment on individual cases within the review which is now taking place.
    Mr. Aitken: Does my hon. Friend recall that when the NEB used a large amount of taxpayers' money to buy the Fairey organisation several commercial companies in the free enterprise sector put in bids but were outbid by the NEB? Will he bear that very much in mind when it comes to returning the company to private ownership?
    Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for being reminded of those facts. They will be looked at within the overall review.

    Industrial Decline (West Midlands)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Industry what study he has made of fundamental industrial decline in the West Midlands; and what plans he has for counteracting this decline.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The Government are promoting industrial development by restoring personal incentives, encouraging efficiency and creating a climate in which industry and commerce can flourish.
    Mr. Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that by almost any criterion the rate of industrial decline in the West Midlands over the last decade is probably greater than that which has occurred in most other parts of the country? Does not he agree that if we are to see economic recovery it is vital that the Government stimulate the development of growth industries in the West Midlands?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his condemnation of the record of the previous Government. I
    12
    assure him that it is the present Government's policy to pursue policies which will stimulate growth and job creation.
    Mr. Budgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the West Midlands is to improve the general economic climate of the whole country, to reduce the subsidies which are given to other areas, and not to think up new subsidies for the West Midlands?
    Mr. Mitchell: The whole matter of regional policy is currently under review. My hon. Friend's comments will be borne in mind by my right hon. Friend during the review.
    Mr. Terry Davis: When shall we see the results of the Government's policies in the West Midlands—this year or next?
    Mr. Mitchell: A start on the policies of encouraging incentive, enterprise and growth was made with the Budget. To some extent we shall see those coming through during this year. More will follow later.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility that the undoubted decline in the West Midlands is a direct result of the massive amount of taxpayers' money which has been poured into other regions?
    Mr. Cryer: Nonsense. Absolute rubbish.
    Mr. Mitchell: Following the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the points that we shall be bearing in mind.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his replies so far have given scant comfort to anyone representing a West Midlands constituency? Is he further aware that because of actions by the previous Labour Government some 250,000 jobs in the West Midlands were either saved or rescued?
    Mr. Budgen: They were not saved.
    Mr. Huckfield: Is the Minister further aware that in the West Midlands alone at least 120,000 jobs depend on the future of the NEB? Will he look into the possibility of making a statement as soon as possible, in view of the great concern that his replies so far have caused?
    Mr. Mitchell: My answers so far will have given considerable encouragement to those in industry and commerce who are concerned about the real long-term creation of jobs and the growth of businesses. Indeed, the hon. Member will know that, looking around the country's economy as a whole, one finds that the impact of the general economic situation on the regions is the largest single cause for change and hope for the future.

    Employment (South Yorkshire)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Industry what consideration he is now giving to providing more jobs in the South Yorkshire area, especially for those districts where unemployment is well above the national average; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Mitchell: It is not the role of the Government to provide jobs, but rather to create the conditions in which viable industry and commerce can do so. The Government are currently reviewing the assistance at present available to industry in South Yorkshire and elsewhere.
    Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a most deplorable answer, the sort that we shall always expect from a Tory Government? Has he seen the report on the front page of the Yorkshire Post today of a recent survey which shows that 1,226 big firms, when asked what they would be doing about providing jobs after the Budget, said that they had decided not to provide jobs? What jobs will come out of the Budget that will benefit South Yorkshire? Does the hon. Gentleman intend to carry on as the previous Tory Government did, and not to provide jobs at all but to allow people to sink into unemployment?
    Mr. Mitchell: Coming from an hon. Gentleman who supported the previous Government, under whom unemployment nearly trebled, that comment seems to take the biscuit for audacity. I assure the hon. Gentleman that every Conservative Government since the war have ended up with unemployment figures lower than they were when they came into office, and the policies we are now pursuing are likely to lead to the same end.
    Dr. Edmund Marshall: Will the Minister do something practical and refer to the NEB for active consideration the availability of good sites in the Doncaster area of South Yorkshire for the establishment of the microchip development proposed by Inmos Limited?
    Mr. Mitchell: No decision has been taken yet on that matter. The hon. Gentleman's comment will be borne in mind.

    Mostek Project
    Mr. Gordon Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will hold an inquiry into the role of his Department in considering the Mostek project which eventually went to Dublin in the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. David Mitchell: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister accept that that is one of the most scandalous replies given in the House for a long time? Does not he realise that the blame for the loss of the Mostek plant to the Republic of Ireland was widely laid at the door of his Department, even under its previous ownership, on the grounds of its incompetence, undue delay and unwillingness to vary regional incentives? How does he account for the fact that the Republic of Ireland is advertising for skilled workers in the West of Scotland largely because of the failure of United Kingdom Governments to do anything about the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman's comment about the previous Government's behaviour in connection with the Scottish economy is not a matter for me. However, the transfer to Ireland in April of this year of the particular project with which he is concerned is not thought to be a direct result of the inadequacy or otherwise of the regional aids available from the Department of Industry.

    Manufacturing Industry (Production)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the index of production in manufacturing industry in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what was the figure in the same month in 1974.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The latest available figure for the index of production in

    15
    manufacturing industry is the provisional estimate for April this year of 106·8. The index for April 1974 stood at 108·3.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in manufacturing output during the period that the last Government were in power showed clearly how their industrial strategy had failed? What steps does my hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that manufacturing output rises during the term of this Government?
    Mr. Mitchell: Under the last Government the problem with industry was that incentives were so small that it was like trying to run a Rolls-Royce on one-star petrol. The changes that we have started to introduce, beginning with the Budget, are designed to restore incentives and make it possible for business men in companies of all sizes to seek extra business and to expand.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the index have any real meaning, and why do we have to have it?
    Mr. Mitchell: To answer that I should need prior notice of a wholly different question.
    Mr. Dobson: What machinery is the Minister establishing to monitor any relationship that there may be between the so-called incentives introduced in the Budget and growth in manufacturing output?
    Mr. Mitchell: The index to which I have referred is one of those indices that we shall use in considering the results.
    Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend not lose sight of the importance of the service sector in generating new jobs and wealth in the community?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is a feature of more advanced industrial societies that service industries provide an increasing proportion of jobs.

    Post Office
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he intends to meet the chairman of the Post Office corporation.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the Post Office.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have had two full discussions with the chairman of the Post Office and shall continue to meet him as the need arises.
    Mr. Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend tell Sir William Barlow as soon as possible that delays in the postal services are growing worse? There is much public concern about that. Will he ask Sir William what the Post Office intends to do about it?
    Sir K. Joseph: I agree that there is great scope for increased efficiency in the postal business. I was dismayed that the members of the Union of Post Office Workers rejected, in return for higher pay, measures approved by their union leadership required to improve efficiency. As I have said, I am having talks with the chairman of the Post Office about how efficiency and service to the customer might be improved.
    Mr. Neubert: Has my right hon. Friend seen the report of the Post Office Users National Council? It makes a devastating criticism of the Post Office, pointing out that the consumer is being asked to pay higher prices for lower standards of service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that poor postal deliveries represent a drag to industrial and commercial performance? In particular, what action is being taken to secure a return to second working day delivery of second-class mail?
    Sir K. Joseph: These matters, including the report of the committee to which my hon. Friend referred, are for the chairman of the Post Office. I deplore the current bad service not only to commerce and industry but to domestic customers.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the light of the closure of the Pye-TMC factory at Winston and various difficulties that have been expressed to this Government by, for example, Philips, does the Secretary of State think it right to have a serious discussion on the Post Office's long-term investment programme so that industry at least can be warned of its intentions earlier than has been the recent practice?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of the evidence that I have from my constituents that the Post Office is no longer capable of moving the mails, will my right hon. Friend support me if I introduce a one-clause Bill to abolish the Post Office statutory monopoly?
    Sir K. Joseph: I have no plans at present for such an initiative or response, but I should not like to rule it out. I am sure that the House would agree that it is unacceptable for any nationalised industry to use its monopoly to cloak inefficiency.

    Japan (Common Industrial Development)
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Industry what talks he proposes to have with the Japanese Government to increase common industrial development.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I met Japan's Minister for International Trade and Industry last month. I hope for further contacts at ministerial and official discussions on common industrial issues.
    Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a clear indication by Japanese industrialists that they wish to develop general projects with British companies? In view of that, will he urgently seek a meeting with the Japanese Embassy staff in London, the TUC and the CBI to discuss what kind of projects can be developed, in particular such developments as the silicon chip?
    Sir K. Joseph: We are aware of the possible increase in Japanese inward investment and the general atmosphere. In case the hon. Gentleman has anything new to say, I invite him to discuss it with me.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend undertake that this Government will not follow the bad example of the previous one in seeking to dissuade inward investment by the Japanese, particularly in the north of England?
    Sir. K. Joseph: Yes, Sir.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman look carefully at inward investment? There is no point in projects that consist entirely of buying in
    18
    Japanese parts and using the cover of a British firm. That creates unemployment for British workers.
    Sir K. Joseph: That is not the sort of project that the Japanese would regard as desirable. They are as anxious for a continuing welcome here as our firms would be in Japan.

    Industrial Development (East Midlands)
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will take steps to promote industrial development in the East Midlands.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The Government are reviewing the assistance at present available to industry. Our policies are, however, designed to create a proper climate in which commerce and industry can flourish, and this will encourage industrial development in the East Midlands, as well as the rest of the country.
    Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that some of the staple industries of the East Midlands are suffering considerably? Will he take steps to assist them in any way that he can?
    Mr. Mitchell: The industrial structure and inherent local industries in the regions will be borne in mind during our current review of regional policy.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Does my hon. Friend agree that a great deal of industry in the East Midlands is extremely buoyant? As long as our staple industries can have fair competition, that part of the country does not need special Government help.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's robust attitude.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as British and overseas capital holders have failed to invest in the regions, in spite of incentives from different Governments, they are hardly likely to invest if those incentives are discontinued?
    Mr. Mitchell: The incentives given under the previous Government and the depressing effect of taxation have perhaps inhibited the sort of investment needed to secure growth.
    Mr. Les Huckfield: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, despite

    19
    what his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) said, many firms in the East Midlands benefited from the Industry Act section 8 schemes administered by the last Government? Is he aware that there is a need to continue many of these schemes? They were effective, especially in the East Midlands. Will he make a clear and concise statement, in contrast to the general statements that he has so far given?
    Mr. Mitchell: The whole matter of regional and selective assistance is under review. As soon as that review is completed, announcements will be made to the House. The hon. Gentleman can, I hope, take satisfaction from that. It is not vague.

    Industrial Subsidies
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has any plans to alter the State subsidy arrangements available to certain sectors of British industry facing acute international competition.
    Mr. David Mitchell: We are carefully considering the whole question of Government assistance to industry, including those sectors facing acute international competition. My right hon. Friend will announce our decisions in due course.
    Mr. Forman: In the course of his consideration, will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pay due attention to the example of Denmark, where for a number of years since the war a very successful economic and trading policy has been pursued? This has been done without recourse to restrictionist trade policies but with generous long-term unemployment benefits and adequate resources for retraining.
    Mr. Mitchell: We share the concern about the need for fostering change and flexibility. In view of what my hon. Friend said about the work being done in Denmark, we shall ask officials to look into this practice for us.
    Mr. Hardy: What advice will the Minister give successful industrialists who face increasing difficulty in maintaining their export achievements, not merely because of the threat of the removal of State support, but because of the present
    20
    value of sterling, which has been maintained by very high interest rates, and which may further increase? This in itself is a profound disadvantage, and a future cause of unemployment.
    Mr. Mitchell: The facts that the hon. Member has mentioned are central to the many economic problems facing the country. We have inherited an economic situation—the money supply and the like—which has led us inevitably to increase the minimum lending rate. We are disappointed at having to do so, and we emphasise that this will not be a permanent feature. However, the tax reductions which were made to restore incentives will be a permanent feature.

    British Steel Corporation
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Industry when he expects next to meet the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend has frequent contact with the chairman on a wide range of matters affecting the corporation.
    Mr. Foulkes: In view of the Secretary of State's concern to reduce public expenditure, will he when he next meets the chairman ask for an explanation of the disgracefully profligate expenditure undertaken by the corporation at the official opening ceremony of the Hunters-ton complex, which has no productive value at present?
    Mr. Butler: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman, he will hope to hear that this fine new terminal is in operation and that the disputes that are preventing its operation have come to an end.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Industry what will be the capital expenditure of the British Steel Corporation in 1979 –80 and 1980 –81.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: The latest estimate for 1979 –80 is £325 million. Expenditure for 1980 –81 is currently under consideration.
    Mr. Hooley: Has the Minister noted the outstanding success of the Shepcote Lane stainless steel complex, which is now regaining markets which were badly neglected under private ownership? Does

    21
    he realise that the future success of the BSC depends on a high and sustained level of capital investment? Will he take this into account when he works out the figures for 1980–81?
    Mr. Marshall: I recognise that there is something in what the hon. Member says about stainless steel, which the House will welcome, but I do not think that he can expect to hear any detailed figures today. We are very concerned to ensure that the successful parts of the corporation continue to thrive—for example, in Sheffield—and we shall continue to bear this in mind.

    National Enterprise Board
    Mr. Hefferasked the Secretary of State for Industry what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the National Enterprise Board; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend expects to make a statement in due course about all the NEB's operations.
    Mr. Heffer: When the Secretary of State makes a statement, will he make it clear that there is no intention to sell off the enterprises that the NEB has made successful after taking them over from less successful private enterprise? Will he also indicate that the NEB can play a positive role in developing industry and employment in areas such as Merseyside which have high levels of unemployment and need that type of investment?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will have to await the statement. I fear that in regard to the first part of his question he may be disappointed.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: As the NEB has played an important part in rescuing large failures of private enterprise, will he ensure that now that they have been secured for the benefit of the people of this country they will not be handed back to private enterprise to end up in possible failure again?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member knows that it is our firm and confident belief that there will be more jobs both in the long and short term from the restoration of these firms to private enterprise.
    Mr. Cryer: If that is so, will the Minister explain the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment in the House a few days ago that he expects unemployment to increase by the end of the year? Is "by the end of the year" in the short term or the long term in the hon. Gentleman's opinion?
    Mr. Butler: The answer to that was given in reply to the previous question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment made it quite clear that the situation was due in part at least to our inheritance from the previous Administration.
    Mr. John Silkin: Is it not a fact that one of the inheritances was 250,000 jobs that were saved by the NEB? Is the Minister now giving us first warning that the Government propose to end those jobs?
    Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman must not have heard the reply that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) a few moments ago.

    Assisted Areas
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he is satisfied that the present classification and determination of assisted areas corresponds to the economic and social needs of the areas concerned.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is currently reviewing regional industrial policy and a statement will be made in due course.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in carrying out this review my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will pay close attention not only to existing unemployment figures but to the possible unemployment figures should very large industrial changes that are contemplated take place?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is one of the factors that my right hon. Friend is taking into account.
    Mr. Heffer: Before the review, can the Minister give an assurance that Merseyside will remain a special development area, with all the assistance that is necessary to create employment in that area?
    Mr. Mitchell: It would be quite wrong to pre-empt the decisions in one particular area before the results of the whole survey were announced.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not apparent to my hon. Friend, from supplementary questions put to him on this question and on previous questions, that industrial subsidies, like other forms of political bribery with the taxpayers' money, fail to satisfy those who receive them and cause grave dissatisfaction to those who do not? Will my hon. Friend draw the appropriate conclusion when he announces the results of the review?
    Mr. Mitchell: We shall take account of the views that my hon. Friend has expressed.
    Mr. Alton: May I return to the question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about special development area status for Merseyside? When does the Minister expect to give a decision? It is fair to say that in an area with 11 per cent. unemployment this is a burning issue.
    Mr. Mitchell: It would be wrong of us to complete the review without visiting the areas concerned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited the area, and all these matters will be taken into account as soon as the review is completed. I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish us to complete a review without consulting those in the areas concerned. As soon as the review is completed an announcement will be made.

    CONSENT TO PROSECUTIONS
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Attorney-General if he will list those kinds of prosecutions for which his consent is required.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): My consent to criminal proceedings is required under 41 statutes. The full list is given in a booklet entitled "The Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978" published by the Director of Public Prosecutions. A copy has been laid in the Library of the House.
    Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that the time has come to extend the area of prosecu-
    24
    tions in which his consent is required to cover those in which important matters of public policy arise, such as those which arose in the case of Mr. Thorpe, where a witness has any financial stake in the outcome of the proceedings? In such a case the Attorney-General should be answerable for the institution of the prosecution, so that he is answerable to this House.
    The Attorney-General: It is not always easy to identify cases in which inducements may have been offered. The first reason why my predecessor did not take part in any decision in the case to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was that the case involved a colleague in the House. Secondly, it had serious political significance. Whichever way my predecessor had decided, he would have been open to criticism that he was influenced by political motives. He agreed to leave the matter with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I support his decision entirely.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Speaking generally, when the Attorney-General considers whether his consent is necessary in a particular case, will he consider the question whether contingency fees have been offered to the chief witnesses? Does he agree that this is a deplorable practice and that the payment appears to be dependent upon a conviction? Will he take immediate steps either to ban the practice or, if necessary, to prosecute under the existing law for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice?
    The Attorney-General: If the evidence supports either contempt or an attempt to pervert the course of justice, the matter will be considered. At the moment there is insufficient evidence in the case to which we have referred to ask the Director to give further consideration to that. The evidence in that case has come from what the judge described as very tainted sources.
    Mr. Ginsburg: Nevertheless, will the Attorney-General confirm that it is his function to decide when immunities should be granted to witnesses in respect of prosecution? Does he consider, in the case referred to, that, looking back, it is a pity that his predecessor did not intervene and that the matter was left to the Director of Public Prosecutions? It is now admitted by the newspaper

    25
    concerned that it cancelled the contract on the ground that the witness concerned told untruths.
    The Attorney-General: The case that we are speaking about is quite exceptional. The Director of Public Prosecutions asked the Attorney-General whether he wished to be consulted and the Attorney-General took the view—which I have already said I agree with entirely—that it would be quite wrong for him to have to take that decision. Fortunately, we have a skilled, experienced and competent Director of Public Prosecutions who, in the comparatively short time that he has been in office, has done his job with great ability. Most hon. Members would support me in saying that the difficult decision that my predecessor took was the correct one.
    Identifying tainted cases is difficult, because a defendant knows a great deal more about witnesses, who may be close friends, than does the Crown. I agree with those who deplore what happened concerning contingent payments being offered to witnesses. I shall examine the matter and, as I said yesterday on the radio, it may be that the body concerned would be better off putting its own house in order by giving the Press Council more power to deal with breaches as obvious as those.
    Mr. John Morris: I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General is to look into the issue of contingent payments. Whatever the Press Council does, there is widespread public concern about the matter. If necessary, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether legislation is required to eradicate at its root this fungus of payment by results?
    The Attorney-General: It is a matter that I am considering. The evil is two-fold, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. First, a man may be prepared to lie in order to receive the much larger payment and it may never be known to the jury that that offer exists. On the other side of the coin, a man may tell the truth and maintain that throughout his evidence but, because there is a contingent offer to him, the jury may take no account of his evidence. Either way, it is a pernicious practice and I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, by one method or another, it should be stopped.

    DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Attorney-General when he intends next to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: Shortly.
    Mr. Price: When the Attorney-General meets the Director, will he discuss cheque-book journalism with him with a view to legislating and not leaving the matter with the Press Council? The Council has no teeth and its pronouncements never have any effect. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many newspapers and periodicals did a good job in investigating the recent case without resorting to cheque-book journalism? Those—Tory, I may say—newspapers which did resort to this practice thereby uncovered no new information. However, they polluted not only the whole judicial process but the journalistic profession as well.
    The Attorney-General: I have made my position clear about the matter.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: When my right hon. and learned Friend consults the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he discuss with him the wisdom of amending the present law on committals in order to give to committing magistrates the right to decide whether there shall be publicity in cases where there are two or more defendants and one defendant seeks publicity and the others do not?
    The Attorney-General: This is one of the matters which is under consideration. It arose on a Private Member's Bill in the last Parliament. I should like to see the present law maintained for the benefit of exceptional cases where, for example, alibi evidence might become available only by reason of the publicity at a committal. If that has to go, I believe that it should be all or nothing—in other words, all defendants should agree to publicity and if one does not want it and the others do it should not apply. However, consideration should be given to the occasion when one man wants publicity for a genuine reason which he can satisfy the magistrates is a good one—for example, the case of a man in a motorway café at 11 am at the time when the offence is alleged to have

    27
    been committed. At the table next to him a young child is with a family and that child is sick all over the defendant's shoes. The defendant does not know the family but it is an occasion that would be remembered by them. If that fact comes out on committal, it is likely that the family will remember the occasion and provide the defendant with a good defence or alibi which would otherwise be denied to him. That is the sort of exceptional case in which the magistrates may grant publicity.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the public disquiet and grave concern that is felt about the matter? Many people would find it unacceptable that the Press Council should initiate an inquiry. They believe that if an inquiry is to be held it should be held under the auspices of Government if that is the only method by which the matter can be brought to public notice.
    The Attorney-General: In certain cases it is clear that the matter amounts to contempt of court or an attempt to pervert the course of justice. There will also be halfway houses in which it might be better to leave the matter to the Press Council and to journalists generally to put their own house in order. If they fail to do so—and there are other examples—it may be necessary to consider legislation. I remind the House that in the first two cases—contempt, and attempts to pervert the course of justice—if such evidence is available, those concerned can be prosecuted under the existing law.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will the Attorney-General discuss with the DPP another long-standing and urgent defect in the working of our criminal system, namely, the requirement that before cases are heard in magistrates' courts the prosecution should provide the defence with a summary of the prosecution case?
    The Attorney-General: This is another matter that is before the Royal Commission. I would rather wait until that body has published its report—although, as my hon. Friend knows, some years ago I advocated this point strongly, and still regard it as a good idea.
    Mr. Archer: Does the Attorney-General agree that matters which entail simply the assessment of evidence and
    28
    not public interest factors are usually better left to the DPP? Has he yet encountered the many hundreds of run-of-the-mill cases which purely for historic reasons require a Law Officer's consent? Has he discovered that many hours of ministerial time are consumed to no purpose, time which could be better spent dealing with other matters?
    The Attorney-General: I believe that too many of the 41 cases that require a Law Officer's consent need not be dealt with by that officer and take up a great deal of time. On the other hand, a number of other cases, particularly concerning corruption, are better left with the Law Officers.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do not today's proceedings supply further evidence of the inadequacy of the time accorded to oral answers by the Attorney-General? Of nine oral questions tabled for answer by him today, only two have been answered. Both those questions dealt basically with the same point, a point of admittedly great public importance and interest, but I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that two out of nine questions are a small measure when the opportunity to ask such questions arises so rarely. Since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) are present, I hope that this matter can be suitably considered.
Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noted that my question was among those that were not reached. This is one of the rare occasions when I wish to endorse the comments of an hon. Member on the Government Benches. Occasionally there is a sensational case before the Houser and the time is swallowed up very quickly because of the number of points put to the Attorney-General. However, there are many other important but perhaps more routine matters connected with company reports, which deeply affect our economic system and deserve detailed and lengthy answers and comments. I urge this point upon you, Mr. Speaker, and also on the other people

29
who deal with these matters in the House.
Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since this is a House of Commons matter, I wish to emphasise that hon. Members on both sides of the House feel very strongly on this point. The number of questions tabled to the Attorney-General has been rising steadily in the past few years and a period of 10 minutes is not long enough to deal with them, especially since Law Officers are not the speediest of answerers to questions. Perhaps they need a little more time than do other Ministers to give their answers.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall be happy to investigate the point raised by hon. Members.
Mr. Speaker: I wish to say, in passing, that there were a number of hon. Members still on their feet when I moved on in each case. Secondly, I must point out that the questioners are equally long-winded.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
The motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order announced for consideration today will now instead be taken at the end of the business already announced for Wednesday.

NAZIM AKHTAR (IMMIGRATION PROCEDURE)
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: 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 removal of Nazim Akhtar, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to listen to representations from the hon. Member for York before her removal".
The merits of the case are sufficient in themselves to argue the case for this Adjournment, but there is also an issue to be examined relating to the way in which the Home Office dealt with my representations on this subject which the House should consider.
This matter arises because a Pakistani lady appeared at London airport last week with the intention of coming into England as the fiancée of a man who is already married but who is in the course of obtaining a divorce. That man is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Because that lady is a female fiancée she does not need an entry certificate and therefore she could have been admitted to the country there and then. Nevertheless, the immigration service at Heathrow took the view that she would not be allowed to come into the country until she had gone back to Pakistan and applied for an entry certificate. The authorities took that decision because the man whom the lady intended to marry had not yet got a divorce and would take another couple of months to get it. However, that man, within the rules, could have married the lady within three months.
The man in question, having arranged the marriage, returned from Pakistan earlier this year, but the lady came to this country on her own because she had become pregnant—indeed, she was already some months pregnant. It was clear that there were good grounds for her to be admitted on purely compassionate considerations. Therefore, the decision to send the lady back to Pakistan meant a considerable toll on that woman who was so far advanced in pregnancy.
Nevertheless, I would not have detained the House with a case which I am

31
afraid is too common in immigration practice to bring before the House on a Standing Order No. 9 application if it had not been for the reception I received from the office of the Minister of State, Home Office, who is now present on the Government Front Bench.
I was told that because the right hon. Member for Worcester had telephoned his ministerial colleague's office and had been reassured by what he had learned, and therefore was not proposing to make representations, I was not entitled to make representations, and indeed that, if I were to do so, those representations would not be considered and the lady would be removed before my representations were heard.
In this House we have a practice in which hon. Members do not intervene in matters affecting fellow hon. Members. One recognises that that practice applies in most cases, but throughout the years in the Home Office there has been a long tradition as a result of which people have been entitled to raise immigration issues, largely because the subject attached to no particular Member of Parliament. Therefore, in the Home Office cases are heard on behalf of Members from various areas of the country and frequently the same case is heard several times over. It has always been the practice in the Home Office that it never removes anybody while representations are pending from a Member of the House.
I wish to ensure that there is no change in that practice. I am chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and I often consider cases which have been brought to the attention of other hon. Members. I rarely intervene, because of our agreement as fellow Members of the House, but sometimes, if, as in this case, there is an issue of principle which seems to have been overlooked, I feel that it is right to take up that matter on behalf of the individual member of Parliament. I know from my experience as a former Minister that other hon. Members also adopt that course.
32
I hope that there will not be any repetition of Ministers seeking to remove a person without an hon. Member's representations having been considered. You, Mr. Speaker, carried out my job long before I did, and you will know that in your time that was always the procedure followed by the Home Office. I recognise that this matter may not necessarily be debatable under Standing Order No. 9 procedure, but I hope that I have made my point.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the removal of Nazim Akhtar and the refusal of the Home Secretary to listen to representations from the hon. Member for York before her removal".
I listened with care to the hon. Gentleman. Personal cases always give me extra cause for consideration but, as the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors sot out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motions relating to the Select Committees related to Government Departments, Expenditure Committee and Nomination of Select Committees may be proceeded with, though opposed, until One o'clock and that if proceedings on the Motions have not been disposed of by that hour, any Amendments to the first Motion, which have been selected by Mr. Speaker, may be moved, the Questions thereon shall be put forthwith, and Mr. Speaker shall then proceed to put forthwith the Question upon the said Motion and any Questions necessary to dispose of the other Motions and of any Amendments moved thereto which have been selected by him.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Mr. Speaker: Before I call upon the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster it may be convenient if I explain to the House the course that we should follow, in view of the business motion to which the House has just agreed. During the course of the debate it will be open to any hon. Member to discuss the various amendments that stand on the Order Paper and I think it will be to the advantage of the House if all the amendments are taken under general discussion during the debate.
When the debate comes to a conclusion I shall call on hon. Members in succession to move formally the first of each group of amendments shown on the selection list that has been published. When the last of these amendments has been

That—

5

(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments set out in paragraph (2) of this Order and associated public bodies, and similar matters within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) The committees appointed under paragraph 1 of this Order, the principal departments of Government with which they are concerned, the maximum numbers of each committee and the quorum in each case shall be as follows:

disposed of I shall put the main Question, or the main Question, as amended. I shall then call on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to move, successively, the two other motions relating to the Expenditure Committee and nomination of Select Committees, and the amendment to the latter will be dealt with in the same way.
If any of the amendments that I have selected for Division is agreed to I shall call the Member concerned to move the necessary consequential amendments within the group in the order in which they appear on the Paper.
3.45 p.m.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): I beg to move,

papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place, and shall have a quorum of three.

50

(7) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee appointed under this Order shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House

I start by welcoming the former Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) to the Front Bench as Opposition spokesman on procedure. When I was Shadow Leader of the House I had to mark two Ministers and I take it as a compliment that when the shadow has been turned into substance the Opposition need two spokesman to keep a check on one.
Today is, I believe, a crucial day in the life of the House of Commons. After years of discussion and debate, we are embarking upon a series of changes that could constitute the most important parliamentary reforms of the century. Parliament may not, for the moment, stand at the zenith of public esteem. There are tides of fashion that rise and fall as there are tides of opinion that move. We should not be too concerned about that. One truth abides and that is that parliamentary government has been one of the great contributions of the British nation to the world's civilisation, and we would do well to remember that. Great nations fail only when they cease to comprehend the institutions that they themselves have created.
That is not to say that I believe that Parliament is impeccable. The greatness of Parliament and the reason why it has survived for 700 years is that it has always been ready to reform itself. It has found the will to put matters right when they have gone wrong and to renew itself when it has discerned the signs of the times.
Let me say at the outset that the phrase "parliamentary government" is a misnomer. At no time in its long history, save for a brief and disastrous interlude, has Parliament governed or made any claim to do so. Parliament's function has been a different one. It has been to subject the Executive to limitations and control; to protect the liberties of the individual citizen; to defend him against the arbitrary use of power; to focus the mind of the nation on the great issues of the day by the maintenance of continuous dialogue and discussion; and, by remaining at the centre of
36
the stage, to impose parliamentary conventions or manners on the whole political system.
I believe that Parliament is successful in the last two aims. It is on the two first ones that public and professional anxiety has focused and constellated. It has been increasingly felt that the twentieth century Parliament is not effectively supervising the Executive, and that while the power and effectiveness of Whitehall has grown that of Westminster has diminished.
The proposals that the Government are placing before the House are intended to redress the balance of power to enable the House of Commons to do more effectively the job it has been elected to do. In doing this the Government are redeeming a pledge in their election manifesto, which was repeated in the Gracious Speech, that the House should have an early opportunity to amend our procedures, particularly as they relate to the scrutiny of government. These proposals are based on the report of a Select Committee on Procedure appointed in 1976 which reported two years later.
It is a thorough, authoritative and lucid report. I pay tribute to all the hon. Members who served on the Procedure Committee and who spent so many hours producing the report. I pay particular tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), who, as Chairman of the Committee, presided over it and brought it, by his devotion and diligence, to such a successful conclusion. It is with his name that I trust the report will always be associated.
The report contains 76 recommendations in six main sections. It is clearly impossible to implement them all at once. This is intended as the first instalment of the implementation and I hope that it will answer my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) who broadcast this morning. He did not awaken me, because I am an early riser. He expressed the hope that there would be further commitments from the Government on this matter. We must proceed, however, in an orderly manner, and it

37
is in accordance with the recommendations of the Procedure Committee that a high priority should be given to the recommendations on Select Committees.
As an earnest of the Government's good intentions, I add straight away that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer shares the view, reflected in the Procedure Committee's report and in recommendations from the Expenditure Committee, and endorsed by the Comptroller and Auditor General, that a fundamental review of the Exchequer and Audit Departments leading to proposals for new legislation is now needed. He has given instructions for the work on the review, announced by the previous Government on 18 January, to be pressed forward with vigour.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Yes, but I have a number of things to say, and I hope that hon. Members will make their points not during my speech but during the hours when they have the Floor to themselves.
Mr. Spearing: I do not intend to try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, but I was a member of the Select Committee and I shall be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us whether his remarks about the comments of the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) are an undertaking by the Government that they will proceed to all the other five groups of recommendations that were in a special report of the Select Committee to the former Government. May we take it that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are an undertaking to proceed in measurable time to all those five sections?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that my remarks will bear the full weight of the hon. Gentleman's exegesis. I stand by what I said. We regard our proposals as a first instalment in the reform of the proceedings of the House.
Mr. Roger Moate: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give way constantly. I must press on to explain these important proposals.
The debate on procedure may be a dull subject. After all, Parliament is not,
38
thank Heavens, all thunder and fury—I had enough of that last week—but to say that we can be dull is not to say that the matter is unimportant. After all, procedure is the best constitution that we have.
Our proposals follow those of the Procedure Committee in providing for the appointment of a total of 12 department ally related Committees. Their coverage departs from the Committee's proposals in only two respects. One is that we are proposing a single Committee to cover the Departments of Industry and Trade, and a separate Committee to cover the Department of Employment. We are doing that because we consider it to be a more logical association of Departments, and one that will prove more convenient for the Committees.
The Departments of Industry and Trade are closely linked, both in their organisation and in their functions, since they are largely concerned with manufacturers, trades and exports. The work of the Department of Employment impinges in important respects on the Department of Industry, but it covers the whole range of employment matters and would more appropriately be a subject for a separate Committee.
The second point of departure is that we have excluded the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department from the scope of the proposed Select Committee on Home Affairs. I am sure that the House will agree that the new Committees should not be allowed to threaten either the independence of the judiciary or the judicial process.
In the Government's view, there would be a real danger of that if a Select Committee were to investigate such matters as the appointment and conduct of the judiciary and its part in legal administration, or matters such as confidential communications between the judiciary and the Lord Chancellor and the responsibility of the Law Officers with regard to prosecutions and civil proceedings.
The Law Officers have no administrative functions and the legal advice given by them to Government Departments is confidential and, by definition, is not disclosed outside the Government. The Lord Chancellor's functions are all deeply interwoven with judicial matters.

39
For those reasons, the Government consider that the most appropriate course is to exclude those two small Departments from scrutiny by the new Select Committees. There will, however, be no change in the existing answerability of the Law Officers to the House, both for themselves and on behalf of the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Michael English: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain by what logic the Home Office's jurisdiction over the reform of the criminal law is included, and the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction over reform of the civil law is excluded? Can he also explain by what logic the Public Record Office falls within anything that he has said?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a valid point. The reason for the exclusion is that the civil law administration is, in this context, a minor part of the work of those departments.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: In a minute. I must press on. I turn now to various parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he wishes to advance the case to the House. Since he is not giving way, he must be allowed to continue.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I have sat down, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the situation in Scotland is basically different. Does what he has said cover any jurisdiction that a Scottish Committee may have over the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland? If the right hon. Gentleman says that he will look at the matter, I will accept that.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was just coming to the position in Scotland. The proposals that I am making may answer the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I can be only tentative in my comments,
40
because what I have to say about Scotland is tentative.
I turn to the various parts of the United Kingdom—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—some of which have been the subject of amendments. I wish to inform the House of the Government's intentions.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated in the debate on the order to repeal the Scotland Act last Wednesday, the Government do not wish to pre-empt any of the possibilities that may be raised in the forth coming all-party talks to establish common ground as to the scope and direction of improvement in the government of Scotland.
I assure the House that the Government are ready to agree in principle that there should be a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but we consider that the arrangements for setting up that Committee should be discussed as part of the all-party talks. We shall, however, be ready to put forward detailed proposals for the Committee at the appropriate stage.
Our Welsh manifesto included a proposal for a Welsh Select Committee, and that is a possibility that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will ask the House to consider in tomorrow's debate. If it is the wish of the House, a separate Welsh Committee could be established quickly. In anticipation of that possibility, we have not provided for the Committees proposed in the motion to cover Welsh affairs.
On Northern Ireland, our intention is that many of the matters for which, under direct rule, the Secretary of State is responsible to the House should, in due course, be subject to scrutiny by elected representatives in Northern Ireland. Until that situation can be achieved, we have thought it right to provide that they should be within the scope of the new Select Committees at Westminster.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Are we to take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the Government do not propose to re-establish the Northern Ireland Committee as it existed in the previous Parliament, or will that Committee still be re-established, while these Committees deal with Northern Ireland

41
aspects of the subjects to which the respective Select Committees will be directed?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not the Government's intention to establish a special Select Committee for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: I apologise for intervening again. Will the right hon. Gentleman permit me, as it were, a supplementary question? The Northern Ireland Committee in the previous Parliament was not, technically, a Select Committee. I wonder, therefore, whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter and deal with it again when he winds up, because the Northern Ireland Committee, as it existed in the previous Parliament, proved useful and would in no way conflict with the work of the Select Committees proposed in his motion, even in so far as they cover Northern Ireland matters.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: As I understand it, it is not the Government's intention to set up that Committee. I will give a fuller reply to the right hon. Gentleman if I am allowed to speak again, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the debate.
In addition to providing for the 12 departmentally related Committees, our motion would retain the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Although the Procedure Committee recommended differently, it acknowledged that a case could be made for its retention. We believe that case to be a strong one. A Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration can keep the system as a whole under review, and can consider individual cases of maladministration on the basis of principles common to every Department. The Government believe that this work would be a valuable complement to the work of the departmentally related Committees in relation to their own Departments.
I turn to the matter of the existing Committees. I acknowledge and endorse the need, represented to me by a number of hon. Members, to carry forward the important work done by existing Committees that would be replaced under these proposals. Much of the work can be taken over by the new Committee directly. The various Committees con-
42
cerned with nationalised industries may wish to follow up the Procedure Committee's own proposal that they should appoint a joint Sub-Committee to consider matters common to those industries of the kind considered in the past by the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. Our motion makes provision for that to be done.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is it the Government's intention to allow the Committees that could make up the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries to increase its numbers from the figures put down in the proposals?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The numbers put down have been carefully thought out. They should be ample to cover the proposed Sub-Committees and the work it is intended that they should do.
The Select Committees on Foreign Affairs and Home Affairs will take over the interest in overseas development and in race relations and immigration respectively that were hitherto the province of separate Select Committees on those subjects. They may wish to appoint Sub-Committees so that they can more effectively maintain continuity.
I hope that all the new Committees will pay special attention to scientific and technological issues within their fields of interest and that in that way they can continue the excellent work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I hope that the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts will take particular interest in scientific research and development.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: What is to happen to the outstanding reports and inquiries that are only half completed? Is provision to be made for these works to be taken on?
Mr. Speaker: I ought to tell the House that I have an extremely long list of right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Although the debate is due to go on until one o'clock, I think that some of them will be very lucky to be called. Therefore, the fewer interventions there are the better progress we can make.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know of the work that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has carried

43
out in these areas. I hope that that is precisely the sort of work that will be done, taken up and continued where appropriate by the proposed new Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts.
I pay tribute to the excellent work done by all these Committees over the years. I am confident that their work can be carried forward under the new structure and that those hon. Members, like the hon. Gentleman, who have served on Committees with such distinction will be able to make an equal contribution as members of the new Committees. Where work is left unfinished, means will be found to ensure that it will be carried to a conclusion.
I must make it clear that the Government's view is that the existing subject Committees cannot continue in parallel with a new structure of departmentally related Committees without creating unacceptable confusion, duplication of effort and unnecessary cost. The abolition of the existing Committees must be a necessary corollary to the acceptance of the new structure.
Even with the abolition of the old Committees, we must not underestimate the effort that the new structure will involve. That is why the Government are proposing a closer restriction than the Procedure Committee had in mind on the powers of Select Committees to appoint investigative Sub-Committees.
Our motion provides for the appointment of a joint Sub-Committee on the nationalised industries. We recognise that the Select Committees on Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs and the Treasury and Civil Service all have a wide field to cover. They may find it convenient to appoint Sub-Committees to deal with particular subjects, such as overseas development and race relations and immigration, or with the Civil Service Department. But, of course, the Committees themselves will decide the allocation of their resources. We propose that the powers to appoint Sub-Committees of the Foreign Affairs, the Home Affairs and the Treasury and Civil Service Committees should be limited to a single Sub-Committee of each Committee rather than two.
44
The objective of the new Committee structure will be to strengthen the accountability of Ministers to the House for the discharge of their responsibilities. Each Committee will be able to examine the whole range of activity for which its Minister or Ministers have direct responsibility. The Government also accept the Procedure Committee's view that the Committees must be able to look at the activities of some public bodies that exercise authority of their own and over which Ministers do not have the same direct authority as they have over their own Departments. The test in every case will be whether there is a significant degree of ministerial responsibility for the body concerned.
Mr. Erie S. Heffer: Does that mean that the Committees established will be able to call not only the civil servants but Ministers without their being able to avoid appearing before the Committee for interrogation and discussion?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The responsibility of the Committees and their capacity to call Ministers, civil servants, and members of those bodies are not mutually exclusive. It will be within the scope of the Committees to call before them members of these bodies.
I come to the question of powers. The Procedure Committee recommended that Select Committees should be empowered to order the attendance of Ministers to give evidence, and to order the production of papers and records by Ministers. In the event of a refusal by a Minister to produce papers and records, the Committee should be empowered to claim precedence over public business for a debate on a motion for an address or for an order for the return of papers, unless time is provided by the Government by the sixth day after the first appearance of the motion.
I have two comments to make. First, the power to order any Member of the House to attend before a Select Committee, be he a Minister or not, is a power that constitutionally strictly belongs to the House and not to a Committee. Secondly, the Procedure Committee itself concedes that formal powers on these matters have had to be exercised only on rare occasions.

45
There are some specific criticisms of the Select Committee's proposals in this regard. First, it is not appropriate for a Select Committee to order about Members of the House. A Minister must be free to decline if he is not the Minister responsible for the matter that is to be discussed, or if it is clear that he will not be able to answer questions put to him.
Secondly, we do not consider that a Select Committee should be entitled to claim automatic precedence for a debate on a failure to produce information unless the matter has been shown to be one that is of general concern to the House as a whole.
More generally, however, we are concerned here with matters that will be essentially questions of judgment. Inevitably there will be occasions when Ministers will have to decide that it would not be in the public interest to answer certain questions or to disclose information. There are conventions governing these matters that the House has accepted over a long period and that the Government will respect. They are dealt with in the Procedure Committee's report, and the Committee for the most part was satisfied with them.
The Government will make available to Select Committees as much information as possible, including confidential information for which, of course, protection may have to be sought by means of the sidelining procedure. There may also from time to time be issues on which a Minister does not feel able to give a Select Committee as much information as it would like. But on these occasions Ministers will explain the reasons for which information has to be withheld. There need be no fear that departmental Ministers will refuse to attend Committees to answer questions about their Departments or that they will not make every effort to ensure that the fullest possible information is made available to them.
I give the House the pledge on the part of the Government that every Minister from the most senior Cabinet Minister to the most junior Under-Secretary will do all in his or her power to co-operate with the new system of Committees and to make it a success. I believe that declaration of intent to be a better guaran-
46
tee than formal provisions laid down in Standing Orders.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend saying that an undertaking given from the Dispatch Box by, dare I say, a finite Minister on behalf of a Government whom I wish to go on for ever but who may not is of equal value to a provision enshrined in legislation or the procedures of this House? I cannot believe that an affirmation from the Dispatch Box resembles even remotely the authority of a decision of this House.
Mr. George Cunningham: That is why the right hon. Gentleman is doing it.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That remark is not worthy of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I am saying that in these matters the practice of the House and the attitude of the Government are as important as and possibly more important than any formal guarantee. I might add to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) that, finite or infinite, temporal or eternal, it is the intention of this Government during their period of office to co-operate with these Committees. I believe that if a practice of that kind is established it will endure beyond the limited life of a Government.
If a Committee found itself in difficulty and if that difficulty became a matter of serious concern to the House as a whole, it would be the Government's wish that the House should have an early opportunity to debate it on the Floor, and I am sure that the Minister concerned would welcome that opportunity as a means of explaining his position and of seeking the co-operation of the House in resolving the difficulty and avoiding its recurrence. That again is a pledge that goes further than any pledge given on this matter from this Dispatch Box.
I throw in for good measure that it experience shows that more formal powers are needed for Committees to enforce their wishes—if the worst fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds are fulfilled—the question of additional powers can be considered at that stage. But we do not consider that the case has so far been established.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: That is very fair.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is not the right hon. Gentleman saying by what he has just told the House that he is dismantling a system that has worked and has had the authority to work through Standing Orders and, by claiming to widen it, he is offering a wider shadow for a genuine substance?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not think that that is a fair, logical or accurate analysis of the proposals. The Committees that are set up will have the same powers as existing Committees, and they will be exercising them over a wider range of matters.
I believe that it is right to claim that the Government have acted with remarkable speed in a matter where the predecessor Government hung back. Within seven weeks of the General Election, we are putting this package of proposals before the House. They constitute a major change, although that change is of an evolutionary and not a revolutionary kind. To those right hon. and hon. Members who fear that the Chamber will be prejudiced. I say that Committees will supplement this Chamber. They will complement this Chamber. They will not supplant it. I yield to no one—
Mr. Merlyn Rees: rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: —other than the Opposition spokesman on procedural affairs.
Mr. Rees: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman can help the House. I know that there is concern about the motion on Nomination of Select Committees (Committee of Selection). It would help many hon. Members on both sides of the House if the Leader of the House said a word about it. Otherwise, we shall be voting on it at the end of our discussions without any comment from the Leader of the House that we can consider.
Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I am right in pointing out that you did not say that we could debate that on this motion. However, it would be to the convenience of the House if we could, I think.
Mr. Speaker: My statement indicated that we were discussing the repeal of the Expenditure Committee together with the matter raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I think that that is much fairer for the House, otherwise some amendments will never be reached.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am quite willing to say a word about that motion in clarification. I had intended to deal with it if, with the permission of the House, I was allowed to intervene again. But I am glad to say a word about it now.
It was a proposal of the Procedure Committee that the Committee of Selection should have the power to nominate Select Committees. It is a proposal of very wide effect. We are proceeding by stages. It is our intention that the Committee of Selection should have the power to nominate these committees without prejudice to the wider issue, because we are dealing with these 12 new Select Committees.
Mr. George Cunningham: The Leader of the House will know that the Procedure Committee recommended that in making this change, whether for some or for all committees, the rights of individual hon. Members under Standing Order No. 13—the Ten Minutes Rule standing order—to initiate a proposal for a change in a Select Committee should be preserved, with one small qualification. It is probably by accident that the motion does not preserve the rights of Private Members under Standing Order No. 13 in this respect. Will the right hon. Gentleman say, between now and 1 a.m., that he will give consideration to that matter? It would be bad if, in this one respect, the rights of Private Members were reduced while the rest of these motions increased those rights.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is a fair and valid point. It is intended that the power and influence of the House, and therefore of Back-Bench Members, should be increased by the proposal. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman says about that Standing Order. I shall have something to say upon it later in the debate.
I believe that this Chamber is one of the great political inventions of our history. It remains, and will remain, the

49
means by which the mind of the nation is focused on the great issues of the day. It will remain the channel through which the expressive power of Parliament is exercised. But the scrutinising function of Parliament is now too detailed to be discharged effectively by this Chamber alone. To pretend otherwise is not to exalt parliamentary Government as some hon. Members imagine. It is simply to degrade it. It is to turn what is a legitimate object of respect and reverence into some kind of irrational idol.
We believe that the motions on the Order Paper provide the coherent and systematic structure of Select Committees that the Procedure Committee considered and that the Government agree to be a necessary preliminary to the more effective scrutiny of government and the wider involvement that hon. Members on both sides of the House have sought for many years. It will provide opportunity for closer examination of departmental policy and of the way in which Ministers are discharging their understanding of the pressures and constraints under which Ministers and their Departments have to work. It will bring about a closer relationship with Ministers themselves. It will also be an important contribution to greater openness in government, of a kind that is in accord with our parliamentary arrangements and our constitutional tradition. It is in that spirit that I commend these proposals to the House.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I speak from the Opposition Front Bench, with all that it implies, and I shall give my views. I am also aware that there is a free vote and that this is a House of Commons matter. Procedure is essentially a House of Commons matter. I am glad that on both sides of the House we shall be speaking without the constraints of normal party alignments.
I am aware, although I came to this subject only seven days ago, that many hon. Members have given a great deal of time over the years to procedural reform. I pay tribute to them, particularly to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), who was responsible for an excellent report with conclusions drawn from detailed investigation of procedures over the years.
50
I have always had an interest in procedural reform, although I am not an expert. Two Cabinet posts with responsibility for matters that concern the House deeply could not allow me to forget it.
The reply of the Leader of the House to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) worried me a little. After the demise of Stormont and after all the best schemes that we could devise in this House had failed, we had to build up, over the years, whatever our views on integration and devolution, procedures whereby Northern Ireland Members could bring their peculiar problems to this House. I would like a reply from the Leader of the House on the concept of having, if not precisely a Select Committee, although I consider that a Select Committee on Northern Ireland affairs would be valuable, the equivalent of a Grand Committee, which is vital for Northern Ireland.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I had thought on first hearing the right hon. Gentleman that he was referring to some kind of Select Committee. I understand that he is referring to the Standing Committee that meets from time to time under the relevant Standing Order. That is not a committee that is in continual session. It meets from time to time as needed. Those arrangements are not affected by the arrangements I am proposing for the Select Committees. I hope that answer satisfies both the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees).
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, if there was ever a part of the United Kingdom that needed special consideration—I am not saying what that should be—it is Northern Ireland. I hope that we shall look at the matter of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
We are moving step by step in dealing with all the recommendations that have been made. We are today concerning ourselves only with Select Committees. I listened carefully to what the Leader of the House said about taking a further step forward relatively soon on other matters concerning Select Committees. I agree that one bite is enough. We are not short

51
of literature on the matter. Changes have taken place over the years.
The Leader of the House described these proposals as revolutionary, qualified later by his use of the word "evolutionary". I was listening in bed early one morning—I am not an early riser any more—to a description of this report which amounted to a eulogy about the greatest changes that have taken place for 100 years. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is overdoing it. It reminds me of a description by Lord Butler of a conversation between Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin. He heard Mrs. Baldwin call Mr. Baldwin "My lion" or "My tiger". Lord Butler noted laconically that it reminded him of the words on a French wine bottle, "Appellation contrôlee". A little of that description applies to what we are discussing. It is an evolutionary step. Those hon. Members on both sides concerned that we are diving into an American Select Committee-type system are wrong. I commend it to the House on the basis that it is an evolutionary step forward.
I note the 12 Committees. We should not clap ourselves to death when we move forward. Our job is to ask some questions that may not appeal to everybody. I gather that information will be published shortly about the attendance at Select Committees which we can examine. That is not available at the moment. In my years in the House I have sometimes had the feeling that attendance has been pretty sparse from time to time. I look forward to getting the information. These Committees will require a thoroughness of approach on the part of Members. Otherwise, they will fail. That thoroughness will require additonal help without our moving anywhere near the pork barrel to which the right hon. Member for Down, South referred in the debate earlier this year.
I agree with the departmental structure. However, based on my experience as Home Secretary and as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am surprised that some of the work done by the Lord Chancellor's Department has not been brought within the purview of the Select Committee system.
For example, the administration of the Northern Ireland courts is under the control of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
52
Before the recess we shall be considering capital punishment in the context of Northern Ireland where there are the special Diplock courts which are under the Lord Chancellor's control. Yet there will be no Select Committee to examine those courts. The magistrates' courts, which are the Home Office's responsibility, will be examined.
The Home Secretary has some responsibility for the Public Record Office. We should ensure that the valuable work done by that office and the Lord Chancellor's Department is investigated by the Select Committee. I agree that the judicial aspects of the Lord Chancellor's office should not be examined.
One aspect of the Law Officers' Department needs to be examined. We are able to discuss this matter on the Floor of the House, but apparently we are not to be allowed to discuss it in Committee. There is a Royal Commission on the prosecuting process. The Law Officers' Department plays a part in that process, since it is carried out by the county police forces. It lays down certain procedures. They are not judicial procedures because they are part of the prosecuting process before the courts are involved. The Lord Chancellor's Department is not keen on a House of Commons Committee getting anywhere near it.
The present Lord Chancellor had a lot to say in the run-up to the election about the need to deal with an elected dictatorship. He was referring to the Labour Party when it was in government. There is an elected dictatorship now—they are the Lord Chancellor's words—and we have a right to look at the administrative work of his Department without involving the judicial aspects.
Because of the way the proposals have been drawn we shall be able to examine the Scottish courts through the Scottish Select Committee. The Lord Chancellor is not responsible for the Scottish courts. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider this matter.
The chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is not in the Chamber, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who has done so much work on the Select Committee on Science and Technology, is present. I have examined this matter carefully. I know more about the

53
Select Committee on Nationalised Industries than the other. I hope that those Committees will not be ended in an attmept to fit them into a new structure for the sake of it and because of a desire to be logical. I should be against that. I shall listen carefully to what is said during the debate and in relation to amendments.
I have been associated with the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration for many years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and I had some disagreements about the nature of the last report of his Select Committee. That does not weaken what I say. The work of that Committee on the education of West Indian children and on immigration procedures has been of great value to Departments and Ministers.
I am worried about the structure of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. Only at the end of last week did I see what I believe to be a difficulty. For example, the education of West Indian children straddles the work of a number of Departments—the Department of Employment, the Department of Education and Science, and the Home Office. The work of that Committee is to be done by a departmentally-orientated Select Committee attached to the Home Office. I am worried about that. I hope that we shall have a satisfactory answer, since I want to support the Leader of the House. There are real difficulties caused by the straddling nature of the committee.
The Home Office has a number of grant-aided bodies—for example, the Equal Opportunities Commission and the Commission for Racial Equality. Will it be possible for the departmental committee to investigate them? They fell outside the purview of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. There has been a growth of such bodies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I say to those hon. Members who are saying "Hear, hear" in a derogatory sense that such bodies have done an excellent job. We have the right to examine them, as they have the right to examine various aspects of Government policy. Many of those bodies have not been examined by the House of Commons.
We can agree that this is an evolutionary step. The Leader of the House has said nothing about the staff of the
54
Select Committees. Is there to be an increase in the number who serve the Select Committees?
In the last five or six weeks I have missed most, not the trappings of office, but the lack of information. I am served very well in the Library when I ask for information. But trying to operate as a Shadow spokesman not only without staff but without information is difficult. The same applies to Select Committees.
Where will the necessary information come from? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) said that there should be an increase in the Library's research staff. I plump for that solution. The Library is excellent, as I have learnt afresh in the last five weeks. Without it I should not have been able to do, even remotely, the amount of work that I must do in opposition.
I was intrigued by the Memorandum of Guidance for Officials appearing before Select Committees. There are a number of interesting points in appendix D of the "blue book" on page 41. Under the heading
"Limitations on the provision of information"
it says
"Committees' requests for information should not be met regardless of cost or of diversion of effort from more important matters. It might prove necessary to decline requests which appeared to involve excessive costs. It may be necessary for a Department to consult their Minister"—
and so on.
If there are to be 12 departmental Committees, whose job will it be to keep an eye on them, not just as individual Committees, but overall to see what Governments are doing? I am not suggesting that there should be a Minister with this responsibility, but there should be a way by which the 12 Select Committees, or at least the chairmen of them, can work together and compare notes on what is happening in each individual Committee.
Mr. English: My right hon. Friend will recollect that the Procedure Committee proposed that the present totally unofficial body which consists only of chairmen should be replaced by one which is balanced in terms of the composition of the House, which can determine its own chairmanship and have the

55
authority of the House for anything it does.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supplementing my more general approach to the matter. I think that we ought to have a word on this matter before the end of the day.
One of the points that I intended raising arose when the Leader of the House gave way towards the end of his remarks. He cleared that up to some degree, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) will want to deal with the matter later in the debate.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The shadowy body to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred—the liaison committee—has often, by just failing to meet with expedition, seriously held up the work of the Select Committees. To the best of my knowledge its existence is not due to Standing Orders or to any Resolution of the House, and yet it purports to exercise a very real power. Does he not think that this ought to be regularised in some way, and very possibly not in that form?
Mr. Rees: I thank the hon. Member for supplementing my general knowledge of that aspect of the matter. What he says has a great deal of force. The Leader of the House may well refer to this point later, and I shall make up my mind on the basis of what he says.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have not made up my mind, and nor have the Government, about points such as the liaison committee. We shall listen to the contributions made so that we can give some guidance to the House at the end of the debate on the basis of the way in which the mind of the House expresses itself.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. The points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) seem to me to be important and are worth considering.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It was Recommendation (61).
Mr. Rees: Yes, I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have it here as Recommendation (61).
I move now to the question of legal advice to the Select Committees. Whose job will it be to give that advice? In the discussions on this point under the previous Administration the question arose as to whether the job should be given to the Attorney-General. The feeling was, quite properly, that the Attorney-General's job was to advise the Government, not the Select Committees. We should be clear about this important matter. It is not enough just to employ any old lawyer—and I do not say that in any derogatory sense—[Interruption]. I can hear "Hear, hear" from the non-lawyers, and diffident laughter from the lawyers. I mean only that the job must go to a lawyer of quality who knows what he is talking about.
Mr. Graham Page: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman is not referring to the legal advice that is given to some Select Committees by Mr. Speaker's Counsel and Assistant Counsel, which is extremely good advice.
Mr. Rees: I certainly was not referring to them in that way. But that is the whole point. Is that how the work will be done? If it is I shall rest satisfied, but I should like to know more about it.
Recommendation (64) did not enjoy the best of responses from many people in the House. It concerns the presence of Ministers. I have a note before me to say that it would be much better if it were done in some statutory form. I think that it would be better for all of us to take the Leader of the House at his word. He gave a pledge and I take that pledge in the spirit in which it was given. Let us see how the matter progresses. If the system did not work, we should have to find some other way of giving it statutory form.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend. Will the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) give the same undertaking on behalf of the Opposition? That would go a long way to convincing the House that there is continuity in the matter, and that it is not just the question of a unilateral undertaking.
Mr. Rees: I was grinning ruefully because of the time factor here. I am absolutely sure that I can say the same thing. I am not sure what my role is at the moment, but if the Leader of the House can give that pledge from his Front Bench, I can give it from mine, and I give it in the same spirit.
Overall my view is that we should proceed in the way recommended by the Government. I do not believe that the Chamber will be harmed by the developments that are taking place. The focus of power is and will remain here. Those who see a Select Committee as a shield for a Department—and I can see that that might happen—must realise that it is up to the members of the Committee to see that that does not happen.
I turn to the question of whether there is any danger in consensus. One of my hon. Friends said that there was nothing wrong with consensus, and if by that he means honest men having looked at the same facts and come to the same conclusion, he is right. But consensus is wrong when the old boy atmosphere pervades and when there is no true consensus on an analysis of the facts. I am not afraid of one sort of consensus. I know that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends are concerned about the other sort, but only because they believe strongly in this House and in what goes on on the Floor of the House.
If I felt that the developments we are discussing today meant the weakening in any way of the functions of Parliament as they have grown up over the years, I would reject them. I am against Parliament's acting as though it were the Executive. It is the legislative part of government. As a Front Bench Spokesman on a free vote I say to all of my right hon. and hon. Friends that they must listen to some of the points raised in the debate. We are not crystal clear about the precise way in which we shall move, but in view of the general comments of the Leader of the House I believe that we should accept the motion and see what develops in the years ahead.
4.49 p.m.
Mr. Edward du Cann: I hope that the House will pass, and with a clear majority, the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. It may represent the most important procedural
58
change introduced into Parliament for some years. It certainly has that degree of potential. I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Incidentally, we congratulate him on his new appointment and wish him well in it. He has qualities which are admired by us all, and the responsibilities that he will discharge in this Parliament are certainly no less important than those he discharged with considerable courage while he was in government. Whether the House makes a success of these proposals depends upon all of us and nothing else. I hope with all my heart that they will be successful, but I have reservations about them which I shall explain.
Over the last week my right hon. Friend has endured a certain amount of criticism, much of which I thought was unfair. It is, therefore, a pleasure to offer him my sincere congratulations, not least on the promptness with which this motion has been tabled. He proposes to implement a substantial instalment of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, set up during the last Parliament which, as he said, deliberated for no less than two years. That is excellent. So far, so good. But let us together be as clear and as frank as my right hon. Friend was with us. What he proposes is a first stage only, a beginning of the process of reform—no more and no less. Further reform of our working methods is essential and the whole House of Commons must insist upon that. But we cannot have further steps without a first, and that is why I support this motion.
Let us put the matter into context. Over the years, certainly those years during which I have been privileged to be a member of the House, parliamentary control of the Executive has seriously declined in scope and effectiveness. The scrutiny that we give to matters is often careless, and certainly uneven: it is not continuous, it is not thorough and, alas, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, South indicated when explaining his difficulties in newly coming to the Front Bench in opposition, it is not always informed. In a word, the scrutiny we give is amateur too often, and we should be ashamed of that fact.
It is not that Members of Parliament do not work hard—they invariably do. The trouble is that only too rarely do they work hard at the right things. As

59
noted by the Select Committee on Procedure, the balance of advantage between Parliament and Government
"is now weighted in favour of Government to a degree which arouses widespread anxiety and is inimical to the proper working of our party democracy".
That is strong language indeed, but it is utterly justified.
In view of the increasing volume of business, the growing habit not merely of legislation but of delegated legislation, now added to by the large amount of paraphernalia of EEC legislation, the power of the parties, the power of patronage vested in the Government, and the strength of the Prime Minister's position, what Lord Hailsham said—which was referred to in an earlier intervention—regarding our system becoming an "elective" dictatorship is, in my view, entirely true.
Modern government is big. It grows bigger all the time. In 1972, 27½ per cent. of the working population was employed by the Government, either indirectly or directly. In May 1977 the percentage had increased to 30 per cent. of a bigger working population, a total of 7·4 million people. Not only is government big and growing bigger; it is complex, bureaucratic and, above all and worst of all, oppressively secretive. The only way to scrutinise government on a continuing basis is undoubtedly through Select Committees.
The concluding words of my right hon. Friend were admirable, will require careful study and I dare say will be quoted, and properly quoted, many times. It is no good anyone thinking that Parliament is a theatre and taking a romantic view of it. Government has all the merits that my right hon. Friend described, and I shall not repeat his words. But government is also a device for effective control and command of the Executive. We must ensure—it is our responsibility—that the House of Commons is realistically equipped to do that job. Parliament's formal controls over expenditure are hardly competent, nor are they sufficiently exercised. I have remarked before in this Chamber, and I do so again, that we no more control expenditure than King Canute controlled the tide.
60
These are grave charges and it is because they are true that reform must be a continuing process. That is why we are so delighted that my right hon. Friend, in fulfilment of a pledge that he gave when in opposition, is beginning that reform. Reform must be a continuing process until those charges I have mentioned can no longer be laid or even hinted at.
This is not a moment for politeness. This is a moment for resolution and dedication to the cause of reform in the tradition of our Parliament, with, as my right hon. Friend said, its habit of evolution. Therefore, questions to my right hon. Friend are in order, and so perhaps are suggestions about the size of the Committees.
The Select Committee on Procedure made other recommendations. There were no fewer than 76 of them, and they were additional to the matters that we are discussing in this motion. Some of those recommendations are controversial and I do not think that we shall be troubled with them today. We shall have enough to discuss, such as whether Select Committee Chairmen should be paid and what hours the House should sit and so on. But I think that we require an answer from my right hon. Friend, as guidance for the future, about the intentions of the Government towards the most important of those recommendations during the remainder of the lifetime of this Parliament.
There are a number of other Select Committees which the Procedure Committee recommended should continue and which, as the whole House acknowledges, are a crucial part of the scrutiny process. There is the Public Accounts Committee, for example. There is the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—a scrutiny Committee if ever there was one; indeed, I thought that the Select Committee on Procedure was quite right to be critical about the way in which we handled delegated legislation. There is also the Select Committee on European Legislation—again a crucial Committee.
I ask my right hon. Friend when these Committees are to be re-established, because some of us will think that, important though this motion is, it is equally important that these old Committees should be brought back into action

61
at the earliest possible moment. In addition, some of us may think that it would be very helpful to hear, either today or a little later in the Session, more about how my right hon. Friend thinks we shall handle the recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation. Many of us think that the last Government were not at all reasonable regarding the amount of time they allowed the House to consider their work and recommendations.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend referred to the resuscitation of the House of Commons Select Committee on European Legislation. Does he agree that it should be more than just resuscitated in its previous form, and should have a jurisdiction on the merits of the legislation, or that some Committees should, a jurisdiction which is already enjoyed, paradoxically enough, by the Committee of the other place?
Mr. du Cann: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making that point. In effect, he is underlining what I have already rather sketchily said. I totally agree with him, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will note the point.
The whole House would, I believe, welcome hearing from my right hon. Friend what his proposals are likely to be in relation to Public Bill Committees—that is, the reform of the process by which we conduct our Standing Committees. Is the intention to do what I believe all of us think we should do, which is to give these Standing Committees the opportunity in future to hear evidence before they begin dealing with legislation? I believe that to be profoundly important.
Then there is the report of the Select Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, chaired by my right hon. and learned friend who until the last election was a Member of this House—Sir David Renton. It is sad that we have not gone further with the recommendations of that Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say a word about that.
I come to the question of the access of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the books of certain institutions, such as the National Enterprise Board and the
62
British National Oil Corporation. This is something for which I have argued many times in this House. If we are saying that we should have all this information, and if it is put on the Table so that the House may see it, assess it and make up its mind, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give an early indication that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be given full authority to do his work properly and fully.
I was very pleased to note my right hon. Friend's statement that the examination of the Exchequer and Audit Acts was under way. Of course, it has already been under way for a considerable time, but it is good to know that it is being continued.
So much for questions put in very much shorthand form. I now come to some suggestions. The House will be aware that I have had the responsibility of chairing two Select Committees over the past nine years—the Public Accounts Committee latterly and previously, the Select Committee on Expenditure, which I had the responsibility for founding. From that experience I reached certain clear conclusions which I hope my right hon. Friend will allow me to put to him.
First, if the new departmental Select Committees are to give constructive and close, as well as continuous, scrutiny of the activities of Departments, it is essential that they should have a proper research back-up of their own. There is no doubt about that. The best analogy I can quote is that of the Public Accounts Committee. If that Committee is effective—I believe it to be generally acknowledged that it is highly effective and should be a matter of pride because of its practical and significant effect on the efficiency of Departments—it is because the Exchequer and Audit Department puts a loaded revolver into the hands of the Members of Parliament who comprise its membership.
It is absolutely essential that these departmental Committees should have not just one or two casual part-time advisers, which were the lot of the Select Committee on Expenditure and its Sub-Committees, but an informed, pertinacious and well-briefed research effort to enable them to discharge their responsibilities competently. Without their having that, they will undoubtedly fail.
Mr. Palmer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most essential requirement of a successful Select Committee is an independently-minded Chairman who does not care for anyone?
Mr. du Cann: The hon. Gentleman was himself a most competent Select Committee Chairman. If the Select Committee over which he presided was successful, it was perhaps due to the fact that he had the very qualities which he has described. The House was richer as a result of his work. I agree with him.
Secondly, in my view, it will not be enough for my right hon. Friend to say to the House "Here are these Committees. Now, you chaps, get on and do the work that is involved in them". More than that is required. It is essential that they should have a co-ordinated approach to their work.
I warmly support the propositions contained in the report of the Select Committee on Procedure to the effect that there should be a Liaison Committee, particularly because I believe that the Expenditure Committee, which did an immense amount of useful and valuable work, was not as influential as it might have been as the work of the individual Sub-Committees was so disparate, some would even say fey, on occasions.
Next, there must be adequate debating time for the reports of the Select Committees. It is good to see my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip in his place. The eight days proposed are quite inadequate. If one takes from that allocation of eight days, which at first sight may seem a reasonable allocation of time, the one day that will go to the PAC—that in itself is inadequate if the work of the PAC for the year covers reports on no fewer than 61 subjects, as was the case last year—and if one takes off the days that might be allocated for reports from Select Committees on ad hoc subjects, such as Cyprus, abortion and other matters within the memory of right hon. and hon. Members, the number of eight is soon reduced to six, five or four.
Therefore, it is perfectly ridiculous to suggest, in effect, that a small number of days of that sort would be all that would be allowed for the debate of this new instrument of control and scrutiny. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear that in mind.
64
I also hope that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend, either today or subsequently, to say a little about the future of the Liaison Committee. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), with whom I invariably agree, and in the presence of five members of the old Liaison Committee, I utterly reject his suggestion that the Liaison Committee from time to time held up the work of Select Committees. That is not so. We were responsible for supervising the amount spent on foreign travel. That was an unfair responsibility that we should never have had. If we wish to be economical in the interests of the House as a whole, that should be a matter of applause rather than derogation. However, be that as it may, it is a small point.
Mr. Tim Renton: My right hon. Friend said this was a small point, but is it? When I was on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), we had considerable trouble—there is no other word for it—with the Liaison Committee in relation to funds for the foreign travel that we considered necessary, for example, when we looked into the British Steel Corporation. How does my right hon. Friend think that that should be handled in future? If these Select Committees are to do all the work that is proposed, from where will the funds for foreign travel come?
Mr. du Cann: Were Mr. Speaker in the Chair, he would be able to confirm that during the last Parliament I gave evidence to the Commissioners asking that in future this should be their responsibility rather than the responsibility of an ad hoc Committee. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remembers that point. I shall not labour this point, but the House must consider seriously how foreign travel should be handled in future. The amounts spent have gone up from just a few thousand pounds a year to well over £100,000 a year. Much of that expenditure may well be justified and proper. All I am saying, and I have said it consistently to successive Leaders of the House—to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), to his predecessor, now Lord

65
Glenamara, to others and to anyone who would listen—is that it is really absurd ton vest the responsibility for deciding that matter in Select Committee Chairmen in general, each of whom has a vested interest in ensuring that by and large foreign travel is allowed.
I leave that subject, because it is a matter that will settle itself in due time. The suggestion I make to my right hon. Friend is that if there is to be a Committee of Chairmen of these new Committees, it should in future be amalgamated with the Liasion Committee. It could act as a forum for co-ordinating inquiries made by the individual Committees and could give advice on such matters as staffing. I hope that it will particularly devote its attention to a matter to which I want to refer.
I come back to my general view. This British Parliament, of which my right hon. Friend spoke with such justifiable pride, was once so greatly admired. It has become ineffective—we know that—and hence often irrelevant to the process of government. In their heart of hearts the British public suspect this, if they do not know it. It is an honourable ambition for right hon. and hon. Members to seek to reverse that process. Again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the spirit of what he is trying to do. But, believing as I do that the exercise of power should be open and accountable, believing in an independent Parliament, and not a tame creature under the domination of the Executive, as we so often seem to be, I want to go much further than today's proposals.
The crux of Parliament's progressive failure to control Whitehall—again to use a shorthand phrase, which is not properly descriptive—lies less in its failure to obtain information than in its failure to control expenditure. Public expenditure has increased hugely, to the figure of over £60,000 million, and certainly well over 50 per cent. of the gross domestic product. Yet, for all that huge growth, we in this House—this is the reality—have little idea whether the taxpayers' money, on the whole or in particular, is well spent or unwisely spent. By themselves, as I began by saying, my right hon. Friend's proposals, good though they are, will not achieve this to more than a limited extent.
66
The last Procedure Committee ensisaged further work on this subject and further recommendations to come in regard to financial matters. So we need also to know from my right hon. Friend when the Procedure Committee will be reconstituted. I think it important that we in this House should look forward to an early report on this aspect of our matters especially.
We must maintain the momentum for change, and we must make progress in this Parliament. Over 700 years of its existence, the history of the British Parliament has been one of struggle to achieve a limited Executive in a powerful elected Parliament. My own aim is very simply put: to see more power to those of us on the Back Benches. He who controls the purse strings is he who has the power. To wrest that power from the Executive and to exercise it on these Back Benches on behalf of the electors, our fellow citizens, I believe to be a sacred democratic duty. Certainly I shall not rest in this Parliament until we achieve it more nearly, but I delight that we are making a start.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: Parliamentary government, although not perfect, is the best so far devised for ensuring a stable and a peaceful society. I agreed with the Leader of the House when he opened the debate in that way. However, the Leader of the House has acknowledged, as I do, that it can be improved. Certainly many of the amendments that have been put down by some of my hon. Friends are worthy of serious consideration.
The system of government and alternate government provides for wide streams of public opinion. At one time one party receives the support of the majority of the electors, and at another time it is the other party. This means that the Government of the day, aware of powerful public opinion in support of the Opposition, cannot make outrageous decisions or promises, because they may soon be called upon to govern. Such a system of checks and balances has a moderating influence and changes are achieved without resort to extreme measures.
The problems facing Governments today are more complex and much wider

67
than ever before. No country can live in isolation, and developments in one part of the world can have repercussions elsewhere. The hijacking of an aeroplane can, for example, cause problems for several countries. The communications system today has world events on television screens immediately, or they are reported on radio sometimes even while they are happening. No longer do we live in an age when a gunboat could be sent on a mission and when reports of the event became known only weeks or months after it had occurred.
In the economic world, Governments must operate within world financial and economic agencies and have become involved in commerce and industry to a degree never experienced before. The general public are not fully aware of these problems that have to be tackled by Governments, even though their interests are directly affected.
The principle that public policy and administrative action should be open to discussion and that information on the working of government should be available to Members of Parliament and the wider public is vital in a democratic society. The increasing complexity of government and extension of its powers into many areas of politics and trade has inevitably meant more control by the Executive. It is my view that the Executive's power to govern should be matched by an improvement in Parliament's opportunities and techniques for questioning and criticising the Executive and the use of their powers.
Parliament is the sounding board of public opinion. It is necessary for Parliament to communicate public anxieties, criticisms and preferences to the Government, and to explain the decisions and actions of the Government to the public. Parliament also provides the opportunity for Opposition policies to be presented as alternatives to those proposed by the Government. It also gives every Member of Parliament the chance to raise any question affecting a constituent or constituency, or any matter in which he or she has some special knowledge or interest.
However, parliamentary control must not lead to frustration and ineffective government. Parliament must influence but
68
not direct power, give advice but not command, criticise but not obstruct, scrutinise but not initiate, and, above all, ensure publicity and not secrecy. To ensure this practice, there must be the ability to obtain the background facts and the understanding essential to any detailed criticism of Administration and any informed discussion of policy.
The present machinery of Parliament has failed to keep pace with the increase in the scope of Government activity. It is my view that the system of parliamentary Select Committees provides such an opportunity for Parliament to do this. The parliamentary Select Committee is nothing new. I believe that it must now be expanded and more fully supported by the proposed system of more specialised Committees.
I was the first Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. The establishment of that Committee gave Back Benchers an oversight of one of the most difficult problems facing the nation. Our endeavour was to defuse the emotive, injudicious statements made about race relations. The Committee appointed was widely representative of this House. As Chairman, I asked the members from the beginning to project their minds a decade or two into the future in order that the public of that day would say that that Committee had done its work well. I urged that they should be factual and objective in their reporting.
To assist us in our work we decided to visit the areas in Britain where immigrants live and their countries of origin. Seeing the immigrants in their homeland enabled members of the Select Committee to appreciate their difficulties in coming to Britain. The result was that the Committee produced unanimous reports on the problems facing immigrants in education, housing, police-immigrant relations and other fields. Our trips outside Parliament were at first viewed with disfavour by local authorities, which thought we were interfering in their affairs. When, however, those authorities realised that it was an opportunity for them to show Members of Parliament how legislation that the House had passed made things more difficult for them, they made us more welcome.
We have already heard that there will be opposition to the extension of the

69
system of parliamentary Select Committees. I regret that for many reasons. The reports of Select Committees must be debated in this House. As a result of the work done in Select Committees the level of debates is raised and hon. Members are well informed. Hon. Members are able to form a better judgment about scientific and technical developments, environmental problems, education, and race relations, as a result of the knowledge gained as members of a specialised parliamentary Select Committee. Consequently they are able to make a greater impact upon both the Government and public opinion.
If those specialised Committees are to secure the best results from their deliberations and research, reports should be promptly debated—certainly within two months. That would provide an effective weapon against closed government as practised by even well-intentioned and well-meaning Administrations. It would also preserve the principle that public policy and administrative action are open to discussion and that information on the workings of Government can and should be made available not only to Members of Parliament but to the wider public. The Government's proposals will enable us to ensure that the work of Parliament is improved and will ensure better government. Therefore, I hope that there will be solid support for them.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: The public is more interested in debates that are concerned with the direction in which the machinery of government is leading us than about the machinery itself. But if the machinery is not working smoothly, it will lead us nowhere. Thus, the debate is of far-reaching importance, not just for the working of Parliament but on the question of what Government can do on behalf of the people.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing forward these proposals. Unlike hon. and right hon. Members opposite—at least in the past—I do not have a slavish worship of the doctrine of mandate. That doctrine can be taken too far, particularly if it is assumed that the majority of electors supporting an incoming Government approve of every word in that Government's manifesto, regardless of public opinion. Nevertheless, it is refreshing
70
that the Conservative manifesto said that the House of Commons would be given an early chance of coming to a decision on the Procedure Committee's proposals and that only seven weeks after the Government came into office a start is being made.
I welcome the Government's motion for two reasons. First, the Select Committees will enable hon. Members to do a better job of controlling and supervising the Executive on behalf of the electorate. Secondly, implicit in the motion is an acceptance that the collective wisdom of the House of Commons—of the men of Westminster—is not just comparable to that of the men in Whitehall but can be a help to them just as much as ultimately it may be needed to check them.
The motion will help Parliament to do its job and, in doing so, will restore to Parliament some of its lost supremacy. That Parliament has lost power to the Executive in recent years is the fault of no one but Parliament itself. Parliament has been too often mesmerised by Whitehall. By delaying the reform of its procedures to cope with the demand now placed upon it, Parliament has lost much of its relevance, at least in the eyes of the public. It is worth reflecting that while the status of Parliament has been deteriorating the performance of Government has not been improving. Perhaps the establishment of these Committees paired with Government Departments will have far more beneficial and far-reaching effects than even the optimist had hoped for.
I welcome the motion particularly because it includes the retention of the Select Committee on the Ombudsman. Thereby it takes account of one of the few reservations that I had on the Procedure Committee's report and to which I referred when this issue was last debated. The subject Committees would not have the time to consider the detailed matters with which the Ombudsman is frequently involved. Yet these matters may be of crucial importance to the individual citizen. Thus, the retention of the Select Committee on the Ombudsman is necessary, and I am glad to note that it is contained in the motion.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), amongst others, fears that the new Select Committees will detract

71
from the importance of the Chamber. But how can we hope to deal in the Chamber with the detailed complexities of today's all-embracing government? The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) referred to the growth in size and scope and complexity of government. That is at the root of the need for a new Select Committee structure. Many of us hope that the frontiers of government will be pushed back by the present Administration. Even so government will continue to loom larger in everyday life than ever before. Surely the main function of the Chamber is to cope with the main issues. For that reason, it will always remain more important. But we must recognise that people nowadays are as concerned with the managerial efficiency of government or, sadly, more often with its inefficiency. They are as concerned about that as they are about the major issues. That is natural, because the taxpayer wants to see a sensible use of or return on the money taken from him. The Select Committees have a role which makes them complementary and not an alternative to the Chamber. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the Committees will supplement and not supplant the importance of the House.
I hope that at some stage consideration will be given to putting the Select Committees occasionally on the radio, or even on television. Members of Parliament questioning Ministers, civil servants, trade unionists, scientists, captains of industry and other specialists could be of much greater interest to listeners and viewers than much of what is heard on the radio from this Chamber at present.
Some hon. Members fear that these Committees will be too specialised. I do not think that that is necessarily so. There will be scope for overlap, and if a Liaison Committee is established either formally or informally such a Committee will be able to provide guidance for individual Select Committees in cases where there is a potential disagreement about responsibility.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: This problem is not easy and it is fraught with complexities. Will the hon. Member explain what he means by "scope for overlap"? Unless we define what
72
we mean, we may find ourselves in considerable difficulties. If overlap is not pursued at all, the Select Committees could become the servants or co-operators of the Departments that they are examining.
Mr. Morrison: I disagree entirely. I do not see why the Department should come into the argument at all. It will be for the Liaison Committee to decide such matters, and if that does not exist it will be for the Chairmen of the individual Select Committees to decide among themselves which subject is more relevant for one Committee than for another.
May I recall a particular occasion? I was on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Public Expenditure and on at least one occasion there was a subject that could have been considered by two other Committees. After some discussion between the Chairmen concerned it fell to our Committee to inquire into the matter. I believe that there should be an informal or formal structure to ensure that resources are not wasted when consideration is given to any particular matter.
It has also been said that the establishment of these Select Committees might result in Members themselves becoming too specialised. Their constituents will soon see that they do not. Nevertheless, after a time, consideration should be given to the possibility of developing a convention of limited service on any one Committee. That is something for the future.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My hon. Friend will realise that this could cut both ways. Just as the Department can often beat its Minister because it is more permanent than he is, so it takes some time for hon. Members to get the range of civil servants. It would be unfortunate if they were removed at a time when they were becoming most effective.
Mr. Morrison: I take the point. That is why I put it forward in a somewhat tentative manner. However, it would be unfortunate if the House were divided into specialist groups of 10 or 11 Members, and if none of those groups was able to communicate with the others. Therefore, there should be some regard paid to this question of specialisation.
Similarly the power of Committees to send for Ministers, the employment of

73
staff by Select Committees and the provision of information are issues upon which the House will have to keep a close watch. In total, I welcome the Government motion, but it is only a start and I was glad to hear the Leader of the House accept that.
I hope that there will be only a short delay before we debate the establishment of Public Bill Committees. I also want to see an experiment on pre-legislative Committees on non-party issues. It may be that there are no non-party issues, but it is worth trying an experiment because until we do we will not know the realities. Interest groups are consulted on legislation, whereas all too often Parliament is not, except by the broad brush means of a White Paper or a Green Paper. Thus, there is still much to be done on the recommendations of the Procedure Committee.
I should like to see an experiment conducted on limited time speeches, as is suggested in the report. There are plenty of arguments for and against this, but these arguments will never be resolved until an experiment is put into practice.
Finally, I refer once more to the Conservative Party manifesto, which mentioned a number of matters under the heading "The Supremacy of Parliament". The most notable is the manifesto reference to the House of Lords, which says:
"A strong Second Chamber is necessary."
At present it is not strong, and its weakness may stem from its constitution. I trust that the Government will not delay too long before sharing with the House their thoughts on the second Chamber. Such thoughts could be more far-reaching for Parliament's future than anything in today's motion. However, for the present the Government have made an excellent start.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Since the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) has been kind enough to mention short speeches, perhaps I may remind the House that I have 30 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in today's debate, and short speeches will be helpful.
5.39 p.m.
Sir Thomas Williams: Perhaps you will allow me, Mr. Deputy
74
Speaker, to express at the outset my thanks to the Leader of the House and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for the kind things that they have said about me. I add my congratulations to those my right hon. Friend has received already on his new appointment.
Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to express my thanks also to members of the Select Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman. This is the first opportunity I have had to express publicly my thanks to them.
I confess that when I was first elected Chairman of the Select Committee and sat in the chair for the first time, I looked around the gathered Members with a kind of bemused bewilderment. It has been said that the Committee sat for two years before it made its recommendations. When I first sat on the Committee I wondered if it would ever agree about anything. I would say not that it was a Committee of prima donnas but rather that it was one of solo artists. I held that view for some time after the first meeting, when I observed that each member had brought his own sheet of music. However, it is remarkable that with so many singing their own songs the results have been recommendations of such harmony and that, literally and metaphorically, they were reached without Division. Those recommendations are now before the House.
Those hon. Members who have not observed the cross-section of the Committee members would find it interesting to do so. With such a cross-section of the House joining together in making these recommendations it was wise of the Government to have regard to them. I hope that Parliament also will be prepared to accept the changes.
I congratulate the Leader of the House on the speed with which he has brought forward the recommendations for the consideration of the House. I, like him, though to a more modest degree, am a disciple of Bagehot, in his view of the nature and form of government. The right hon. Gentleman is a constitutional lawyer. In so far as I am anything, primarily I am a historian. I approached the task of my Committee historically. Historically speaking, was not the Leader of the House mistaken in suggesting that Parliament

75
has never sought to govern? That is a persistent myth but one which has caused great harm to Parliament—certainly in this century.
Parliament is not primarily a theatre. It is a workshop. Governments have encouraged the myth of Parliament as the great forum of the nation—almost as though to provide Parliament with an emotional steam valve. For the most part, although there have been times when Parliament has acted as the voice of the people and changed the course of government, those occasions have been rare. What goes on in the Chamber has been too often like the whistle of a train—making a lot of noise but doing nothing to help the engine get anywhere. The real strength of Parliament lies elsewhere.
I agree entirely with the sentence used by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) towards the end of his speech. He said that for the 700 years of its existence, the history of the British parliamentary system had been one of struggle to achieve a limited Executive and a powerful elected Parliament. I could not agree more with those sentiments—indeed, I first wrote them.
From the time of the struggle between King and Parliament, through the battles from Magna Carta to the overthrow of the Stuarts and during the struggle between the Commons and the Lords to establish the Commons as the dominant partner, there has been an unceasing struggle for Parliament to govern. Since winning the battle against the Lords, the British Parliament, for all practical purposes, has been unicameral. I almost feel tempted to fall into the modern pattern of graffiti writing in order to state "The Commons rules—OK".
Since the Reform Acts, the Commons has unfortunately allowed the control that it won from the Crown and Peers to be surrendered, largely by its own acts, to Cabinet Ministers. Ministers have been not only more effective in restraining the Commons than the Commons' earlier adversaries but also more skilful in exploiting the myth that it is the Government that must govern and that it is the duty of Parliament, in a recent expression by a previous Leader of the House, the former Mr. Edward Short.
76
"to scrutinise the exercise of executive power, to monitor our activities as a nation and to debate the great issues of the day."—[Official Report, 2 February 1976; Vol. 904, c. 966.]
The consequences have been disastrous, not only for Parliament but for Britain. Bureaucracy has grown, not only in government but everywhere. Parliament has become increasingly ill-equipped to scrutinise the activities of the Cabinet and still less able to consider properly the issues of policy.
Debates on Supply that were once the most formidable weapon in the armoury of hon. Members have become, for the most part, a ritual dance by the official Opposition formally expressing criticism of matters that are wholly unrelated to its proper objectives of controlling money supply and bringing the Government to heel.
Even Question Time—regarded by many hon. Members as a sort of sacred cow and their only opportunity to cross-examine Ministers—has become largely an irrelevance.
Lloyd George once expressed this point of view more pithily. He was in a car in the country during the Second World War. All the signposts were down and he lost his way. There was an old cyclist coming down the country road in which the car had stopped, and Lloyd George said to his secretary "Here's a local man—ask him." The secretary wound down the window and asked the man on the bicycle "Where are we?" The man got off his bicycle, looked at the car's occupants for a moment, and said "In a motor car." He then got on his bicycle and pedalled away.
Lloyd George's secretary was surprised to discover the old man laughing uproariously and he said "What's tickling you?" "That," said Lloyd George, "is the perfect parliamentary answer. It is short, to the point, accurate, truthful, and it gives no information that is not otherwise available." In the result the power of Parliament has suffered and the strong independence of Members of Parliament has been greatly weakened. In its place, patronage has flourished like a weed. It is good that the Government have recognised the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee as the starting point for change.

77
I observe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, (Mr. Benn) has attempted to take his resistance to patronage even further, and I have a good deal of sympathy with his view. I must confess that I have always been more successful when I relied for election to office on my fellows than when I have relied on the patronage of selection by Prime Ministers.
May I say one more thing by way of encouragement to the Leader of the House and to the Government who have taken this bold step—unusual among Governments—of accepting at least some recommendations of Select Committees? Let them not falter in good works. Let them accept also the consequences of the recommendations which they have now accepted formally. There are many matters that are still left for consideration by the Select Committee. The right hon. Member for Taunton has recited some of them, and I shall do no more than mention them. I refer to the control of finance, delegated legislation, EEC legislation and public Bill procedure. All these subjects still await the attention of the Government and, judging by the good signs that we have already observed, we look to them with hope.
It is important that the Government should be prepared to say frankly that, having set up the Committees, they will enable them to work. Already they have been challenged to attend to their proper staffing, financing, the provision of real opportunities to debate subjects on which the Select Committees make reports, and to the setting up of a formal Liaison Committee. The Government should be willing and ready to grant such powers to the House and to the Committees which they are about to set up that will enable the Committees to carry out their work properly.
The document that is now before us may not be a revolutionary document but the cumulative effect of its recommendations could radically change not only the procedures of Parliament, but the power of its Members to improve their effectiveness and knowledge. Perhaps as important as anything else, its proposals will give Members of Parliament a more constructive role than they now have of having to spend long hours on the Back Benches hoping to be called
78
in debates that will do nothing to influence or control the activities of government—unlike, I trust, in this debate in which those of us whom the Chair has called have the honour to take part.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Peter Emery: As the Chair has called for brief speeches and as no hon. Member has yet kept to single figures, I shall try to observe the Chair's request.
I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, not only for taking action so quickly on this subject, but for the tone and approach adopted in his speech. That approach showed a considerable amount of flexibility. He asks the House to allow these matters to evolve so that we may consider how they work. He then asks us to return to the matter and to reach a judgment as to the success of these proposals so that, if necessary, we may alter them. That is the right and sensible way to proceed, and my right hon. Friend deserves great praise for adopting that course.
Each contributor to the debate so far has accepted that the power of the Executive over the legislature has greatly increased. That power is still increasing and somehow or other it must be diminished. This is not the only way, but it is a positive way to work towards that diminution of Executive power.
The scrutiny of government is no longer real at Question Time because there is no penetration in depth. Any good Minister—I speak with only a little experience—can play a straight bat so that his Department gives nothing away, if that is the Minister's wish, during Question Time. Furthermore, in debates, however hard and however often the opposition attack, when the time comes for hon. Members to go through the Lobbies the Government always appear to hold the day. The occasions on which Government policy is altered by a debate in the House are few. One can count only a few occasions when the Opposition's actions have altered Government policy. Therefore, I believe that these Select Committees, if properly used, will be of the greatest possible use in attempting to give power back to the House of Commons.

79
I wish to deal with a number of specific matters. I see present in the Chamber the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, who intends, if called, to speak in this debate—indeed, I expected him to be called before me. I have served with the hon. Gentleman on that Committee for a number of years, and I understand the view taken by some hon. Members that that Committee should be retained. I have thought most carefully about this matter, but I believe that the type of subcommittee suggested may well be able to work just as efficiently as the Committee which has worked on these matters so far. I believe that whatever body is set up should allow for specialisation and for the same Members to be nominated from the original Committees. I believe that the new Committee, so long as it is sensibly operated, should be as effective as the original body.
I notice that the Committees from which hon. Members may be nominated to the nationalised industries subcommittee exclude the proposed Select Committee on Employment. I would have thought, not with all subjects considered but certainly with some, that a representative from the employment side would have been of particular importance. I give as an example an investigation by the nationalised industries sub-committee into the British Steel Corporation. There, any consideration must affect matters of employment and I can see the need for somebody from the Select Committee on Employment—or somebody in liaison with that Committee—to be brought into the sub-committee's consideration. That is a small point, but one which may well be of considerable importance.
The only matter of grave importance concerning the Select Committees which was not included in the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was the question of debating their reports once they have been made. Unless the House debates the vast majority of these reports fairly quickly the power and work of the Committees will fall into disrepute.
It is interesting to note from the statistics in the Procedure Committee's report that the number of debates on reports
80
from 1970 to 1977 was 44 out of a total of 83 reports. That is not good enough. I do not expect the Government to give an assurance that every report will be debated within moments of its presentation. That would obviously be foolish, but I believe that we should have from the Leader of the House some specific assurance as to how he intends to deal with this matter. Has he considered recommendation 44, that these reports be considered on at least eight days a year?
Will the Leader of the House consider, when we come to debate these reports, that it be perhaps not simply on a motion to take note but that the recommendation of the Committees should be put to the test of the views of the House? It seems to me of considerable importance that there should be a substantive motion, and I hope that he will consider that possibility fully.
The setting up of these Committees does not, and will not, ensure their success. We must try to ensure that they are not sycophantic; that they do not follow the Government, and the Department, and support them at every turn. Equally, it is of immense importance that they do not become a centre of criticism of every action, and of every possible approach, by a Department. They must not be regarded as a forum in which a Chairman, or a member of a Committee, can make his reputation because the Committee is always seen as attempting to purge government.
We need something which is sensible and reasonable between those two extremes. If that can happen the House will have done a very great service in attempting to take back to ourselves a greater control over the Executive. I hope that that can be achieved.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. Tony Bean: I shall be brief. Today we are celebrating a notable victory by the House of Commons over successive Ministers who, quite candidly, did not want this to happen at all. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on having conceded it in the way that he has. It is characteristic of our constitution that, when the concession comes, one is unable to find anyone on the other side who ever claimed to be against it in the

81
first place. That is always how progress is made.
Before we sink back in a mass of self-congratulation about our incredible wisdom that after hundreds of years we should have suddenly seen exactly how to proceed with the matter, let us be clear about this. The very moment of victory is the beginning of another battle. It is to that new battle that I want to turn the attention of the House because, if the Select Committee members were simply to be "Ministers-in-waiting", hoping that they might be noticed for promotion as a result of their constructive role in the Select Committee concerned with the Department they were studying, the whole thing would be a waste of time. If this is to be the moment when the legislature—the House of Commons—asserts itself, it must be quite clear what it wants. I believe that it wants four things. I shall talk about them and then sit down.
First, the House of Commons must demand to know how the Government run the country. Why on earth should the structure of Cabinet committees be allowed to remain a secret? Dick Cross-man's memoirs came out—the first message passed out of prison—about what happened inside. The memoirs of Barbara Castle—I can now call her by name—are coming out in the autumn. Why cannot the House of Commons know what every serious student knows, namely that there are Cabinet committees on defence, on economic policy, on home affairs and on legislation and that there is a succession of such committees set up by each Government to cope with individual matters? We must demand the right to know how Government is run. I believe that any doubts that there might be among Labour Members about the case for Select Committees would melt if they knew that, probably, hundreds of Cabinet committees have been sitting over the last five years.
Sir Bernard Braine: The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and valuable point. I recall, as Chairman of a Select Committee, that a Minister refused to tell us how Cabinet committees functioned. As the right hon. Gentleman was a prominent member of that Government, can he explain the reasons why such a convention obtained and could not be broken?
Mr. Benn: That convention can be broken if the House demands, and is entitled, to know. The reason why it is maintained is that it is much more convenient for Ministers not to be pursued. If it were known that they were on this or that committee, they would always be asked about things that they did not want people to know. On the whole, though it is an exaggeration, weak Ministers and strong civil servants want secrecy because strong civil servants want their anonymity to be preserved and weak Ministers do not want to be bothered with a lot of questions arising out of people knowing what they are doing. I think that it is time that the House dealt with that, and each Select Committee should demand that. That is the first objective.
The second objective of the Select Committees must be the right to demand the same information as goes to Ministers for the purposes of policy-making, provided that such information does not fall into certain very clear categories such as defence or security and that it does not relate to a big impending international conference where a negotiating position may be secret. Most of the paper in Whitehall, as any ex-Minister knows, is heavily over-classified, and it is time that Select Committees demanded their declassification. Why is it classified? It is classified for exactly the same reason as Cabinet committees are kept secret. It is because Ministers are then able to say to Members of Parliament "If you knew what I knew, you would not ask such a silly question."
That puts Ministers in a very strong position. The truth is that if hon. Members knew what the Minister knew he would be under much heavier pressure to change his policy. That is what we must go for next. That includes the outpourings of the Central Policy Review Staff—one item of public administration which could well be cancelled in an economy drive. I never found that Sir Kenneth Berrill's papers were all that worth while. But if they are to be pumped into Ministers' offices they should also be made available to the House. That includes papers on whether we join the EMS and the arguments about this or that policy that comes up for consideration. Over-classification is the curse of Parliament in its attempt to control the Executive.

83
My third point is that, although I do not entirely disagree with what the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Du Cann) said, I do not accept that detailed parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure offers as much to the House as the right hon. Gentleman believes. Patronage is the real source of power. I have been taking up this subject, as the House may have noticed, in the context of the Labour Party. I now wish to argue that the proposed Select Committees should have the right to vet at least the chairmen of all the major public corporations before they are appointed. There is no reason why a Minister, by virtue of his office, should be able to appoint the chairman of a nationalised industry without a Committee examining that man to find out his qualifications and to hear evidence about his qualifications.
For example, Sir Richard Dobson was appointed chairman of British Leyland and later had to resign. I understand that anyone who had had the chance of cross-examining him before his appointment would have discovered his position. A Select Committee should be able to recommend to the House that a candidate should not be confirmed.
If we take away Ministers' powers of patronage over huge sections of our public industries and put them into commission if the House wishes to act, we shall make a much more fundamental change than has been made by examining the "candle ends" of expenditure with the sort of scrutiny that a good chartered accountant gives to a big budget.
I shall end with my fourth point, because it is beyond our range, though it is the key to the whole thing. In the Common Market context, not only has the House lost its power, but Ministers have lost their power too. We are fooling ourselves if we suppose that we can grab back the little bit of power we need from Ministers and civil servants. We shall find that the main drainage of power has been out of the House towards the European Commission—which is, after all, made up of civil servants—the European Court, which is a new phenomenon in our constitutional history, and to Ministers who can go to Brussels, put up their hands and legislate for Britain at secret meetings without anything coming to the House.
84
Why do civil servants prefer Common Market legislation to House of Commons legislation? I will tell the House why. It is because it is less trouble. If a Bill has to go through the House, it has to be put in the Queen's Speech, has to get a First Reading and a Second Reading, go through Committee and Report stages, get a Third Reading and go on to the Lords. If a Minister is sent to Brussels to put up his hand at a secret meeting, the law of Britain can be changed as effectively as, and more permanently than, if it is done by parliamentary means.
As we celebrate this victory, our objectives must now be to get public knowledge about how this country is really governed, without having to wait for memoirs; to get access to papers about policy options so that Parliament can feed them into its own debates; to get control of patronage by recommending non-confirmation if the relevant Committee and the House think that confirmation would be unwise; and to open up the one question that was never properly discussed when the Common Market issue was debated—namely how the House can regain control over legislation when the main drainage of power into Brussels has already begun.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I shall not go into all four points raised by the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). I shall certainly not go into the exaggerations about European legislation, but the right hon. Gentleman did by those remarks draw attention to the fact that the House's European legislation Committee needs strengthening and needs to consider the merits of proposals that come before it.
I disagree intensely with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the House should know what happens at a Cabinet meeting.
Mr. Benn: I referred to the structure of Cabinet committees. I did not argue that their content should be made public. The right hon. Gentleman is a fair man and I am sure that he will acquit me of arguing that the 30-year rule should be substituted by a 30-minute rule—though that does sometimes happen already with the help of Prime Ministerial briefing.
Mr. Page: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has corrected me because

85
I do not think that the content of Cabinet committees would be of the least interest to hon. Members or to members of Select Committees. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Do not be so sure."] Perhaps I ought not to be speaking so frankly, but I would rather be on a Select Committee examining witnesses—Ministers, civil servants or interested bodies. By that means I would find out a lot more than I ever found out in a Cabinet committee. Obtaining information is what we are talking about.
I am grateful for the comprehensive speeches that we have had so far, but I wish to confine my remarks to the need to ensure that in what we decide today we do not trespass on the reforms that are so necessary in the Committees doing work on legislation. It is possible that we will accept some of the Procedure Committee's recommendations that would hamper us in amending the procedure of Standing Committees.
The House has three sorts of Committee—the Standing Committee, the Select Committee and the Grand Committee. None of those titles is justified by what the Committees are.
The Standing Committee is selected to deal with a temporary matter—a Bill—the Select Committee is appointed to deal with a subject for a specific period—a Session or perhaps a Parliament—and the Grand Committee is not.
The Select Committee on Procedure has recommended that we should remove some of those anomalies and also remove the mystery that if a Committee has the appellation "Standing" it can deliberate in public but cannot take evidence or hear witnesses; if it has the appellation "Select", it must deliberate in private—
Mr. Russell Kerr: Very seldom in our case.
Mr. Page: I am glad to hear that. A Select Committee may alter its rules, but normally it deliberates in private but may take evidence in public.
I hope that we will accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation that Standing Committees—what I call legislative Committees—should be entitled to hear evidence as well as to deliberate on a Bill. I see no reason why that should delay the progress of a Bill. Two mornings on the text of a Bill and one afternoon hearing evidence would not
86
delay the passage of a Bill through Committee.
The Procedure Committee suggests that that sort of evidence should go before a Select Committee and not necessarily before the legislative Committee. If that is to be the case, I shall be concerned about the vagueness of any distinction made by the report between the two types of Committee—the legislative Committee and the departmentally related Committee, what I call the policy administrative Committee. I do not want the policy administrative Committee to deal with legislative matters, whether pre-legislation, during legislation or post-legislation.
Mr. George Cunningham: I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has misread the report. In a bit of the report that we are not dealing with today we suggest that the Standing Committees, which we have restyled Public Bill Committees, should be entitled to take evidence for a maximum, normally, of three sessions before proceeding to the clause by clause consideration.
We were emphatic that the same Members and the same Committee as will proceed to do the normal Standing Committee job should initially do the investigation of witnesses relevant to the Bill.
Mr. Page: I want to ensure that we accept that suggestion and that we do not trespass on that ground by accepting the motion before us. But I am anxious about one of the recommendations concerning the new Select Committees which says:
"Committees should also be free to consider proposals for primary legislation at any stage during its progress through Parliament, including the Green Paper or White Paper stage, and to bring their views to the attention of the House or of the relevant legislative committees."
I think that that is wrong.
The pre-legislation procedure could be by Green Paper or by White Paper or by consultation document. A Green Paper or a White Paper is usually debated by the House, and the House would be greatly helped if it had a report from the Committee which had taken evidence previously and had gathered information on the subject. That should be the legislative type of Committee. It should be the Committee that will eventually deal

87
with the legislation coming from the Green Paper or White Paper.
I think that the third kind, the consultation document, is the blight on our parliamentary system. The consultation document is the thing that a Department sends out to those whom it thinks are interested. The Department marks the paper "confidential" so that no Member of Parliament shall see it. We are the last people to receive consultation documents, and we receive them only by the courtesy of, perhaps, the chief executive of our local authority or the secretary of the women's institute or the secretary of the townswomen's guild.
Fine as those institutions are, when their representatives come to one's surgery on a Saturday morning, present one with a consultation document from a Government Department and say "What are you going to do about it?", all one can say is "I have never seen it before." That is met with "Don't you Members of Parliament ever see these?". One has to say "No. May I borrow it so that I can photostat it?"
A Minister, if he is sending out a consultation document to those who he thinks are interested, should have an obligation to lay it before the House so that Members know what consultations are going on. When it comes to the legislation procedure, he should lay before the Committee which is dealing with the Bill not only the consultation documents that he has sent out but the replies he has received, the comments of interested persons, and so on, and then that Committee can consider whether it would like to take evidence from those outside bodies instead of, as we do at present, having their representatives sitting at the far end of the Committee room whispering in one's ear or passing bits of paper across.
I would like to have that sort of information formally before the Committee and the Committee able to cross-examine persons on it. All I fear is that, by appointing these 12 new Select Committees, that sort of procedure will be pushed into those Select Committees, the departmentally related Committees, and not dealt with on a legislative basis. I have mentioned pre-legislation procedure and during-legislation procedure.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There is one procedure that we have which crosses that boundary. It is on the hybrid Bill. I sat on the Select Committee which considered the Maplin Development Bill, and found it immensely valuable in being able to recommend particular amendments without having to go through the fine details of the Bill. In my view, it would not have made any difference if those who had been on the Select Committee were also on the Standing Committee. Why is it so important that the Select Committee should not also consider the policy and then the detailed application within the Bill?
Mr. Page: I think that that should certainly apply to what I call post-legislation procedure, when the regulations under an Act are being made—the secondary legislation. I have always thought that the legislative Committee—the Standing Committee on a Bill—should be kept in being for at least 12 months, and perhaps longer, so that it might deal with the regulations which emerge from the Act with which it had dealt in Committee as a Bill. Most of our Bills these days are permissive—they lay down permissive power for the Minister to make orders, and so on—and those hon. Members who have dealt with the Bill in Committee know what it is all about when it comes to the exercise of those permissive powers. By that means we might do a little better than with the Standing Committees considering the merits of statutory instruments.
I am not sure that anything we do in this House could convert those Committees, which I consider a farce and burlesque at the moment, into anything valuable. It is ridiculous to think that we can deal with secondary legislation by that means. I do not know how the Selection Committee works, but I imagine that it shuffles the cards, deals out the names, and the Whips go round and say "We want a quorum on that Committee, you, you and you." So, we get about three or four people on such a Committee, dealing sometimes with important secondary legislation. We really must do better than that.
But I do not think that it is any good merely sending that work, as the report suggests, to one of these departmentally related Committees. That is not a solution. We must make those Standing

89
Committees on the merits of post-legislation really attractive to hon. Members so that they do attend and have debates on the secondary legislation concerned.
The important point we should consider is that we are dealing today only with the Select Committee procedure and with the appointment of 12 new Select Committees. Do let us be careful, in accepting the Government's motion, that it does not trespass on what we want to do about legislation. We need to amend the legislative Committee procedure and, although I welcome the appointment of the 12 Committees, I want a clearer demarcation between the jurisdiction of a legislative Committee and a policy administrative Committee.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I need not seek to detain the House long, because I not only participated in the earlier general debate on the report, but, as a member of the Select Committee on whose report the motion is largely based, my views are either in the body of the report or to be found by curious students amongst the rejected amendments in smaller print further towards the back. I did feel however that I would be glad to have the opportunity of referring to two Northern Ireland matters.
One of these was partially cleared up by the exchange between the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). Nevertheless, the facts should be on the record beyond any doubt; for there appeared to be some confusion, perhaps, in the mind of the Leader of the House. As the motion stands, it will be the duty of the departmentally related Committees to deal with the subjects which fall within the scope of the Departments mentioned in the second column, and with
"similar matters within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland".
That is the first paragraph of the motion.
Question: why not Wales? Answer, says the Leader of the House: because very shortly—he hopes to announce it tomorrow—there is to be a Welsh Select Committee. Then why not a Scottish Select Committee? That too, he hopes, says the Leader of the House; but that will take a little more time, as we have to clear up more of the debris left behind by the Scotland Act.
90
This in turn raises the question—what about the fourth component of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland? On that subject, initially the right hon. Gentleman said that it was hoped in due course there would be local government in Northern Ireland which would deal democratically in Northern Ireland with many of the subjects which now fall upon and overload the plates of the Northern Ireland Ministers. That is true. Indeed there can be no more pressing need for the day-to-day concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. But still the question arises: what about the Northern Ireland Committee which we had functioning in the last Parliament? Then, in response to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South, the Leader of the House did confirm that the Northern Ireland Committee under Standing Order No. 72A, which is a kind of Grand Committee—I agree with the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), anything but grand—would continue.
This was a Committee of which my hon. Friends and I initially were somewhat wary, because part of its function is to consider Northern Ireland legislation in the form of Orders in Council, and we were most anxious that the Standing Order should not be a means of taking Northern Ireland legislation and Northern Ireland itself away from the Floor of the House. In fact it has not worked out that way. The Committee has proved to be a satisfactory way of dealing with legislation of secondary importance but substantial detail, and it has also provided a useful forum for extended debates upon administration.
We are glad, therefore, to have the assurance of the Leader of the House that the Northern Ireland Committee will continue to operate in that way. This will mean that, for example, the Select Committee on Environment—Committee No. 6—will be empowered, indeed instructed by the House, to consider the administration of the Department of the Environment in England, the corresponding Department in Scotland and also the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. We welcome this, because it will bring administration in Northern Ireland under the same scrutiny and the same purview as the administration of the corresponding subjects in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is all to the good; and it will be in no way

91
interfered with by the fact that Standing Order No. 72A will also enable Northern Ireland members and others—it is not only Northern Ireland Members who man the Northern Ireland Committee—to debate such matters as the policy and administration of the Housing Executive, an organisation peculiar to Northern Ireland.
I am therefore grateful to the Leader of the House for making the intended pattern clear and also for the effect which this resolution will have in bringing Northern Ireland administration within the scope of these Select Committees.
The second matter relates to the proposal to continue the Select Committee dealing with the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Health Service Commissioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has communicated recently to the Leader of the House the arguments, which we feel very strongly, for dealing by the same machinery with the corresponding reports of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Had the report of the Select Committee on Procedure been adopted and had, therefore, the Ombudsmen's reports been part of the material to which the Select Committees were directed to address themselves, no doubt the Northern Ireland documents also would have been taken into account by the relevant Select Committee. But now that we are to continue the Ombudsman Committee for Great Britain, it becomes more necessary to impress upon the Leader of the House the importance of bringing within its purview the corresponding reports for Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has not had full opportunity to consider all the implications of this, and my hon. Friends and I draw comfort from the fact that an amendment to the resolutions to do what we call for would be perfectly practicable in due course.
Certainly it is desirable. When those two Northern Ireland Ombudsmen were set up, they were set up by the then Parliament of Northern Ireland and were to report to that Parliament as do their opposite numbers in Great Britain in this Parliament. Since that Parliament ceased to exist in 1972, they have had
92
to continue their work more or less in a vacuum. Of course, this does not diminish the value to individual Members of Parliament and to individual members of the Northern Ireland public of their work in dealing with potential maladministration and following up potential grievances. But it is surely wrong—and wrong above all in relation to Northern Ireland—that the annual reports of the independent commissioners for investigating grievances and maladministration, who were established by the junior Parliament but have the approval of this Parliament, should neither be referred to this House nor looked at by any Committee of this House.
I hope, therefore, that in due course the right hon. Gentleman will decide, since we are to have the Ombudsman Committee continued, that it should be given the additional duty of looking at, investigating and reporting upon the corresponding reports which proceed from those functionaries in Northern Ireland.
6.35 p.m.
Mr. David Price: May I take this opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it being the first time that you have called me in the House, to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair?
The only reason for this very important debate is to strengthen the purposes of Parliament. I think that we are all agreed about that. It has become clear that great concern has been shown by every right hon. and hon. Member who has addressed the House about the method by which we fulfil our classical role of controlling the Executive. That we are not ourselves executive government was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is in that context that I draw attention to a very interesting warning that was given in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond):
"many of my colleagues have acquired an appetite for government even when they are not in office. … I fear that some of the support for select committees comes from Ministers manqués."
I assure the House that I do not regard myself as a Minister manqué, but I am a supporter of the Select Committee system. I wish to see that system strengthened,

93
but I believe that there is a certain danger in the warning given by the right hon. Gentleman, and reference has been made to it already by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
My reason for wanting to see the Select Committee system strengthened is simple. It is the most effective method today of ensuring that we fulfil our traditional duty of control. I suggest that that control falls into three categories. First, Parliament gives a Government authority for taking executive decisions. In the main, this is done through legislation and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) pointed out, increasingly that legislation is of a permissive nature and the teeth of it often lie in the secondary legislation following it.
Secondly, Parliament supervises and monitors those decisions. Thirdly, Parliament eventually audits those accounts. In that connection, I am delighted that the Public Accounts Committee is to remain in being. As one who had the honour some years ago of being a member of it, may I say that I think that it is one of the most effective Select Committees in the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) said, it is effective because it has the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department to support it—at least, that is the theory.
It seems to me that any examination of our present procedures must be directed to how we strengthen our functioning in those three areas—authorising executive decisions, supervising them and auditing them—and the report of the Select Committee suggests many ways in which we can do it.
Tonight we are concentrating entirely on the Select Committees whose work lies mainly in the second of those areas—namely supervising executive decisions. It is the received wisdom of this House that the principal instrument of parliamentary supervision of government has been through the control of Supply. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton rightly reminded us, we are not being very effective in controlling Supply. I say this in full knowledge of the excellent work done in recent Sessions by our colleagues on the Expenditure Committee and its various Sub-Committees. Their work encourages one to believe that if we move on to the departmental Commit-
94
tees proposed in this motion those Committees will be more successful than the present arrangements.
I am sure that we all agree with the hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams) that Supply days on the Floor of the House have become a complete misnomer. They are not Supply days in the traditional sense. They are days allocated to the Opposition to initiate debates on subjects of their choosing. I do not quarrel with that. But they are no longer Supply days.
We as a House have largely abandoned any attempt at detailed examination of annual departmental Estimates. So complicated and extensive are those Estimates today that it is right that in the first instance they should not be taken on the Floor of the House but in an appropriate Committee. I take the simple view that an appropriate Select Committee should examine each year the Estimates of each Department and report back to the House. The House may not wish to take any further action. But it has become almost obscene that we pass, on the nod on a Supply day, enormous sums of money which have never been examined upstairs or downstairs. In addition to the Estimates, there would be the Supplementary Estimates and each Department's contribution to the expenditure White Paper. We have an annual debate on the expenditure White Paper. But that debate does little justice to the mass of information contained in the White Paper. This will clearly fall within the remit of the departmental Committees.
There is also the question of departmental cash limits, which are increasingly becoming part of the governmental scene. I believe that the new Select Committees will wish to examine the appropriate cash limits in depth.
These three areas within control of Supply will be the first duty of the Select Committees. I can see no other approach. This work could not be done as extensively or as thoroughly by existing subject Committees, although I share the view of certain hon. Members that we should retain some subject Committees. It is not a case of "either … or".
My right hon. Friend, in moving the motion, hazarded the view that the creation of these departmental Committees

95
made unnecessary any subject Committees. He is, in fact, allowing two or three subject Committees. In certain specialised areas there is still room for subject Committees. I wish to draw the attention of the House particularly to the Select Committee on Science and Technology. That Committee has an experience and a competence that it would be a pity to break up. That sort of competence does not arise quickly.
It has been pointed out that only when one has acquired a degree of special knowledge in a Select Committee can one be really effective. That is particularly true when dealing with scientific matters that cut not only across Departments but across the boundary between the public and private sector and across the boundaries between countries. I should like therefore to support the view put forward in our previous debate by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), so long the distinguished Chairman of that Committee. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) has similar views to give the House if he succeeds in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
If this motion is carried, about 120 hon. Members will be occupied in the work of these departmental Select Committees. I do not believe that it will tax the resources of the Committee of Selection to be able to man the Select Committee on Science and Technology in addition to these 12 new departmental Committees. I hope that the House will not be impressed by arguments that there are not sufficient hon. Members available. I believe that we have more than enough. I believe that they would be all volunteers.
In case the proposal to retain the Select Committee on Science and Technology is regarded as too radical, hon. Members will see a group of amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg) and myself. Both of us are officers of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. It is in that capacity that we have put down what I would call a compromise proposal between that of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East and the motion. That compromise proposal would separate the science function and the arts function
96
from the responsibilities of the departmental Select Committee on Education, Science and the Arts. The House will realise, in any case, that responsibility for the arts, under the new Administration, has been moved from the Department of Education and Science into a separate office. That alone would justify a separate Select Committee being set up.
Hon. Members involved in normal educational matters would not necessarily wish to involve themselves in matters of scientific policy or of artistic policy. The only criticism which could be made of the proposal is to ask why the hon. Member for Dewsbury and myself have put science and the arts together in one Select Committee. The reason is simple. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and I do not agree with the views of the noble Lord Snow that there are two cultures. We are both essentially Renaissance men. I hope that in that spirit, when we vote, we shall have the support of the House.
It is right and proper that we consider the reform of procedure. That is why we are here. Let us be under no illusion. If we want to achieve better control over the Executive, we, Members of this House, must show more courage in dealing with Governments, particularly when we are of the same party as the Government in power.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: The Leader of the House was extravagant in the language he used when trying to sell his product. I hope that events will justify his claims. I want to give one or two reasons why I doubt them. It is idle to pretend that this new procedure will even marginally reduce the gap between the power of the Executive and the power of the legislature to control it. One has to compare the resources that have been available to Select Committees in the past and that are likely to be available to them in the future under the current dispensation and the resources available to the Departments of State that they are presuming to challenge and control.
I got out some figures at random for two or three typical Departments which are to come under scrutiny. I find, for instance, that the Ministry of Defence currently spends in excess of £6,000 million a year, about £150 million every

97
week. At the head of that Department are 934 top civil servants of administrative class and 115,000 non-industrial civil servants. We are presuming to frighten the lives out of those people by appointing 10 Back Bench Members of Parliament, serviced by one or two part-time Clerks, estimable people no doubt.
Ministers of Defence attend Committees with air commodores and generals. God knows what they do when they are not appearing in front of Committees. Generally 20 or 30 people are faced by three miserable little Back-Bench Members. That is what the Leader of the House claims to be a great revolution. He says that we shall put the people in the Ministries in their place.
The Department of Health and Social Security employs 1,021 administrative class civil servants. It employs 98,073 non-industrial civil servants. Only nine hon. Members are to survey that massive empire.
Another example is the Department of Education and Science. It employs fewer top class civil servants—163. Hon. Members know of the secretiveness of that Department. It refused to give a Committee documents about the OECD. So long as that secretiveness remains, whatever the numbers of staff available to a Department and a Committee, the gulf cannot be narrowed in a meaningful sense.
Because of the Government's determination to cut bureaucracy and to reduce or freeze recruitment to the Civil Service, there is no likelihood of the Government giving the Committees the number of staff required.
I also have doubts because of the unwarranted assumption that there are in the House—and I measure my words—120 Back-Bench Members who will apply themselves diligently to the hard work entailed in serving on Select Committees. I speak from some years of experience. Hon. Members write to their Whips applying for membership of Select Committees. Mountains of paper are produced by each Department. Paper is their secret weapon. They churn it out to Select Committees but the Back Bencher has neither the time nor inclination to wade through it. Invariably it is left to the Chairmen of those Committees. Hon. Members go to those Committees unbriefed and unread,
98
hoping that the Chairman will give them a lead. Others will agree with me. Clerks often have to browbeat some hon. Members to attend Committees to achieve a quorum.
Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: I wish to be brief. I am just throwing a few spanners in the works. The impression is being created by the Government and the media that this is a revolution. It is nothing of the kind. It is the status quo in a different wrapping. I have been a member of the Estimates Committee and the Expenditure Committee. I have seen it all before. We have tried to divide sub-committees into departmental committees.
Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton: I will not. I want to finish, having put the cat among the pigeons.
Mr. English: My hon. Friend does not like his own medicine.
Mr. Hamilton: I read the evidence that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gave to the Committee, and it is wrong. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way. "] No. Hon. Members are getting worked up. I am glad that they are, because it is important to understand that there are reservations among Back Bench Members about the effectiveness of this package. There is euphoria that this is the end of the day. It is not even the beginning of achieving a minimum of control over the Executive.
Sir Bernard Braine: The hon. Member has a reputation for fairmindedness. He is in danger of losing that reputation. I was Chairman of a Select Committee and I attended every meeting. I do not recollect a single occasion when that Committee lacked a quorum.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Member must be an exception.
Mr. English: No, he is not.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend should not get so worked up. He should go and see a doctor.
The Leader of the House made compromising noises about the appearance of Ministers before Committees. It is not good enough. If the Government are

99
serious in wanting to make the proposals work, it must be obligatory for a Minister to attend a Committee if the Committee decides that his presence is required. The Committee must decide whether a useful purpose would be served by a Minister appearing before it. After all, a Minister can fudge the issue or stall. Ministers stall in the House. Why should they not stall in Select Committees?
The time allowed for debating reports from Select Committees is not mentioned, although the Committee specifically recommended that at least eight days should be set aside each session to debate Select Committee reports. That is not an extravagant proposal.
There must be hundreds of Select Committee reports collecting dust. Some of the recommendations receive no response for months. That is not good enough. One of the main functions of Select Committees is not so much to lessen the gulf between Executive and legislature, but to provide background information so that our debates are better informed. If we do not hold debates, that function is eliminated or drastically reduced.
Cynicism has bitten deep into my soul in the course of a long experience in the House. After seeing successive Governments of all political persuasions in action, I find that I am against government. Basically, I am an anarchist. I do not believe that Governments willingly yield power to any legislature. The Government are making these proposals precisely because they know they are cosmetic and will not change anything much.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) sometimes reminds me of that late but famous actor, Akim Tamiroff, who designed parts to provoke those with whom he acted. The hon. Member always provokes the House, but he does so in an interesting way.
Information provided by Select Committees must, if it is discussed in the House, enliven and enlighten debates. But the work of Select Committees is not altogether lost if their reports are not debated, although it is preferable that they should be debated.
One of the important functions of a Select Committee is to act as an interface
100
between the House and those who give evidence to the Committee. That function should not be underrated.
When on 19 February the House discussed the Procedure Committee's report the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) drew our attention to the obvious fact that a number of Select Committee Chairmen had supported the generalities of the report but had argued for the survival of their own Committees. He added that he had
"never heard special pleading so arrant and so naked in my life."—[Official Report, 19 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 107.]
I declare immediately that I join those ranks, naked and unashamed, to ask the House to consider carefully what it is doing and to plead for the survival of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I do not believe that I have ever spoken in this Chamber on a more important subject bar one, and I am not merely opposed to the consequent abolition of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I find myself in the somewhat unaccustomed position of viewing with more than a little scepticism the generality of the Procedure Committee's proposals on Select Committees. By nature a radical, I find myself overwhelmed with caution and conservatism.
I start at the beginning. On 5 April this year the distinguished scientific journal Nature carried the following:
"Whatever the issues the forthcoming election in Britain brings up, two things are reasonably certain: that the nation's place in the EEC will be widely discussed and that science and technology policy will not … the future of Europe is so much bound up in science and technology that if the public were kept adequately informed scientific and technical policy would be expressed in terms of electoral concern."
On 10 May the editor of that journal pointed out that it was as he had expected.
"The election was fought almost entirely on economic issues. … Of science we have heard nothing—except on environmental issues from the Ecology Party and on nuclear power from the Liberals. We hope,"
—he concluded—
"that the Government will recognise the central importance of science—and basic sciences at that—to the economy."
He then went on to contrast the "massive increase" in West German funding

101
for its science Ministry with our comparatively humble support for science in Britain.
In spite of the Prime Minister's discourse on ships, celebrated though it was, we returned to find the Government apparently uncertain about whether or not at least one of the two parliamentary institutions which recognise the significance of science and technology and the vast importance to an industrial nation of bridging the gap between them was to be abolished. Whatever its merits or failings, the Select Committee on Science and Technology considered both science and technology. It recognised that the gap between them lay at the heart of some of our national problems, and it offered the scientific community an opportunity to talk about the many problems of great national significance.
Never has a smaller word maintained a more vital connection. The Committee was, of course, criticised. It would have been strange if it had not been. But it was also highly commended and strongly defended, and not only by its late Chairman. On 10 May two Fellows of the Royal Society, Professors Ziman and Denbeigh of the Council for Science and Society, argued in a powerful letter to Nature, which I sent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, first, that the Select Committee on Science and Technology was important precisely because
"the central co-ordinating functions for scientific and technical research are vestigial".
and they are. Second, they argued that
"no amount of liaison and co-operation between departmental Committees could deal satisfactorily with the broader, long-term issues of science and technology"
and they could not. Third, they argued that
"current issues of great political, social and economic significance, such as…. genetic manipulation or … microprocessors … obviously overflow all the boundaries appropriate for the administration of science and research within the Government machine"
and they do.
These two professors concluded that the Committee "fulfilled an indispensable role"—the words are theirs, not mine—and that the role should be strengthened rather than weakened. I concur wholeheartedly with that analysis, because, as Professors Ziman and Denbeigh point
102
out, nothing would be more undesirable at this stage than to perpetuate and exacerbate the split between science and technology which is presently reflected in our Government organisation, and many other national institutions.
I recall once being told by the late Sir Dennis Robertson that
"God did not devise human problems in the way which man created University Departments."
I have had many occasions to reflect on his wisdom. It is equally true of Government Departments and would, I am convinced, be equally true of departmental Select Committees.
Let us begin by examining the record of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I have a complete list of the Government Departments which have been involved in every inquiry. Only a small minority involve one Department. Most involve several. That on population involved 12. That on computers involved six. That on research and development policy six plus the Lord Privy Seal and the Cabinet Office. Most recently genetic engineering—which is not yet complete—involved three.
The Procedure Committee concluded that this was so, and accepted that
"many of the matters investigated … are not the direct … concern of government departments at all."
It conceded further that the Committee's work
"gained much of their impact and importance"
from the fact that its inquiries
"involved subjects of major political importance".
But all this was to no avail. Technology is to disappear and the supervision of science policy—policy which involves a research requirements board in every major Department of State—is to be the responsibility of a departmental Committee confined, initially and in principle, to the Department of Education and Science. It is also to monitor the arts, a strange combination, irrespective of which side of Lord Snow's division we find ourselves on. That I believe to be a damaging decision, for the Department of Education and Science is preoccupied with education, a subject of high political visibility, and the departmental Committee would certainly and probably properly reflect that balance of interest and activity.

103
It has been argued that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has spent much effort on energy, which is true, and that the departmental Select Committee on energy will discharge that role. But I do not accept that argument. Each of the inquiries we conducted into energy involved many Departments, and our most recent, on energy conservation, involved five. But that is not the point. The point is that consideration of a question such as the appropriate balance of national investment in solar, nuclear and fossil-fuelled power must inevitably involve several Departments and many other institutions. The most interesting observations in such a field will quite possibly, if not necessarily, be made by those whom Government and even universities would almost certainly regard as cranks.
The Procedure Committee justifies its decision on three grounds: first, that all Government Departments are affected by research and development; second, that overlap between departmental and "subject" Committees should be avoided; and, third, that otherwise departmental agencies would be "overburdened".
I find none of these arguments convincing. The first seems to me, in logic, to justify rather than refute the need for a subject Committee to follow the inquiry wherever the problem leads it. The second can be solved by precisely the liaison procedures which the Procedure Committee concedes will be necessary even under the new system. The third can be avoided if liaison is effective, as it has been in the past. The Procedure Committee itself concedes further that the new mechanism
"will need to be able to go beyond the examination of Government activities on a strictly departmental basis".
It suggests that the solution lies in arranging for departmental Committees jointly to take evidence, to exchange papers, to deliberate and to report. I can imagine nothing more cumbersome and impractical. Such a procedure would offer constant grounds for stepping on the toes of other Committees, and should other Committees be either unwilling or unable to conduct, for perfectly understandable reasons, a joint inquiry, what is then to be done?
104
The Procedure Committee goes on to concede what is, in my view, a point which damages the case for its proposal most profoundly. The Procedure Committee has stated that the new Committees will not work unless they have rights of access to information. But this is the one thing which the Government do not propose to give them, at least in any greater measure than is enjoyed by the existing Committees. If this is a necessary and fundamental condition for their success, it is equally a necessary and fundamental condition for the success of past Select Committees. If we change that, we change the things that really matter. If we leave that, we really alter nothing.
It is interesting that in this context it should be the old Committees that should be criticised by the Procedure Committee for having two serious weaknesses—inadequacy of information, and lack of expert staffs. I accept that without qualification. But does the remedy for this situation require a change in the structure as well as a change in the adequacy of information and the strength of expert staffs? I think not.
Mr. Palmer: Does the hon. Member, from his considerable experience of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, think that the departmental Select Committee on Energy would have enough courage to conduct a completely independent inquiry into the fast breeder reactor?
Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Member for putting that question. The answer is that in all probability it would not. It might do, but in all probability it would not.
We are dealing essentially with a matter of system design. Recently the design team which produced a most successful new digital tape defined its design objectives. They were very interesting. They were as follows:
"The product had to meet existing and predicted users' requirements; have a low cost of ownership; be simple (and therefore inexpensive) to manufacture in high volume; offer genuine practical operating advantages over existing competitive equipments, yet be physically compatible with them and incorporate the latest technological innovations that were both necessary for its performance and fully proven for reliability."
One can quite easily transform those requirements into appropriate criteria.

105
First, do our proposed changes meet existing and predicted user requirements? We have concentrated largely on existing requirements and have ignored the future and I shall explain why in a moment.
Secondly, we can translate "low cost of ownership" into the question, "Is the proposed change cost effective?" This question does not appear to have been examined. We have no information whatever, no suggested studies, on the comparative cost of 12 departmental Committees with limited facilities versus, say, six such Committees with a modern information technology back-up and adequate staffs. I should like to see such a comparison before I felt I could vote on this.
Thirdly, we can certainly ask whether the present proposals offer
"genuine and practical advantages over existing arrangements".
What could these possibly be—more continuity? I cannot see where that would come from. I doubt it. Could it be more expertise? I doubt it. We are calling on the same Members—possibly, but not because of a change in the system. We are calling for better information—again, possibly, but not because of the procedural change but because of the changes that have been made to support the procedural change.
What this analysis reveals simply is that if the new system proves better than the old it will be because we have incorporated additional rights and priorities. There is no reason whatever why existing Committees should not receive similar benefits and their performance improve correspondingly.
The fourth criterion is by far the most revealing. Does our new system incorporate the latest technological innovations? This is where we really fall down. The first thing that we have done is to eliminate any specific or formal reference to technology. In the year 1979 that is a most remarkable action. There is no indication anywhere in the report that the Procedure Committee appreciates the fundamental nature of the change which modern information technology has introduced into the procedures of decision making. We are involved. If anything, we are expert in the procedures of decision making. It has been said that we are leaving the
106
age of Gutenberg as the silicon chip transforms the whole balance between information and other production costs. Yet this report contains not one mention of that fact.
What is now clear is that both in and outside Government the most vital information will no longer be contained in "papers" and many persons will use "on-line" information contained in tapes, discs, bubble memories and other as yet unimagined electronic miracles. Information will be called up on the visual display units, used, recalled or eliminated. The decision will be made before the papers even appear. If government in the future is to be increasingly "on-line", as it will, monitoring and investigatory Commitees of this House will also have to be on-line. I see no suggestion in these proposed reforms that that is to take place.
My conclusion is that the reforms might bring the House into line with the needs of the 1950s, which probably should have been done a long time ago, but bear little relevance to the needs of the 1980s, when decisions in Government and industry will be built into the information systems which are designed and continuously developed precisely for these purposes. That is certainly my view. However, I do not stand alone. It is also the view of the "NORA" report commissioned by President Giscard d'Estaing, and also of the Japanese Government. It is the view of every major British and American company operating in the information technology sphere.
In the last 30 years the proportion of the working population engaged in acquiring, storing, processing and transmitting information has risen from 15 per cent. to 50 per cent., and the trend continues. We are in the silicon age, an age in which technology is utterly dependent on, and indissolubly wedded to, science. The editorial from which I quoted in Nature concluded with these words:
"Remember the scientists—and you will be remembered."
The trouble with this report—I do not wish to appear ungenerous, because I realise the tremendous amount of excellent work that has gone into it—is that it has forgotten the scientists and has forgotten to look at the main characteristics

107
of the age into which we are moving, the age of information technology. The report has forgotten to ask fundamental questions and it will not be remembered; if we do nothing to bring our thinking up to date, nor will we. This is not new wine into old bottles. It is not even old wine into old bottles. It is essentially a new label on our old bottle, and the result will mislead and confuse.
We should build on what we have—improve, enlarge, extend and reinforce success. We are not doing that. Most untypically for the House of Commons, and even more untypically for a Conservative Government, we are abolishing the tried, if imperfect, system that we know and substituting an untried system that has obvious flaws, and little to commend it that is new or relevant to the 1980s in which it will begin operation. I beg the House to think again.
7.17 p.m.
Mr. Michael English: Before I give some replies to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), it might be helpful to the House if I briefly refer to the third of the three motions on the Order Paper. It refers to the use of the Committee Selection as a stage on the way to appointing members of Select Committees.
Although I broadly welcome the proposals of the Leader of the House, I think that this particular issue has been mishandled. We began with a debate late one night asking the Leader of the House why he had set up a Committee of Selection without doing anything about its powers and the Leader of the House gave nothing away, though he was his usual courteous self. Then, upon the Papers we had a motion—not this one—which included everything that the Procedure Committee had asked for, and which said that all the Select Committees should pass through the Committee of Selection. Finally, all of a sudden, two or three days ago, just before the weekend, that motion was contracted to relate solely to the appointment of members of these 12 Select Committees, should the House agree the proposal in motion No. 1.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) rightly took up this point and received no answer. It is incumbent upon us to ask why the
108
Government have changed their mind. As I understand it, the Government were not asked to do so by the Opposition. But they were presumably asked to do so by somebody. The Government have changed their minds. They have wilted.
There are other important Committees to be set up, as the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) pointed out. He mentioned various committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. I just mention one that could cope with a point mentioned at the beginning of this debate. We need a broadcasting committee to consider again the question of a House of Commons broadcasting unit. The BBC opposed such a unit, but has not—no doubt due to its financial difficulties—been prepared to spend any money on the necessary equipment for Committee Rooms and, to some extent, for this House, to do the job of broadcasting as it should be done and as was originally envisaged.
Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House, will explain to us why the Government have changed their minds. It is a matter of some importance. Discussions about membership of Committees should be possible in private as opposed to only in public on the Floor of the House. This is the basic reason of the proposal—to protect the interests of Back Benchers.
I come to the main motion. It would be impossible to go through all the groups of amendments that have been tabled. However, many are special pleading, with respect to the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo. With the exception of the Expenditure Committee, I think that a member of every Committee which it is suggested should be abolished has put down a motion suggesting that it be retained. No one has tabled a motion stating that all these Committees should be retained. Individual hon. Members have tabled amendments stating that each one should be retained.
When the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo pleads for the retention of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, why does he not want an Arts Committee, because that is the implication?
Sir Bernard Braine: We have one.
Mr. English: No, we do not. Under the existing Committee set-up, we have a

109
Committee whose terms of reference are to consider science and technology. We have no Committee whose terms of reference are to consider matters which are not science and technology. Under the new proposals there will be something related to every Government Department.
Much of what the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo said is a perfectly good stricture which, if he wishes, he should put to the new Treasury Committee. He suggested that the machinery of government was in some way wrong, in that unlike Germany, which he quoted as an example, we do not have a science Ministry. If the hon. Gentleman feels that, he should say so. I do not know whether the Select Committee on Science and Technology has said so, but the hon. Gentleman should say so if that is what he feels. The reason we link to Departments is to ensure that nothing gets missed out.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: I would hate the hon. Gentleman to go away with the impression that I was advocating some sort of philistine structure for these Committees. Of course there should be consideration of the arts. But I suggest that those who have a natural competence in relation to science and technology, whether Members of this House or otherwise, do not always have a natural competence in the arts.
Mr. English: If the hon. Gentleman expects those who are most competent in any subject necessarily to be in Parliament, he overrates his colleagues. Sometimes they are and sometimes they are not. I have been informed by some Fellows of the Royal Society, whom I do not propose to quote by name, that the Select Committee on Science and Technology has quite frequently caused individuals a great deal of work in respect of some minor recommendations at the end of the day. I regard the Royal Society as to some extent expert on science and technology in a way in which I do not regard hon. Members.
Over the years, on an ad hoc basis, we have thought up various Select Committees. We have never sat down and decided that we should have a set of Select Committees spanning the whole ambit of government and its associated bodies. That is our mistake. The result has been that while we have done good work in various Committees, no work at
110
all has been done in some areas where Governments have been extremely active. Energy is one example. The reason why the Select Committee on Science and Technology has produced 13 reports on energy alone out of 35 simply that we do not have a Select Committee related to the Department of Energy. At one time here was no Department of Energy, but circumstances have caused that to come into existence.
Mr. Leadbitter: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Select Committee on Science and Technology had the power to deal with a Department? The point at issue is that the words on the Order Paper make it quite clear that the Select Committees will be there:
"to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments".
However, page lxi of the report, in which my hon. Friend was involved, states:
"As we have made clear, however, our proposals evisage that, although the fields of interest of the committees would be defined by reference to the existing pattern of government departments, they would in no way be inhibited from taking evidence from any government department or other body relevant to the studies which they undertake."
I do not see any words on the Order Paper which make that clear. Therefore, as long as that omission remains, there is a genuine concern that where there is a good sound basis of reporting to this House, across Departments and other bodies, by the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the House must concern itself with what the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) has said.
Mr. English: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has quoted a passage that I had already marked, just as the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo quoted it. I intend to come to it.
Sir Bernard Braine: We found from experience over many years that it was quite impossible to assess the efficacy of the British aid programme unless it was related to external trade policy and domestic economic policy. We were totally unable to establish from Government Departments how co-ordination was effected in Whitehall, and we came to the conclusion that there was no co-ordination. Only that Committee, taking

111
evidence from a wide range of Departments, could have come to that conclusion, and it is a conclusion that is vital to the efficiency and working of Parliament.
Mr. English: Yes, and the conclusion of the Procedure Committee was perfectly simple. Whether it works well or ill, there is in Whitehall on any given subject what is called a lead Department. For example, the lead Department on education, science and the arts would be the Department of Education and Science. But that does not mean that no other Department has a chief scientist. Seven others have. It does not mean that no one else has scientific problems.
The point is that we should all stop talking as inflexibly as we have done. Let me give hon. Members a quite different illustration which is not yet a vested interest. If we set up Select Committees on Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, we cannot thereby exclude Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland from consideration when we are dealing with, say, education, local government or even such a simple thing as public expenditure. For example, the Sub-Committee that I chaired in the last Parliament once wanted to know what Exchequer funds went to local authorities. In order to find out we had to summon not only the Treasury but also the Department of the Environment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Northern Ireland Civil Service—not merely the Northern Ireland Office of the British Civil Service, but some people from the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Of course, there is no possibility of any of these Committees operating at all if they are to be prevented from summoning people from various Departments. It would be foolish for a Government—I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman means to do this—to come before this House and say "No Committee may discuss anything being discussed by more than one Department in Whitehall". That is not in the motion, and it is foolish to read into the motion what is not there. It would be sensible, to put it no higher, if a Committee related to the lead Department dealt with subjects wherein its Department is the lead Department. But for a given reason this may be done slightly differently.
112
I turn briefly to two small points. There are three amendments in my name, including amendment No. 13 about the Lord Chancellor and the Law Officers Department. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General, will catch the eye of the Chair, since he signed it as well. It seems quite ridiculous that the security service of the State, which is an associated body or Department of the Home Office, or its mate, which is an associated body of the Foreign Office, should apparently come within the terms of this motion—I think that they come within the definition of "associated public body", if not that of a Department—and yet the Lord Chancellor's Department should be left out.
One amendment says that we should have a new Committee on official information. We would not need that if the Home Affairs Committee chose to discuss official information. But apparently it could not discuss the Public Record Office because that comes under the Lord Chancellor. This is a foolish omission and is quite unnecessary.
Similarly, I do not know why two particular quangos, the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, have been specifically mentioned. But the most important omission that the right hon. Gentleman will find is his omission of a Liaison Committee. There must be some means of linking the various aspects of policy. I suspect that he will need some means of solving disputes, even, for example, between a Department of the Environmental Committee and a Welsh Committee or an Education Committee. There is a whole series of small points made by the Procedure Committee, such as whether Chairmen should have votes and whether Sub-Committee proceedings can be published, that the right hon. Gentleman can easily agree if only he has someone to talk to about them, such as a Liaison Committee as we have proposed.
Finally, we come to the question of money and staff. The money and staff are no longer solely the responsibility of the Treasury. It is no longer the case that the Leader of the House goes to the Treasury to defend the House of Commons Estimate. He now considers it, but in his capacity as a House of Commons Commissioner. So far, I believe that only

113
he and Mr. Speaker are House of Commons Commissioners, but eventually there should be six of them, and three of them should be Back Benchers. But these are the people who will present the Estimates to the House. Someone, somewhere, must co-ordinate the desires of these Committees, for, obviously, this boils down to money, although it may be money to pay for staff.
This is a highly important point. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has no mechanism whereby these things can be discussed in general. There will be no way, for example, if Committees desire to discuss statutory instruments, of saying "Yes, you all need a common service to provide you with those statutory instruments". There will be no way of paying for it, except all 12 of them, plus all the other Select Committees, negotiating directly with the House of Commons Commission.
It seems a very silly way of doing it, because—and this is the point—they will not simply negotiate through the Services Committee or an unofficial committee under some chairman—a committee chaired by a particular chairman who has been chosen on a permanent basis irrespective of the personality of the person involved. Members of Select Committees and their Chairmen do not wish to be beholden to the Chairman of some other Select Committee.
The blunt truth is that one has to have a linking mechanism whereby they can all fairly have their requests considered by all their colleagues and by a balanced political group, and not by the sort of unofficial body which had no legal power but which considered these things in the last Parliament. That was automatically chaired—because the senior Chairman is the Leader of the House, and when Dick Crossman was Leader of the House he did not want to do it, nor indeed, did more recent Leaders of the House—by the Chairman of the second senior Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, a position that holds no particular virtue. It may be that the Committee that we are to create tomorrow is more important than the one we created in the last century. We do not know.
All of them should be treated fairly and equally. There ought to be a mechanism for considering all of their require-
114
ments, putting them to the House of Commons Commission and to the House, and for the Treasury and the Leader of the House to consider them on the way. That is not in the motion.
I hope that at the end of the day the Leader of the House will realise that he will only cause himself difficulties if he has to negotiate with 12 Chairmen instead of a Committee of them and their colleagues.
7.34 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Baker: It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). He and I have served on the Procedure Committee for four years. It is probably fair to say on behalf of my colleagues on the Committee that all of us have had the opportunity many times of speaking after the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of procedural matters is encyclopaedic. His advice to the Committee has been absolutely invaluable.
I welcome the motions. They include virtually 95 per cent. of what the Select Committee on Procedure recommended as regards Select Committees. There has been some talk about whether this change, if it is agreed to by the House tonight, as I hope that it will be, will be revolutionary. I do not believe that it will be revolutionary. I see it much more in the evolutionary pattern of change in Britain. When we change things constitutionally or procedurally, we do so in an evolutionary way.
I very much recall the words of King Magnus in "The Applecart", when he said
"I prefer the evolutionary appetite to the day's gluttony."
I believe that this is the way in which the House changes itself. I hope that we shall witness the beginning of this change tonight.
This change is not revolutionary in the way that some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), have been saying that a great counter-bureaucracy would be built up, something on American lines. I do not see that happening at all. I believe that the American Congress has some 40,000 civil servants and bureaucrats servicing it, a sort of counter-Government.

115
That is not envisaged in the proposals before us, nor do I believe that it will happen. The new Select Committees will be allowed to appoint advisers and staff as they see fit, but that will not be a form of counter-bureaucracy.
Nor do I believe that the system which I hope that the House will approve tonight will undermine this Chamber. I have never accepted that argument. The former Leader of the House has used it many times. This Chamber will still be the crucible of British politics. Reputations will be made and lost in this Chamber. Ministers will still be held to account at the Dispatch Box. That will continue in the future.
I happen to believe that this Chamber is the finest debating chamber in the world. It is fashionable to denigrate everything British today, but having listened to debates in many other parliamentary assemblies, I have absolutely no doubt that we have the privilege of belonging to the best debating chamber in the world.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Hear, hear.
Mr. Baker: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would come in at that moment.
However, this is something of which we can be proud. I do not believe that that will change.
What these Committees will be able to do, and which the House cannot do at present effectively, is to examine in considerable detail the policy and the Estimates of the different Departments. Surely hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the Estimates and the actual detailed expenditure of Departments have not been examined in detail for many years. We know that we are invited to vote vast sums of money on the nod for various Departments, but it will be up to these Select Committees, if they so wish—and I hope that they will so wish—to comb through in detail the estimates and the expenditure and the policy implications that lie behind that expenditure. That will be an enormous improvement.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree, having himself had some experience, as I have in a minor way,
116
that not only are the policies and Estimates of our great Departments not thoroughly scrutinised by Parliament, but very often they cannot be, for lack of time, adequately scrutinised by Ministers?
Mr. Baker: Yes, probably anyone who has had ministerial experience would agree. Members of Parliament have an effective supplementary role to call to account not only Ministers but Government Departments.
One thing about which I am disappointed is that there is no clear commitment to having these reports from Committees debated. The Select Committee on Procedure recommended what we called Select Committee Mondays—up to eight per year. If these reports are to be effective, the circle must be completed, and they must come back and be debated on the Floor of the House so that what goes on upstairs is given the wider publicity which only debates in this House can give. I hope that when winding up the Leader of the House will be able to give a clear indication of the Government's intention to ensure that Committee reports are debated.
There has been criticism that the Government have not accepted the recommendations on sending for papers and persons and the tougher suggestion of the Select Committee on Procedure that a condemnatory motion on a particular Minister who does not attend a Committee should take precedence at 3.30 p.m. That is not a great omission by the Government. In practice, if Ministers are called by Select Committees they will attend. In recent years there has been only one exemption, which is well known. It was when Lord Lever declined to attend before a Select Committee because the then Prime Minister told him that he should not. I do not doubt that Ministers will appear before Select Committees when required to do so.
We have dealt with only about a third of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that the Government will give a clear undertaking that when we return in October the House will have an early opportunity of deciding on the other recommendations that do not affect Select Committees. These recommendations are important. They consider European legislation and subordinate legislation. They also involve proposals for

117
changing the Standing Committee procedure so that those Committees will be able to receive evidence during three sittings. I notice that the first Standing Committee of this Parliament has been set up for the Education Bill. If that Committee starts work soon it will be under existing procedures and not under the Public Bill procedure, which would have allowed it to take evidence. That is disappointing.
There are a whole range of minor matters that the House should have an opportunity to decide. We should be allowed an opportunity to decide whether we want to make the Ten o'clock rule more tough. The Committee recommended that the Ten o'clock rule should not be suspended if fewer than 200 Members voted in the majority in support of the motion. No Government will agree with that, but the House should be given an opportunity to decide whether it wants to change an important rule that determines the length of its sittings.
There are other matters such as Friday sittings and whether we sit at 9.30 a.m. or 11 a.m. That is a minnow of a recommendation, but it is extraordinary that as Members of the legislative Assembly we cannot decide on it unless the Executive gives us that opportunity. I hope that the Government will give us that opportunity. There are other sensible recommendations about such matters as dates of recesses. I hope that in the autumn we shall have an opportunity to decide the important changes relating to Standing Committees that we are not debating tonight. With that, I welcome the proposals on the Order Paper.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. Peter Archer: I hope that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) will forgive me if in the interests of brevity I do not follow him, although some of the matters that he raised tempt me to comment. My intervention will be a pedestrian one about a specific matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) expressed the hope that I might catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not for the first time he seems to have had his wish.
118
There is a discrepancy between the proposals in the report and those before the House. The Procedure Committee recommended that the Select Committee on Home Affairs should include within its terms of reference the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Law Officers' Department. In today's proposals those two Departments have disappeared. Almost alone amongst the functional as opposed to the geographical Departments they are missing from the proposals.
The Leader of the House explained the Government's thinking—that it was to protect the independence of the judiciary. I do not dissent from that proposition. The House has always sought to exercise its powers in such a way as not to inhibit the independence of the judiciary, and I hope that it will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman said that it meant, for example, that there should not be public investigation into the appointment of judges. I do not quarrel with that.
Representative democracy is a sophisticated concept. There are certain kinds of appointment in which everyone should be entitled and encouraged to take part, particularly to positions where the principal function is to enunciate what is in the hearts of ordinary people. But where the appointment is to a function dependent on a technical qualification, it is more complicated.
I have never heard it suggested, for example, that the manager of the England football team should be appointed by direct election. I believe that that is for three reasons. First, where the appointment requires technical expertise those best qualified to judge are those who have been able to watch the candidates perform. Secondly, technical judgments of that kind are not always best carried out when the candidate is looking over his shoulder at potential electors. Thirdly, that kind of election does not always produce the boldest and most adventurous of spirits. It often produces someone who has simply not upset anyone.
I have a great respect for the American judicial system and I do not think that I will offend my American friends if I say that on this they serve as something of a warning. We have seen the way

119
that the Senate has exercised its power over Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. That provision in the constitution was intended originally to ensure that the Supreme Court was not packed with President's men. But many questions are asked publicly of potential appointees which are not immediately relevant to that issue. The procedure does not necessarily attract the best candidates if they are cross-examined about the whole of their past life and everything that they have said on subjects which bear little relation to the appointment. I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning on that.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that all the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department should be removed from public examination. There are some on which public discussion would be healthy. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West gave the example of the Public Record Office. There are many reasons why hon. Members should from time to time want a public discussion and investigation into the way its business is conducted.
We are from time to time approached by constituents about a witness who has been kept waiting an inordinate length of time or left shivering in a cold anteroom. There is no reason why such matters as facilities for those attending court should not be publicly discussed. The legal aid system and the provision of law centres also have no particular quality that makes it essential for investigations to be carried out in secrecy. What is embarrassing or secret about such matters?
There are areas in which the Lord Chancellor would probably welcome public discussion and want to give reasons for something which he has done or abstained from doing. He may wish to resolve some of the misconceptions that exist in this area. Goodness knows there are enough of them.
For those reasons I ventured to add my name to the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West.
Mr. English: When my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about this Lord Chancellor, is he not talking of the Lord Chancellor who wants to supervise us
120
through the Bill of Rights rather than have us supervise him?
Mr. Archer: I will not be drawn into discussing personalities in this case. My hon. Friend has made his point. I was speaking about the Lord Chancellor in the abstract.
Earlier my hon. Friend made the point that there was something a little odd about the proposal that the administration of the criminal law through the Home Office should be open, quite properly, to scrutiny. One would have thought that it would be, if anything, less embarrassing if the administration of the civil law were protected.
Mr. George Cunningham: My right hon. and learned Friend is talking as if the motion as at present drafted positively prevents the Committee on the Home Office from looking at the Lord Chancellor's Department. Is he sure that he is right? There is nothing in the motion that stops the Committee from doing so. I agree that it would have been better if the Lord Chancellor's Department had been added to the list of principal Departments covered, but there is nothing in this motion to inhibit that Committee, once it is established, from doing exactly what it wants in relation to the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Mr. Archer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was about to venture a word about the terms of reference of Committees.
It seems to me that the terms of reference may be what each Committee interprets them as being. It would be helpful if the Lord President would clarify this matter. But if something is specifically within or outside a Committee's terms of reference, it must be intended that the Committee should pay some attention to that when it decides what it will discuss.
Mr. George Cunningham: Some.
Mr. Archer: Yes. I say no more than that at this stage. Perhaps we shall get some clarification.
I wish to say a few words about the Law Officers' Department. When he was discussing this, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) referred to criminal prosecutions. It has

121
always been accepted that the Law Officers are responsible to this House for their policy on criminal prosecutions. But we all know that there are difficulties about public discussions on specific criminal prosecutions. If it has been decided to prosecute someone, the matter is probably sub judice and it would be grossly unfair if the trial were preceded by a public discussion on the reasons for the prosecution. If it were decided not to prosecute someone, it would be absurd and unfair to embark on a public discussion as to why that person was suspected in the first place. If someone has been acquitted, it would be distasteful to reopen all the evidence which has been considered by the court. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that criminal prosecutions are probably not suitable for this kind of investigation. But we may hear something from the Royal Commission on the prosecution process.
The same is true of other law enforcement matters, some of which trespass into the civil law, such as relator proceedings. All that is then left of the Law Officers' Department is the advice which it tenders to Government Departments; and no one is normally compelled, either private individual or public authority, to disclose the advice which he has received from his lawyer. So there is not very much left, and I would not press for the inclusion of the Law Officers' Department. I think that when my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West put down his amendment it was purely of a probing nature. I do not think that he intended to divide the House on it.
But this raises one question that goes right across the board. What happens if it is discovered that there are particular topics within a Department which do not readily lend themselves to public discussion? There have been references in the debate to what might happen. It has been suggested that we might rely upon the restraint of the Committee. But I suspect that a public discussion about what we intend to have a public discussion about would be as damaging as having the public discussion itself. Something more formal would probably be more appropriate. Yet it would be a great pity if we were left simply with an alternative
122
between having no investigation into the affairs of the Department and insisting that everything was entirely open and that nothing could be held back.
May I refer to one further matter raised in the discussion between the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West? The Committee had to decide whether the structure should depend upon subject matter or whether it should depend upon departmental responsibilities. Understandably, for the reasons given, it has opted for departmental responsibilities. However, there are some nomadic questions which wander backwards and forwards across the borders of departmental responsibility. Of course, the work of Departments can be co-ordinated. Sometimes there is a lead Department which takes the subject seriously, but sometimes there is a subject which is not the major responsibility of any Department, and all Departments regard it as a peripheral burden. When this happens there is a danger that that subject can disappear into the cracks between the respective Departments. Science and technology may be one of those matters, and there was a time when human rights and industrial safety certainly were. I suspect that the protection of children and the protection of animals may be among such matters. It would be a great pity if these issues also disappeared into the cracks between Committees, because it is just such topics which require their attention.
However, all this is an experiment and, provided that the institutions that are being erected now are not regarded as unchangeable and immutable, I welcome them.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I do not intend to add anything to the general argument in favour of the setting up of these departmentally related Committees. Sufficient to say that I am wholly in favour of this development, and support many of the arguments that have been deployed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Therefore, I shall restrict my remarks to some brief comments on amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 and the consequential ones which I have placed on the Order Paper.

123
I am very much opposed to the move away from the recommendation of the Select Committee on the sort of shadowing that the departmental Committee should involve. Originally it was suggested that there should be a Committee shadowing the Departments of Industry and Employment, and another Committee shadowing the Department of Trade. This has been turned around in the recommendations that we are discussing today. Now it is suggested that instead there should be a Select Committee on Employment on its own and a Select Committee dealing with the Departments of Industry and Trade.
My opposition to that stems from the fact that I believe that as far as possible these Committees should reflect the distribution of Ministries as they are. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that some years ago, because it was felt by a former Government that the burden of a vast Department covering both trade and industry was too immense, it was decided that we should revert to the previous situation of having a Department of Trade and a separate Department of Industry.
The old DTI having been abolished, we should move towards a situation in which these new Select Committees reflect the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade. They should be considered separately because each of them has very important subjects falling within their areas of responsibility.
It is important that the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade have separate Committees, but it is even more important that the Department of Trade has a Committee of its own. It should be remembered that on the formation of the present Administration the former Department of Prices and Consumer Protection was added to the responsibility of the Department of Trade. We now have an additional Minister of State at the Department of Trade responsible for consumer affairs and prices. Therefore, the public interest in matters such as prices and competition policy, monopolies and mergers, and not least fair trading, run the severe risk of being buried in a departmental Committee that is more likely to emphasise industrial matters. Industrial developments tend to be rather more glamorous and more prone
124
to catch the attention of the media and, from time to time, Members of this House. That would be a retrograde and unfortunate step. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend, who has done so much to move this matter forward expeditiously, to reconsider whether there should not be a separate Committee for the Department of Trade and Consumer Affairs.
The Department of Trade covers a wide field on its own, quite apart from its recent responsibility for prices and consumer affairs which it has just taken under its wing. It deals, for example, with company law, insurance, aviation and tourism. There are problems which should be investigated by a Committee which mirrors the Department of Trade and its consumer affairs branch.
Why have the Government taken this step? Is there a magical number of 12? What is wrong with having 13 Committees? Is there a shortage of Members of Parliament, as has been suggested? If my amendments were to be adopted the net increase would be an additional seven Members of Parliament. I cannot believe that it would be impossible to find seven volunteers on the Benches on both sides of the House. If the suggestions are not adopted that will be seen as a downgrading of the Department of Trade vis-à-vis the Department of Employment.
I am not against the suggestion that there should be a Department responsible for monitoring the Department of Employment alone. However, I am against the suggestion of pushing the Department of Trade, with all its consumer matters, into the ambit of the Department of Industry. Whereas it might be said that the Department of Employment will be responsible for rather less legislation in the immediate future than has been the case in the past, the possible development of a third London Airport, for example, should be considered in order to realise the important policy decisions and the enormous public expenditure within the Department of Trade.
Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind that Select Committees attempt to reach unanimous reports, does my hon. Friend believe that a Select Committee of the Department of Trade would reach a unanimous report on the question of a third London airport?
Mr. McCrindle: The House has tried and failed on several occasions to reach a unanimous decision. Therefore I do not see why my hon. Friend believes that, if the matter were moved into Committee, the Committee concerned with the activities of the Department of Trade would have less of an opportunity to succeed. Clearly, the matter has not been resolved yet.
Whether the matters undertaken by the Department of Trade relate to proposed Government expenditure on a truly enormous scale or whether they relate to the need to continue to reflect consumer interests, they demand the restoration of a Committee related to the Department of Trade. It should not be put in as an afterthought for the consideration of the Department of Industry. I hope that my right hon. Friend will see the force of that argument and that he will reconsider whether there is anything magical in the restriction of the number of Committees to 12.
8.3 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall speak briefly because I have had the opportunity to take part in other debates over the long period during which we have had these matters under consideration.
I strongly support the proposals before us tonight to develop a new and expanded system of Select Committees. That is not least because I served on a Committee that laboured hard and long to prepare the proposals and that is grateful now to have them set before the House. The proposals fall within the tradition of attempts to strengthen Parliament, particularly in relation to the Executive. That has been a long-standing commitment of my Party and I speak on its behalf in commending the proposals to the House.
Why do we—and the members of the Committee—feel that in the activities of a Select Committee there are better opportunities to scrutinise the Executive than there are in the many procedures of the House? One of the reasons for that belief is that the procedures of the House are intermittent in their impact upon the Executive and the procedures in Select Committees can be a great deal more continuous. Once every six weeks a Minister comes before the House at Ques-
126
tion Time. He may escape scrutiny altogether on a pressing matter because it does not fall among the highest rated questions of the day. Those questions themselves are only pinpricks on the subject under discussion.
A Committee can take an issue, pursue it thoroughly and in detail, and follow one point to another in a way that it is not possible to do in the other procedures of the House. The opportunity afforded for continuous scrutiny of a subject over a long period is a major advantage which will be enjoyed by the Select Committees.
The second reason why I feel that Select Committees offer a great advantage over the other procedures of the House is that they represent a break away from the pattern of government and opposition—the antithesis of what is the hallmark of many of the debates in the Chamber. The wisdom of Select Committees over the years, going back to the early experience of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, has been to find ground upon which it is possible for all the members of the Committee, from whatever party, to agree—ground upon which they can sign a common report. That has not led to any diminution in the subjects that are worthy of consideration by a Committee.
It is a refutation of those who oppose consensus whenever it occurs to show that there have been many issues of widespread concern upon which Members from different parties and from different ideologies can agree that the behaviour of the Government has been inadequate or that the direction of the Government has been wrong. It has been possible to do that on a wide range of issues through Select Committee reports.
Select Committees fulfil the desire to find a unanimous basis upon which there can be sound criticism. A group of Members from different traditions when confronted with the facts can reach such an agreement. That has been the success story of Select Committee work in the House so far. We should build upon that tradition.
Mr. Leadbitter: The hon. Gentleman has used the phrase "the success story" of Select Committees so far. Does he agree that the report now before us on balance says that the work done by the

127
Select Committee of Science and Technology hitherto would be better done in departmental Select Committees? If that is how the Procedure Committee feels, and having regard to the hon. Gentleman's emphatic declarations that Select Committees in the past have been successful, does it not appear that the work of science and technology, which goes beyond and within all Departments, might be one subject to be added to the departmental lists as a separate subject?
Mr. Beith: I thought that if I gave way I should be drawn into the arguments of special pleading which have occupied much of the debate. It is a pity that those who wish to plead a particular case have not the eloquence of the Lord Chancellor. He has been successful in getting his Department excluded from the remit of today's order. Perhaps hon. Members should take his advice about influencing the Leader of the House on the form of the resolution.
Although I will pay attention to the cases put forward for individual Committees I prefer the comprehensive approach that is provided by departmentally related Committees. That system gives an assurance that the whole range of Government business is covered. There are dangers in restricting the activities of those Committees to the Committees which are related to Departments by suggesting that the matter is a job for a Committee that deals with one subject only—wherever it may occur in government. I shall stand by that preference unless I am convinced to the contrary by anything that I may hear during the debate.
What is the outcome of the Select Committee recommendations that I have described? Usually, it is a report. Some of tonight's argument has been about how the report can be debated in the House. There are a number of Select Committee reports which need not be debated in the House and which may have an effect without giving rise to debate. It is to be hoped that many of the proceedings in Select Committees will have an effect that is based not on the eventual acceptance of a particular report but on the investigation—the opening-up of a particular subject. Indeed, much of the work of the PAC is reflected in a proper
128
apprehensiveness in Departments that it they misbehave that Committee will be on their backs. That is an effect that we hope to secure.
We would very much like to see other reports debated. I attach importance to trying to ensure means by which we may be assured of debates. I lament the absence of some such guarantee in these motions.
To go a stage further, I believe that the mere debating of some of the reports of Committees is not enough. It may not get the House very far simply to debate a take-note motion. This debate has been extremely lively, and one of the reasons is that this debate has an outcome. Decisions have to be reached, and hon. Members know that they must be within the precincts of the House because the House this evening has the opportunity to decide on the proposals put forward by the Select Committee.
Many of our debates on reports by Select Committees are attended by Members of the Committee concerned who are the main participants in the discussion, and little other interest is aroused. That often happens because the House is not given an opportunity to make a decision. Therefore, it is important that in this evolving pattern of Select Committees the House should ensure that it does not leave to the Executive the right to deny the House the opportunity to decide the issues raised by Select Committee reports.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that in these half-day debates few Members have very much chance of participating because Members who have taken part in the preparation of reports generally are called first. Is this not one of the practical difficulties of half-day debates?
Mr. Beith: That is true, but I attach a great deal of importance to the outcome of the debates and to the fact that too many of our debates on Select Committee reports have no outcome other than a decision to take note or not to take note of the report under consideration. We must consider how we can in future have debates which, where appropriate, allow the House to pass judgment on many of the decisions that arise from Select Committee reports.

129
The matter that is now before the House is not a revolution. It is an evolutionary and beneficial change. Many more things remain to be done. There are many recommendations of the Procedure Committee which the House should not be denied an opportunity to decide. There are many items about which hon. Members are genuinely concerned. I see the pained expressions on the faces of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip at the thought that they have more business to put before the House. However, I remind them that they have the responsibility to allow the House to take decisions about its own procedures. I believe that many of these decisions could be taken fairly quickly if we were given the opportunity to do so.
There are more matters relating to the effectiveness of Parliament which go far beyond the scope of the Procedure Committee's report, and there are matters with which the House will have to deal sooner or later. I conclude by reminding the House that its own composition and the pretence that is built into that composition, and the fact that Governments have large majorities in this House but not outside, is an issue which this House will have to face in the very near future. So long as we pretend that Governments have mandates when they are not elected by a majority of the population, we are failing to represent the wishes of our people.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is not present in the Chamber, because I wish to congratulate him not only on the content of his speech but on his reforming zeal. I am particularly pleased at the proposal to establish a Foreign Affairs Select Committee. For far too long we have been one of the few countries, if not the only country, in the Western world without a foreign affairs committee. For a country which lives by international trade, this was a remarkable weakness in our national Parliament.
I first referred to the inadequacy of our procedures for discussing foreign affairs in a debate in 1973. I followed it up in March 1977 by tabling early-day motion No. 222, which secured the
130
support of no fewer than 385 Members in all parts of the House, including 30 members of the present Government. It was a three-part motion which expressed the dissatisfaction of the House at the manner in which we discussed foreign affairs. It expressed the wish to improve the quality, and indeed the frequency, of our discussions by the establishment of a Select Committee. The third part of the motion related to the need for reports of such a Select Committee to be referred back to this Chamber for debate within 30 days of publication.
The announcement of the Government's intention to establish a Foreign Affairs Select Committee met the first two points of that motion. Following the publication of that motion there were discussions in the Select Committee on Overseas Development, of which I was then a member, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). We concluded that, notwithstanding the importance of foreign affairs generally, there was need to make provision for permanent scrutiny of overseas development, not least because it accounts for £ 600 million of taxpayers' money per annum.
Following those discussions, my hon. Friend put in a memorandum to the Select Committee on Procedure from which I should like to quote. On page 224 it stated:
"The Committee are convinced that any new committee structure should make proper provision for ensuring that the subject of Britain's relations with the developing world should be under continuous scrutiny as it is at present. Since many other Parliaments and international assemblies have their own specialist committees on development matters, it would be ironic if the United Kingdom, with its unusually close historical and continuing links with so much of the developing world, were to do less."
My hon. Friend went on to express a fear on behalf of the then Members of the Select Committee on Overseas Development. That fear was that if, instead of providing a separate Committee on overseas development, this subject were to be a matter embraced by a Committee covering both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the then Overseas Development Ministry, it might easily be overlooked unless the Committee proposed to allow for a permanent Sub-Committee on development.

131
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to this matter and told the House that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee could appoint a Sub-Committee to consider overseas development. However, the fear that I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House still have is that if it is the Government's intention that such a Sub-Committee should be permanent during the lifetime of the parent Committee, charged with responsibility for overseas development, it will be impossible for the Foreign Affairs Committee to establish a temporary Sub-Committee to examine matters of immediate but passing importance in an economical way.
I shall be grateful if in reply to the debate the Minister will confirm that the Government intend that the Sub-Committee will be permanent and will concern itself with overseas development. If that is so and the parent Committee wishes to look at problems overseas—which one might foresee, for example, in Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands—it would be able to do so only if it were prepared to send the whole of the Foreign Affairs Committee comprising 11 hon. Members and Clerks at what may be enormous public expense.
The Foreign Affairs Committee is special because, in the nature of things, it is concerned with affairs overseas, the examination of which requires overseas travel. Therefore, there is a case for enabling it to do so at the least expense to the public.
The Government's reluctance to see more Sub-Committees set up may be related to fears that the staff of the Clerk's Department may need to be expanded. Yet it may be cheaper to make extra assistance available to that Department for the scrutiny of foreign affairs than to send large numbers of hon. Members overseas on missions for the Committee which could be carried out satisfactorily by a much smaller temporary Sub-Committee set up for that purpose.
I hope that, for these special reasons, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give favourable consideration to the Foreign Affairs Committee having two separate Sub-Committees as suggested in my amendments Nos. 29 and 32.
132
I refer to recommendation 61 of the Select Committee on Procedure report, which refers to the Liaison Committee. I quote from page cxxviii. Recommendation 61 reads as follows:
"The informal Chairmen's Liaison Committee should be replaced by a select committee, to be known as the Liaison Committee, consisting of one representative of each permanent select committee, together with additional Members to ensure that the overall membership of the committee reflects the composition of the House.…"
In his remarks this afternoon my right hon. Friend preferred not to comment on that, but said that he hoped that during the debate hon. Members would let him know what their views were on the establishment of such a Select Committee.
My view is that there should be a properly constituted Committee of the House empowered to consider requests for funds for overseas travel. I would hope that such a Committee would have the power and the responsibility to make decisions on overseas travel costs after the fullest consideration of the purpose of overseas studies. The Liaison Committee has taken decisions on such matters in the past with wisdom and tact but without the full authority of the House. I believe that that is unfair to members of the Committee and could be unfair to Select Committees whose plans to travel might be turned down, or changed, without proper authority.
8.21 p.m.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: In responding to your plea for brevity in contributions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I indicate that in my contribution I propose to deal with amendment No. 27 standing in my name and in that of hon. Members on both sides of the House? The amendment seeks the establishment of a Select Committee to establish public access to official information, to make recommendations and to monitor progress towards the implementation of such recommendations.
I listened attentively to the Leader of the House when he introduced the debate. He spoke with an engaging frankness and candour and with characteristic enthusiasm. I share an admiration for his frankness, but I cannot wholeheartedly share the enthusiasm that he generated for the establishment of these 12 Select Committees related to individual

133
Government Departments. I noticed the words that the right hon. Gentleman used. He suggested that the establishment of these 12 departmentally related Committees was a crucial decision, historically significant, arrived at with speed and dispatch. I suppose it is reasonable for Leaders of the House to put those interpretations on motions, particularly on those which they are moving.
As far as historical significance is concerned, it might be a little early to make such a judgment. Only time will tell when we have seen how these Select Committees work. I was interested in the point made by the spokesman for the Liberal Party, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He said that this had been a live debate. I would have welcomed a much livelier one. This "live" debate sounded a bit like a mutual admiration society. The people who have contributed, from both sides of the House, have mostly been members of Select Committees, or admirers of Select Committees. They have said what a splendid job Select Committees have done and will do in the future.
I do not dispute those claims, but I want to follow on from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said about there being at the end of every battle the beginning of a new battle and demands for more advances. That is my role in the debate. I feel that I have taken on an Oliver Twist complex in asking for more. I want the 12 Select Committees related to individual Departments, but I also want a Select Committee to establish the criteria for public access to official information and to monitor that access.
Government in modern industrialised countries has become more complex. The responsibilities of Governments have increased and their power and influence has become more pervasive. I welcome the motion, but I am asking for more. The motion will provide a significant addition to the armoury of parliamentarians and Back Benchers in their relationship with Ministers and individual Departments. It will assist parliamentarians in bringing Ministers and Departments to account.
But the provision of greater access to official information for parliamentarians
134
is only one side of the equation. The other side is the need to establish and ensure public right of access to official information. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by my amendment to put right their omission and will establish a Select Committee on access to official information.
The public have a right of access to official information. I know from my former responsibilties that there is a demand for greater public access. It was encouraged by the Croham directive of July 1977. That was the directive contained in a letter sent by the then head of the Civil Service, Sir Douglas Allen—now Lord Croham—to all Civil Service departments encouraging them to make the background information on policy considerations available for public access.
An appreciable amount of public information came forth from that directive and under the previous Administration there was a significant improvement in the amount of official information made available to the public. Of perhaps greater significance is how the author of the Croham directive saw the operation of the directive that he issued. In a Radio 3 broadcast in August 1978, Lord Croham said:
"There are signs that some Departments, doubtless due to the enthusiasm of their Ministers, are much more active in preparing and releasing material. I think the laggards should do better."
He went on to argue for a regular review by Parliament.
It was understandable that Lord Croham should argue that a variation in criteria was established by individual Ministers and individual Departments of State. One of my colleagues, on seeing the amendment in my name, said to me "Why are you concerned about providing greater public access within the context of a Select Committee on official information? Surely the proposal to establish a Select Committee related to the Treasury and Civil Service Department would give you very much the same result."
Quite frankly I do not believe that that would be the case. One individual Civil Service department or one Department of State cannot establish the criteria and ensure that they are followed in every Government Department. One thing my recent ministerial experience

135
has taught me is that ministerial authority changes depending on the ministerial area of authority and responsibility.
The case for my amendment was made crystal clear in paragraph 21 of Cmnd. 7520, issued during the course of the previous Administration, only a matter of months ago, in March 1979. The previous Government's policy on open government was explained in paragraph 21:
"the Government acknowledge that administration is still conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy which cannot always be justified."
There are nine countries where access to official information is enshrined in legislative form, or is contemplated, or is under consideration. They are Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Canada, France, West Germany, Australia, the Netherlands and the United States of America. That is the extent of the development in the demand for greater public access to official information.
It might be argued whether it would be more efficient and effective to await legislation. Quite frankly I believe that a Select Committee for direct access to official information would be more effective if it were to establish a code of practice which would, I hope, establish criteria that would be generally applicable throughout the whole of the Government administration.
The proposal in the amendment is important. The idea of making legislative provision for public access to official information poses a number of problems that I had the burden of seeking to explain when we were considering the Official Information Bill in the previous Parliament. Legislative provision for public access to official information would, in the event, involve legal judgments on ministerial judgments as to disclosure, and exempt material, and a variety of other problems would be involved.
The House is doing a useful service today by debating the motion. I hope that the motion will be carried, and equally I hope that amendment No. 27 will be carried. If we are assisting parliamentarians by that which we are doing during the course of the debate, I urge the House to remember that the public are still waiting. They have a right to know the factors and influences which are
136
brought to bear in the determination of Government policy.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is back with us, because I want to draw to his attention not only that I think that he has taken the right decision in the motion that he put forward but further steps which need to be taken to make this decision fully effective.
The old Select Committee system as we knew it could, at its best, be extremely effective. However, its efficacy tended to be sporadic because the number of Departments which the Sub-Committees covered was far too great for them to follow up investigations with consistency, however useful those individual investigations might have been.
I had the good fortune to serve on the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee from its inception, and there were some memorable reports from that Sub-Committee, especially when we were going through the trauma of the collapse of British Leyland and the recovery operation for Chrysler. These exemplified some interesting shortcomings of Select Committees. For instance, it was quite clear to the Sub-Committee that the viability of the Chrysler rescue operation could not be detached from the future of the Chrysler operation in Iran. Yet the Sub-Committee was prohibited by the present Leader of the Opposition, who was then Foreign Secretary, from going to Iran so that it could make its own assessment of this crucial element in the viability of the Chrysler recovery operation.
We also had the interesting experience of the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is now in the House of Lords, refusing, on the orders of the Prime Minister, to appear before that Select Committee, which was under the very distinguished chairmanship of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), whom I am glad to see here and whose courage and integrity shone right through the proceedings. Later on, under the chairmanship of his hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), we had the interesting experience of the Attorney-General refusing point-blank to advise the Committee. This was not just

137
on some curiosity of the law. It was on points of law about which departmental witnesses told the Committee that they did not know what the law was.
It would have been reasonable either for the Departments concerned to find out from the Attorney-General, whose job it was to advise Government Departments, and then come back to us, or for the Attorney-General, who quite untruthfully said that he and his predecessors had not advised Select Committees—and we were able to find many precedents for his having advised them—to advise the Committee. He did not advise the Committee. Nor did the Departments concerned.
When we came to write our report, which was on the British fishing industry, there were aspects of law germane to that report on which we were unable to get advice of the calibre that we needed.
It may come as a surprise to some hon. Members to know that there is a clear and unambiguous Standing Order of the House, Standing Order No. 82, which simply is not enforced and for the lack of which enforcement the examination of witnesses by hon. Members is rendered unnecessarily difficult. It is short. I shall read it:
"To every question asked of a witness under examination in the proceedings of a select committee there shall be prefixed in the minutes of the evidence the name of the Member asking such question."
Nothing could be more unambiguous. Yet one can turn through the proceedings of the Committee for page after page without being able to find either who is asking the question or who is answering it. When reference is made, during quick exchanges with witnesses, to Question No. 1945 and an hon. Member, who is examining that witness, quickly flicks to it and cannot tell either who is asking the question or who is answering, this does not make for efficient and efficacious examination. I am not suggesting that a new Standing Order should be made. I am merely suggesting that the House should enforce a Standing Order which can be seen by all who care to read it.
It is not a reform we need. It is simply enforcement of an existing Standing Order. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) remarked
138
that whoever held the purse strings was the repository of power. That is true. But it is also true of Select Committees. It may again come as a surprise to some hon. Members to know that there is no extant authority for paying the expenses of any Select Committee while taking evidence in the United Kingdom. The resolution—a pretty woolly one—taken to authorise reimbursement of Select Committee expenses refers only to visits abroad. Abroad, by definition, does not include the United Kingdom. So one has Select Committees set up to control public expenditure the arrangement for whose housekeeping is so woolly that were the boot on the other foot, we could justly be criticised for spending money without authority.
My original point on this restricted area is that those who control the purse are in effective power. There is a so-called Liaison Committee, or Chairmen's Committee, set up by no resolution of the House, which is in a position to prevent Select Committees from undertaking with great expedition evidence-taking which is necessary for the prompt reporting to the House. This has happened, contrary to what my right hon. Friend said, in the last Session of Parliament.
Select Committees may need to change their travel arrangements at short notice in response to changes in whipping in the House and to changes in the business of the House. If that has to await, on the grounds that it may result in increased expenditure, a meeting of the Liaison Committee, which may not be within a fortnight, the whole structure of the Select Committee's plans for taking evidence can be brought to ruin.
It would be much better if the House decided to vote to the various Select Committees a budget, as is done to Government Departments. The Select Committee can get on with its job, being accountable to the House for its spending of that budget. If it needs a Supplementary Estimate, it can come back to the House as a Government Department does. That would seem a sensible parallel to the disciplines that we expect the Departments to adopt, whose affairs we are endeavouring to monitor.
Visits abroad can be taken by the public at large to be perks and a joyride. In the work of the Sub-Committee, of which I have personal experience, on the British

139
fishery industry, we had 12 or 13 meetings in only 36 hours in Iceland.
What we learnt about the necessary characteristics of fishery protection vessels and what we learnt at the marine biological laboratory at Reykjavik and Bergen enabled us to put questions to the Ministry witnesses and to confront them with evidence that we obtained from expert sources. When they were confronted with that evidence they admitted that the evidence which they had given to the Committee a couple of months earlier was incorrect. We should not have been aware of that if we had not had the opportunity to travel.
In one country, which I would rather not name, it was brought home forcefully to us how untrue were some of the statements made by that country's official spokesmen. A senior Norwegian civil servant pointed out to us that although we were told that Britain as a member of the EEC could not negotiate with a third country bilaterally for access to fishing waters, that was exactly what Denmark did with Sweden on Kattegat herring.
These were crucial discoveries which would not have been made had we remained in Britain. They enabled a report to be produced to stop the slaughter of fish breeding stocks before it was too late.
What is the effect of the Select Committees? There is an effect upon Ministers. There is an effect upon civil servants and upon policy. A Select Committee often holds up a mirror to individual civil servants in which they see themselves and in which they and their seniors discover the paucity and unrepresentative nature of the data on which they make what they believe to be rational decisions.
There is also the function of accountability. We all know that a tremendous amount of real power resides not on the Treasury Bench but in the Civil Service. For years only Ministers were answerable to Parliament. The Select Committee system has made the Civil Service answerable to Parliament. That has been healthy internally, from permanent secretaries down.
My Sub-Committee summoned the permanent secretary of the Treasury, Sir Douglas Wass, and gave him a rough ride, because of the unacceptable, inept
140
performance of the Treasury witnesses which the Treasury had put in to waste the Committee's time. The effect of that meeting was not long in being seen. The Department of Industry, which had put in a derisory witness, withdrew that evidence and the top echelons of that Department never stopped coming through the door There was shock therapy of that kind.
The effect on Ministers is several-fold. It focuses their attention on a subject which may, for adequate reasons, not have commanded much of their attention. But, in preparation for the meeting of the Select Committee the Ministers do a lot of homework on that restricted focus. They discover for themselves some of the skeletons in the cupboard, whether or not the Committee does.
There is an effect on policy when the Department finds out not only the shortcomings of the data on which it has taken decisions, but information of which it was unaware emanating from other sources to that Select Committee. That enables the Department, without additional prompting from the Committee, to tailor its policies more rationally. So it is not a question of using just a battering ram. It is not a question of bullying or of pure research. All have their place. It is the sum total of them, and I believe that in recommending to the House that we should accept the structure recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure my right hon. Friend has done a real service to the House.
I should also like to pay my tribute to him for responding to our earlier debate when the point was made about the advisability—the point made by the Procedure Committee in its report—of having the membership of Select Committees nominated by the Committee of Selection. the Chairman of which I am so happy to see here, rather than by the two Whips' Offices. This again shows a genuine willingness on the part of the Leader of the House to respond to relevant debate, and that, I think, augurs well for our future.
I believe that we have now got what is basically the right structure. I believe that it is necessary to have power to send for Ministers as recommended by the Procedure Committee, even though I recognise fully that there will be circumstances in which their answers will be less

141
full than the Committee might wish. It is absurd that anyone in the country can be summoned before a Select Committee except Ministers who are paid to be answerable to Parliament. That must be a constitutional, rational and real absurdity.
With those reservations, and my point about Standing Order No. 82, which is a serious one in the cut and thrust of examination of witnesses, I believe that the new Select Committee system, if the House adopts it, will provide a more consistent check on the policies followed by the Department and on the expenditure involved in them.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison), who appeared to see some merit in the view that members of Select Committees would benefit from being changed around. On the contrary, a Department has a richesse of expertise with which to confound Members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, however, have one great weapon, and that is their memories. When Members of Parliament have been on a Select Committee for some years, perhaps for a longer period than many of the senior officials have held posts in the Department concerned, if they are endowed with an effective memory that can be a devastating weapon of inquiry and an effective means of establishing a consistency that might otherwise not be available.
So in that wise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and hope that it will be approved by the House tonight.
8.54 p.m.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: In welcoming and supporting these proposals I am conscious that it would be presumptuous of me to dwell at length on their merits, since I am a Member of but seven weeks' standing. I hope, however, that it will seem less presumptuous of me if I seek to justify amendment No. 25, which deals with the retention of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.
In defending the retention of that Committee, I do not, of course, defend its last report on immigration, which was unfortunate to say the least. However, the earlier reports of the old Select Commit-
142
tee were well received and made a significant contribution to thinking and understanding on race relations problems in this country. At first sight it might appear somewhat illogical to seek to retain a Select Committee which cuts right across the proposed departmental Select Committee. However, the two could co-exist with advantage to the House and to the issues that would be discussed.
Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) posed a question to the Leader of the House regarding certain issues which had previously come within the scope of discussion by the Select Committee and how they would be dealt with by the new Select Committees. I notice from the report of the Select Committee on Procedure that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration in the previous Session suggested that certain aspects of the subject of race relations might be neglected under the new arrangements.
That is only the nub of the point that I wish to make. There are many issues that might, under the new arrangements, be left out which deal with race relations and immigration if there were not to be this new Select Committee. I appreciate that the intention is that the Home Office would be the lead Department. Indeed, that is suggested in the report, where we read:
"We recommend that the new Home Affairs Committee should be empowered to refer detailed consideration of race relations and immigration matters to a sub-committee as and when the committee think necessary."
I fear that leaving such things to a Select Committee concerned entirely with Home Office matters would neglect the race relations aspects of such subjects as education, housing and, indeed, the whole topic of the West Indian community upon which the previous specialised Select Committee considered and reported.
It is suggested that the Select Committee on Home Affairs might consider the workings of the Race Relations Act, but that neglects the point that many of the aspects of that Act call for responses not from the Home Office but from, say, local government. I fear that that whole area would be neglected under the new arrangements.

143
Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) referred to some of the good reports that had been produced by the previous Select Committee. I suggest that those reports would not have appeared had we simply had the new arrangements without this particular Select Committee to help us along.
There are one or two other advantages of the course of action that I am suggesting. By having a Select Committee similar to the previous one, Members would be able to acquire, or, if they were the same Members, retain, their specialised knowledge of many race relations issues. One notes from earlier reports that those Members had become pretty expert over the years. There is also the question of time. Race relations issues extend into many aspects of life in this country and one questions whether merely by having a Sub-Committee of the new Select Committee on Home Affairs time would be found to go into many race relations issues in sufficient detail.
It may be that there are other issues that one would seek to put forward as being exceptional and demanding a separate Select Committee—that is, apart from race relations. But I suggest that there are two tests that one might apply and that would enable the course of action I am suggesting to qualify, and that might exclude some other special subjects for different specialised Select Committees. The two tests are, first, the importance of the issue that would be reviewed or scrutinised by the Select Committee and, secondly, whether that issue could be adequately handled and scrutinised under the arrangements that we are discussing today of the normal departmental Select Committees. By those two tests, race relations would get a pretty poor hearing under the new arrangements and that is why I suggest that we should have a Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration as part and parcel of the new system. The main opposition to the suggestion is likely to be that it does not fit neatly and logically into the new arrangements. One can take neatness and logic too far. I quote from something written some years ago by G. K. Chesterton. He said:
"The real trouble with this world of ours is not that it is an unreasonable world, nor even
144
that it is a reasonable one. The commonest kind of trouble is that it is nearly reasonable, but not quite. Life is not an illogicality yet it is a trap for logicians. It looks just a little more mathematical and regular than it is; its exactitude is obvious, but its inexactitude is hidden; its wildness lies in wait."
Those words suggest to me that logic can go so far. I hope that the House will, as it were, go a little further than pure logic and neatness and support the suggestion that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration be retained as part of our new arrangements.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Fred Silvester: I shall not deal in detail with the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs), except to say that one of the reasons the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration was set up was that the subject became a matter of political pressure. I suspect that if the Home Affairs Committee, or any other Committee which might deal with relevant subjects, feels that this is a matter of political pressure and interest, it will adopt that subject. That seems to be true of the way in which the whole operation has gone so far.
That leads me to my main point. It may be presumptuous, but not unreasonable, to assume that my right hon. Friend's motion will be carried and that we will move into a system of departmentally related Select Committees. Therefore, I do not want to argue the case for those again, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) did so with such clarity.
What I should like to consider is what will happen from here on. This is a moment not of revolution, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, nor of gloom, despondency or cynicism, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). This motion is neutral. It can either be a continuation of the old stage game or it can be something new. That is the question to which the House must now address itself.
I for one would be gravely disappointed, and it would make this exercise pretty pointless although quite interesting, if we ended up with a system of Select Committees which operated in much the same way as the Sub-Committees of the previous Expenditure Committee. Although they were satisfying to

145
hon. Members who served on them, and sometimes produced good reports, their total effectiveness upon the work of the Government was limited in relation to the amount of time and effort that went into them. Therefore, in what we are now setting up we are looking for something which is sharper and tougher.
I should like to mention one or two points about the future. I address these remarks to the Lord President, because although he is not wholly responsible for all of them, they will largely be brought about as a result of his initiative. Most of these matters will have to be brought before the House by a Minister of the Crown.
First, the Expenditure Committee has been working with a wholly inadequate staff. Financial control of the House is still too much in the hands of the Treasury. If one puts those two points together, we arrive at this new system of Select Committees and the golden dawn is perhaps upon us—"perhaps" because one must ask what resources will be available to these Committees.
I urge the Government, who have my full support on matters of public expenditure control, to recognise that one way of securing public expenditure control is to provide good resources for those people who do the controlling. Although that may mean that the balance sheet of the House of Commons will look a little more expensive in the short term, the effect upon the control of public expenditure could be considerable.
This also relates to a whole series of matters that have come up in the course of the debate, such as the Liaison Committee, about which my right hon. Friend said he will listen to views before bringing a decision before the House. Clearly the Liaison Committee, as proposed in the report, should be set up. We need some fairly strong body to make sure that these Committees are properly serviced and that their voices are properly heard against those of Ministers from the Treasury.
Talking about attitudes to these matters, the way in which the Sub-Committees have been treated has to be a little matter of concern. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has put down an amendment which would allow all
146
the Committees to have Sub-Committees. As I understand it, the report of the Procedure Committee would have allowed a wide discretion in this matter. The Government are seeking to limit that discretion. I ask myself why it is a matter with which the Government need concern themselves at all. If a Committee wishes to appoint a Sub-Committee and that is controlled by the Liaison Committee in the interests of economy and to avoid overlap and so on, why should the Government wish to intervene?
In looking at all these matters, I would hope that the Government will continue to work on the principle that as far as possible the matters of the House shall be governed by the House, the Members of the House and Committees of the House, and not too often referred to the convenience of the Government.
I come to my second point about the future of these Committees, which I regard as very important. I do not honestly know whether I want the Chairmen of Committees to be paid, but the essential feature of these reforms is that the House of Commons must provide what one might loosely call a different career structure. One of the problems from which this House suffers, which is different from those of other Assemblies, is that the Government sit here. They are part of it. They are a natural attraction. They are a source of patronage. Many Members quite honourably desire to be members of the Government or want to get something out of them. Therefore, the Government's position on the Floor of the House is very powerful. For many other Members, the position of the press in the Gallery is the other attraction. One goes either for the publicity or for the Government.
However, there ought to be a further attraction, which is for those people who wish to make the House of Commons function as a control of the Executive or a watchdog over them in its own right. That should be a powerful attraction.
Mr. Kaufman: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. What he is saying is that if an hon. Member is either on the Government side and has not been selected by the Prime Minister or on the Opposition side and cannot find anything else to do, a Select Committee system of this kind should be

147
created to find something to do, because he cannot find himself something to do.
Mr. Silvester: That may be the right hon. Member's interpretation of what I have said, but clearly he was not listening. I suggest that he thought up that one before I started speaking. The Select Committee system is what we happen to be debating now. It is one of the functions which a Member performs. Many hon. Members do it very well and I hope that they will have an opportunity to do more of it. The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and many other Members will doubtless take up opportunities and will bob up and down in this Chamber and do many other worthwhile things.
One of the problems in dealing with this matter is that some of the procedures that the House sets up are corrupted by the need to make party capital. I shall not go over this matter at great length. Various people have mentioned the Supply procedure. One could add to that the Ten Minutes Rule procedure, and there are other matters, such as Question Time, which are now organised in a sense to get the best position for the party. It is almost impossible to devise a series of rules which will not be "corrupted" by that. I am sure that in a few years the Select Committee procedures will be subject to just as much political and party pressure as other forms of procedure now are.
Thirdly—this is of great importance—we can write all these procedures and draw up the Standing Order, and we can even agree to staff the Committees properly, but it will be up to members of the Select Committees to devise how they will function. They have the great advantage that they are continuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton substantially outlined those advantages.
We must also look to other things. There is the stability of having a physical office in the building, the choice of Chairman and the way that that Chairman conducts the proceedings of the Committee. Anyone who has been to these Committees knows that our expertise in these areas is not great. Sometimes the inquisi-
148
torial function of the Committees is well done, and at others it is not. We have a lot to learn about these processes.
We must also ensure that the Committees obtain the necessary information. An amendment has been put down which would set up a Committee to ensure that we all get the right papers, but there is no way to ensure that other than by the continuing activity of Members. It is important to make that point. There is no simple alternative. There is a natural and continuing tension between the Government and Back Bench Members which should exist. Some battles will be won and others lost. Unless there is continuous pressure to secure what Select Committees want, no matter what is written into the rules, we shall not succeed.
The fourth important feature for the future was dealt with excellently at some length by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It concerns access to this House. Although not all reports should be debated in the House, there should be a convention whereby the Chairman of a Committee can on matters of major importance bring his report to the House. There is no difficulty in that. I do not disagree with the proposal of the Procedure Committee for eight-Committee Mondays, but that could also be achieved by giving the Speaker the decision in that matter, as with Standing Order No. 9 debates. He could decide and in time establish a convention of what is urgent, what is important and what can be brought before the House.
These matters are for the future, but are of great importance in determining whether what we do tonight will influence the control of the Government or is merely a new label on an old bottle. One advantage is that we have a Leader of the House who is keen to get on with these proposals.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. Frank Hooley: The Leader of the House said that this was the first instalment in this process and he hoped to consider other suggestions by the Procedure Committee. I therefore throw in for his consideration a simple but useful proposition—that on Friday the House should meet from 9.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. rather from 11 a.m.

149
until 4 p.m. It would be of great advantage to hon. Members with far-flung provincial constituencies, who often want to be here to partake in the business but have constituency engagements. The recommendation is in the report and if the Leader of the House considers it it might provoke a considerable response in the House.
I want to discuss the nuts and bolts of Select Committees rather than general high principles. First, however, I should like to deal with the notion that somewhere in Whitehall, in Cabinet committees and ministerial files, there is a hoard of secret, high-powered information, and if only Select Committees could get at it we should all be better informed, government would be better and the country would be much better run. That is an absolute myth. There are files and documents that we are not allowed to see, but I doubt whether they contain high-powered and important information that would make government different.
Over the past couple of years we have had the fringe banking crisis, the sterling crisis and the scandal of the Crown Agents. We have had scandal after scandal in the City and among businesses. The Department of Trade sat there in apathetic indifference and did nothing about that. If all that secret and high-powered information is in the files of Whitehall, why are Government Departments taken completely aback time after time whenever a crisis occurs? They seem to run headlong into crisis after crisis, despite all the information that they have.
My belief is that the trouble with Whitehall and the Ministries is that they are not sufficiently equipped to deal with the vast complexity of the problems that modern government throws on them. One of the great advantages of the Select Committee system is that it provides a technique for drawing on the vast amount of expertise which lies outside Whitehall, the Civil Service and the Ministries.
The Select Committees have formal power to summon anybody they like. This formal power does not need to be exercised, because whatever the subject under discussion there are always scores of individuals—very expert people—who are only too willing to come along and give Parliament the benefit of their expertise
150
and knowledge. It is this process of drawing on outside expertise which is one of the immense contributions that Select Committees can make.
One example of this occurred when the Select Committee on Science and Technology was looking at genetic engineering. The first thing we did was to go to some of the greatest international experts on molecular biology at the university of Bristol and listen to what they had to say. They were able to tell us things that no civil servant, no Minister and no person in Whitehall could possibly tell us. They were the genuine experts in this field and they were able to give us an outline of the problems that we wanted to discuss.
There is the question of Sub-Committees, and this brings me to my amendment. It is quite absurd that only three Committees should be designated in the order as having the power to appoint Sub-Committees. In fact there is an odd type of Whitehall snobbery here, because the Committees that are allowed to appoint Sub-Committees are the classic three—the Home Office, Foreign Affairs and the Treasury. These are the three senior Ministries of Whitehall, and presumably because of this peculiar seniority they have the power to appoint Sub-Committees. It is absolute nonsense that they should be able to do so and other Committees should not. The range of topics which the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, for example, would look at would certainly require at least one Sub-Committee and probably two or more. All the Select Committees should have the power to appoint a Sub-Committee if they felt this was necessary.
I appreciate that the Leader of the House and his advisers are probably worried about the fact that if every one of the 12 Select Committees set up three or more Sub-Committees there would be a vast proliferation with which the staff of the House and Parliament itself could not cope. Therefore, my amendment suggests that each Select Committee should have the power to set up one Sub-Committee, and that they would have to come to the House to ask permission if they wanted to go beyond that figure. Certainly, the present restriction giving power to only three Select Committees is absurd and illogical.

151
I have some reservations about the size of the quorum of the Committees. In fact, I think the Committees themselves are rather small for the range of subjects they will have to examine. I do not accept the argument that if they were larger there would not be enough hon. Members to serve on them. There are about 500 Back Benchers in the House. At the most, about 250 might be involved in Standing Committees on legislation at any one time. This would leave another 250 to 300 to staff Select Committees. It would be perfectly appropriate to have larger numbers than those suggested.
There could be some disadvantage in having a quorum as small as three. It might possibly reflect on the seriousness with which the Committees were going about their business if there were only three members on any one Committee actually conducting an inquiry. A slightly larger quorum might be necessary. Clearly that is a matter for debate.
I support the idea of a Liaison Committee, as has been suggested in the report of the Procedure Committee and as was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). There may well be points of procedure and practical problems on which the new Committees would like to exchange information. The Liaison Committee would be useful in that respect—apart from the problem of the allocation for funds for travelling.
The question of the chairmanship of the Committees has not been discussed so far. Whether it would be regarded as automatic that they should be taken by the Opposition or whether it is intended that the party of Government—whatever that happened to be—would seek the chairmanship is something which should be considered. There is no indication in the motion—obviously, there cannot be. However, it would be interesting to know what is in the minds of the usual channels of the two Front Benches and what they are cooking up on the matter.
The Leader of the House may be happy to leave it to the wisdom of the individual Committee to select the hon. Member it thinks is the most distinguished or competent for the job. However, things do not generally happen in that way in the House. I should like to know whether
152
it is envisaged that the chairmanships, will be shared between all the major parties or whether the Government or the Opposition of the day will seek to take the lot.
Finance and staffing are important considerations for the effective working of the Committees. Reference has been made to those matters in the debate. I should like to refer to a suggestion that I made in a previous debate, namely, that if the staff of the House of Commons Library were expanded and strengthened the Library could be a valuable source of information for Committees and could provide them with background and specialist information.
I understand that if there were a serious collision between a Committee and a Minister as to whether he or she should give evidence, the existing Standing Orders of the House could resolve the matter. If that is correct I feel that the matter should be left as it is. There must be the ultimate power to summon Ministers. If the Standing Orders of the House provide that a Select Committee, by making a special report, can ensure, eventually, that a Minister appears, I shall be content with that provision. If the Standing Orders do not so provide I believe that there should be a provision to make clear that in the final analysis any Select Committee of the House can require a Minister to appear before it and give evidence.
In my experience of Select Committees over the past 13 years there has been little difficulty in summoning Ministers to give evidence to Select Committees. Little friction has arisen on the point. However, somewhere along the line there should be specific arrangements to ensure that Ministers attend.
Mr. J. W. Rooker: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the sanction is left to the Floor of the House it will be used only in an extreme circumstance? Because of the nature of getting the Minister to the Committee the House will generally divide—as it has done in my short time in this place—on party lines. That is the problem. The sanction is too great to leave to the House and that is why the power should be given to the Committee. In that way, when the power is used the problem of the split on party lines will not arise.
Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend is being pessimistic. There are occasions when the House does not divide on party lines on a matter of this sort and there are occasions when the House is prepared to exert its authority. Where it is seen to be in the good interests of Parliament that a matter should be resolved in a particular way a majority can often be found in the House to ensure that that is so. I think the House will find that on the main issue we shall not divided on party lines tonight.
Is it envisaged that hon. Members will be restricted to membership of one Committee? Will it be open to an hon. Member, with the time and inclination to do so, to serve on two Committees? In the period 1966–1970 I served on two Select Committees simultaneously. Furthermore, in the period 1974–79 I served on two such Committees and found it quite possible to do so. I am sure that my colleagues will bear out the fact that I undertook a reasonable amount of work on each of those Committees. I should like to know whether hon. Members will be permitted to serve on one or more of these new departmental Committees.
If a departmental Select Committee is conducting an inquiry which overruns the boundaries of the Department and wishes to take evidence from other Departments, is there likely to be any objection from the Government or from Whitehall? In other words, if the Department of Education and Science Committee was examining research matters and felt that some aspect of agricultural research was of interest to its deliberations, would the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be able to say to that Committee "We are sorry but we are not within your purview. Therefore, we cannot give evidence"? I hope that that will not happen. However, once a departmental structure is set up, I think that there will be a danger that Whitehall and Ministers will plead the nature of that departmental structure and perhaps will decline to give evidence to a Committee to which they felt they had no responsibility.
Having raised certain nuts and bolts points, I must say that on the general principle I am wholly in favour of the proposed new structure. Indeed, I submitted a memorandum to the Select Committee about two years ago roughly suggesting this structure. I have no quarrel
154
with the proposed structure. However, I do not see how one can add to this structure the other Select Committees for which special pleas have been advanced. I admire the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and indeed I served on that body for many years and found its work most valuable. However, I do not see how one can have, concurrently with a departmental Committee on energy, for example, a Select Committee on Science and Technology which will work away at the vast array of energy questions which have been tackled in the past two years. I believe that one should have one system or the other.
There may have been some merit of flexibility in the old system. On the whole, I prefer the merits of coherence and systematic structure contained in the present proposals, and I shall support them.
9.34 p.m.
Sir Bernard Braine: I was encouraged, but not altogether surprised, by the way in which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House introduced his proposals. He has made a good start in his important but sensitive office.
For some years I have begun to despair that the machinery of Parliament has been growing less and less capable of ensuring good government. I accept that my right hon. Friend is sincerely seeking to make a fresh start, and we are grateful to him. But this action is not too soon. My right hon. Friend conceded, with admirable candour, that Parliament did not stand at the zenith of public esteem. That is hardly surprising, since the entire House appears to agree that in recent decades the power of the Executive in relation to the legislature has grown prodigiously. What is particularly ironic is that this process has been taking place at a time which has seen the relative decline in British economic performance and our influence in world affairs. There are some of us at least who believe there is a connection between the two.
Forgive me if I am sceptical. I recall the observation made about 10 or 12 years ago by a distinguished former Clerk of this House, Sir Edward Fellowes. He said that
"all Governments have an innate suspicion of proposals for investigating their administration."

155
That is understandable, because those of us here who have been in government as well as outside it, part of the machinery as well as critics of it, know that much of what is done by Government is a matter of hit and miss. The right hand, very often, is unaware of what the left hand is doing. Much of what Governments do is based upon short-term considerations. As the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) told us, a week is a long time in politics.
So it is. Yet what Governments do, or do not do, in the short term may have profound ill-effects on the long-term national interest which could have been foreseen, I suggest, had Ministers been obliged to submit their plans to closer scrutiny by Parliament, or if the consultative stages—the pre-legislation stages—of Bills had been considered by Parliament in some way. The cost of this could be expressed in a number of ways, one of which could be bad policy decisions leading to misuse of resources, followed by doubt about the parliamentary process itself.
There are numerous examples of the failure by Parliament in recent years to prevent Governments of both parties from making bad decisions which have had costly consequences for the nation. I recall the fate of the Select Committee on Agriculture. When it sought to inquire into the Government's preparations for entry into the European Community in 1968–69 it met with bitter opposition from the Foreign Office, and the Government of the day wound it up. If the matter had rested there that would have been bad enough. But here we are—and I speak as a strong supporter of the European idea—10 years later, in the Community, saddled with a common agricultural policy which we all know now is damaging to our country's best interests.
Within Parliament itself the present system has led to dissatisfaction of two kinds. All of us who care about the future of the institution itself feel resentment that Ministers are presiding over a defective decision-making body. It is defective because scrutiny is not close enough, legislative proposals are all too often not thought through sufficiently, and there is too little regard for the impact of policy made in one Department upon that made in others.
156
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), who has just spoken, was a distinguished member of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman. If he is willing to serve on more than one of the new Select Committees I am sure he will find that there will be plenty of stalls for willing horses. Any Select Committee of which he is a member will be fortunate. That Select Committee uncovered the fact that there was no effective co-ordination, believe it or not, between our overseas aid policy, on the one hand, and our external trade policy on the other. Nor was there any co-ordination between either of those and the domestic economy.
Naturally the Select Committee asked Ministers and civil servants how the co-ordinating machinery worked and inquired about the Cabinet committees. We were told by a Minister who was sympathetic to our point of view and who wanted to help that she was unable to give the information because there was a convention in Whitehall that nothing could be said about the working of Cabinet committees. The truth is there was no co-ordination.
The second reason for dissatisfaction is that in a large legislature such as our own, which is large in comparison with the legislatures of other advanced countries, and to which able men and women still aspire to be elected, there ought to be another path along which the ambitious, the energetic and the public spirited can find satisfaction in their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) touched on an important point. There should be a career prospect for a parliamentarian separate from the hope of office. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood. What I am saying is that it is better that a man or woman should come to Parliament determined to be an effective watchdog, a searcher after truth, a fearless critic and a fearless defender of constituency interests, than that he or she should be condemned by the system that we have allowed to creep up in recent decades to subordinate judgment and ideals to hopes of ministerial preferment.
If hon. Members agree with that, it follows that the legislature must be

157
strengthened at the expense of the Executive, both in order to check the Executive—and the case for that is unanswerable—and at the same time to save the soul of Parliament itself.
When I was first elected 29 years ago I was told that Question Time, properly used, was a modern form of impeachment, a method of exposing the weakness of Ministers and Departments and forcing out information that they were unwilling to give. Of course, it was never quite like that, but Question Time, as a means of making Ministers answerable for their Departments, has steadily deteriorated.
The hon. and learned Member for Warrington (Sir T. Williams), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, to whom the House is deeply indebted for the work which he and his Committee have done, was right when he said that Question Time had become a farce. Indeed, judging by the broadcast version, it has not become a very edifying farce at that.
Question Time has certainly become a lottery as to whether an hon. Member can get an oral question answered. Yet in order to be able to make judgments and to criticise even in the broadest terms, one must have information. Without information it is impossible to develop understanding of what is going on.
However, Ministers do not like to give information. They do not particularly wish to promote understanding. All they want is blind obedience at the end of the day in the Lobbies. Of course, right hon. Members on both Front Benches will shake their heads at that, but we had a perfect example of what I am saying a week ago. Every argument advanced in the Chamber was in favour of one course of action in relation to the Kiribati Bill, but at the end of the day those hon. Members who preferred the path of respectability and preferment went into the Lobby to vote against that course of action. No one can tell me that that sort of thing does not happen. It has happened in every Parliament in which I have sat and it ought to make every hon. Member exceedingly unhappy.
Do not let us forget why we are here. Our purpose is to support Ministers in their reasonable proposals—that is what our constituents and our parties expect—but also to control them and make
158
them answer for the power with which they have been entrusted for a brief period. Our role is also to demand and to obtain redress of grievance. That is what the House is about. It is about the granting of Supply and the redress of grievance.
There is only one effective way in which we can achieve that, and that is by a Committee system that has real teeth, not merely to monitor the administrative processes in each Department of State but to consider legislative proposals before the Government introduce Bills. Alas, very little progress on these lines has been made, despite all the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure over many years.
I am not decrying the existing Select Committees. I have been Chairman of one or two and I have served on a number of others over the past decade. On the contrary, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has made a notable contribution to our understanding of difficult matters in a series of excellent reports. Nobody can deny that. I would like to think that the Select Committee on Overseas Aid did something to focus attention, at home and abroad, on the problems of world poverty and the need to develop a coherent strategy in order to combat them.
The fact remains that the existing structure of the Committees lacks teeth. There have been difficulties in compelling Ministers to attend Committees. Several hon. Members have suggested that that is a very rare occurrence, and I should hope so. However, there have sometimes been difficulties in persuading Ministers to appear. There have also been difficulties in obtaining suitable information. I remember an occasion when one had to tell a Department that the papers it presented to the Committee were inadequate and that further information would have to be supplied.
I hope that I have always been tactful and polite, but there have been occasions when one has had to tell the civil servants to go back and produce fresh papers, and to return to the Committee with the information required. To give them credit, they complied with our requests.
There have been acute difficulties, too, in obtaining debates on reports that have

159
been produced. That has been an annual struggle. We have reported on a number of important issues that have received a good reception in the press at home and abroad. Nevertheless these were never debated on the Floor of the House.
The able Minister, the strong Minister, knows that he must carry Parliament with him. The best way to do that is to make sure of the ground in advance. Select Committees, in my experience, are responsible in their conduct of inquiries and are anxious to get to grips with the truth, however unpalatable. A strong Minister has nothing to fear from such Committees.
Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), members of Select Committees work exceedingly hard, and in the main they enjoy what they do. It is unfair to paint a picture of miserable Members unable to stand up to powerfully-briefed civil servants. That has not been my impression at all. There is mutual respect between the civil servants and the well-manned Select Committee, and so there should be.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman has referred time and again to the fact that Select Committees should have more teeth. What teeth?
Sir B. Braine: I do not wish to be too long, but I shall come to that point in a moment. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the Leader of the House is offering us a new start. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton (Mr. Emery) and for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). We should retain some subject Committees, and I make this point because it is important if we are to come to the right decision.
Let us take the example of overseas aid. How can we assess the efficacy of a specific aid programme which has to be related anyway to our overseas trade policy unless that Committee has the power to call not only for ODM and Foreign Office witnesses but witnesses from the Department of Trade as well? I hope my right hon. Friend will reflect on that.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend gave a solemn pledge that from now on no Minister would dare refuse to come
160
before a Select Committee. That is the first part of the answer that I give to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). This House should insist that, if a Select Committee thinks it necessary for a Minister to give evidence, no Minister should be in a position to refuse, and I agree with the exchange which occurred a moment ago that this is not a matter which should be left to the House itself but should be laid down in Standing Orders.
It was Lord Denning who in quite another context the other day said that no one, be he ever so high, should refuse to come before the body to which he was summoned. He was talking about the courts. Here I am talking about Parliament.
But in answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian, what is the use of toughening up the procedures for the taking of evidence if the resultant reports are not debated on the Floor of the House? My right hon. Friend did not have very much to say about that. However let us consider what is said in the Select Committee's report:
"The Clerk of Committees believed that 'Nothing would strengthen a committee's hand more than to have its conclusions endorsed by the House. If departmental replies to a report had to be received within a short specified period; if more reports were debated; and if the debates took place on a motion to agree to, or even to implement, certain specified conclusions in the report, the debates would be keener and the committees more effective'."
That is right and, when I am talking about teeth, that is what I mean.
The time has come to stop tinkering with the system. I say that, given the mood of the House—and there is no doubt what the mood of the House has been in this debate—and its readiness to accept change, it would be tragic if we did not take this opportunity to make a major reform. What is at stake here, surely, is not merely the efficiency but the credibility, and perhaps in the long run the very future, of Parliament itself.
9.47 p.m.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I am very happy to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), because I agree with much of what he said. Perhaps I shall be permitted subsequently to touch upon one or two of his arguments.

161
At the outset of my remarks I must say how much I agree with all those who have joined in praising the work of the Select Committee on Procedure as well as the ready response that the Leader of the House has given it, notably in the shape of the proposals on the Order Paper.
I was not able to take part in the February debate, but I sat in on most of it, as I have sat in on today's debate. I cannot recall at any time on 19 or 20 February, any more than I can today, seeing more than 100 of our colleagues listening to the debate—less than one-fifth of the membership of this House. Is there not possibly still a profound and considerable residual indifference to what we are about today?
We ought not to allow the sense of euphoria which I suspect we all feel to persist. The presence of those right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Chamber today was predictable. Any one of us could have run up a list containing the names of 90 per cent. of those right hon. and hon. Members who have sat in on today's debate and tried to speak in it. Are not we in danger therefore of allowing our natural enthusiasm for this historic change to cause us to overlook what I have described as this residual indifference to what we are doing? It may be more than that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) recalled in his speech the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he was Prime Minister, to allow Mr. Harold Lever, who was then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to attend that Committee of which we were both members. I was less concerned about the attitude of the then Prime Minister than about the failure of this House to support our Committee. With a few honourable exceptions, most of them sitting here tonight, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), who deserves to be mentioned because he is always ready to fight for the rights of this House, as he did on another occasion that I will mention, the rest of the House was indifferent to what was an issue of grave constitutional importance and, even more important, an issue that presented a great opportunity for this House.
162
I had been disappointed a few weeks earlier in mid-December when the House had before it the report of the Central Policy Review Staff. We had still not had a reply from the Government to the report of the Expenditure Committee on an industry that was obviously, by this time, after nearly five months, in a state of acute crisis.
I was not able to tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that I would refer to him, although I do so in the most affectionate way. I shall not make any reference to him that requires his presence. He was only sitting in that day for the Leader of the House, who was absent. I asked my right hon. Friend who was then Chief Whip:
"Will the Patronage Secretary agree that Back-Bench Members will wish never again to see the Government delay a reply to a Back-Bench Committee's Report simply because it may be a little inconvenient or embarrassing, and will he bear in mind that a discourtesy to a Select Committee of the House is a discourtesy to the House as a whole?"—[Official Report, 15 December 1975; Vol. 902, c. 962.]
I did not mind the reply of my right hon. Friend. That does not matter it is of no consequence now. It was as robust as we would expect. What worried me was the failure of the House, again with the honourable exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central and, I believe, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), to rise against this obvious, flagrant, flouting by the Government of the rights of Back Benchers.
I welcome the striking developments that have taken place during the last three years, notably under the impetus of the work of the Select Committee of my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr). I worry about those who show no readiness to be a part of this work or who, on certain occasions, have not been prepared to support it on the Floor of the House. I gather from some hon. Members who participated in the February debate as well as today's, but especially in February, that there is a little cynicism abroad about the possible attendance of Ministers. There is a fear that this will inject consensus politics into our proceedings on the Floor of the House and that it may lead to a proliferation of parliamentary bureaucracy.

163
I have never doubted that Ministers will attend Select Committees. I recall that the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee was denied the presence of Mr. Harold Lever by the then Prime Minister. Nevertheless, we were visited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). He was a very good witness. We were also visited by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). We were reminded this weekend by the press that we were denied the presence of one Minister but we benefited from the attendance of other Ministers.
After leaving that Committee, I was glad to be invited to return as a witness on behalf of my Department. I cannot understand anyone with ministerial responsibility, high or low, not wanting to defend his work and his Department before a Select Committee. A Minister who is not prepared to do that and who needs to be pressurised is not worthy of his office.
Most Government Departments appreciate the work done by Select Committees. The Ministry of Defence is most appreciative of the work done by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee and of the quality of its work. It is most anxious to co-operate and assist. The relationship between the Ministry of Defence and that Select Committee, in a difficult and sensitive area, is a model for all Select Committees.
I understand the reservations of some of my colleagues about consensus politics. But I have served on Select Committees. I have not been afraid to be partisan, on occasions, on the Floor of the House nor to do the unpopular. I have not been afraid to speak straight when required. The reservations about consensus politics can be stilled. The difficulty is that bipartisan Committees have to speak and act for a partisan House of Commons.
On the Floor of the House Cabinet government prevails over the individualism and partisanship of the Chamber. To that extent, the Cabinet has come to exercise a real advantage over membership of the Commons. The collective responsibility of the Committees, as exemplified by an agreed report, should be seen as a way of redressing that im-
164
balance and making more even the relationship between the Legislature and the Executive.
Another major fear is of the possible proliferation of parliamentary bureaucracy. A contrast is drawn with the United States. I hope that that argument will not be overdone, not only because I am an admirer of American institutions, and especially of investigative work on Capitol Hill, but because this development may be seen by historians as part of a secular metamorphosis over the last 15 years since 1964 and the new intake of hon. Members. I hope that Conservative Members will not mind my claiming credit for many of my hon. Friends who came into Parliament in that year and were disheartened by what they took to be the opportunities open to them, but were simultaneously inspired by what they believed was happening in Washington, and especially in the Committee on Foreign Relations under the chairmanship of Senator Fulbright.
It could be, therefore, that that committee might yet be seen by historians as the model for the development that is taking place here. I hope, therefore, that no hon. Member will compare any possible development here to the too obvious disadvantage and disservice of our American colleagues. That does not mean that we will not want to maintain a modest establishment. I believe that our Select Committees so far have been most cost-effective. I believe that they can go on calling upon proven experts on a short term contract basis, calling on people who are well down their learning curves.
But there is much responsibility for the imbalance between the legislature and the Executive with the membership of this House. That is why I believe that there is a dire need now for the reassertion of the sovereignty of Parliament. Too many Members have been reluctant to admit that the Select Committee puts Parliament's view against the view of the Government and the Executive. Too many Members have been too reluctant to see that the Committee members are not acting on their own behalf, that they are not necessarily prima donnas gratifying their own egos, but that they are trying to identify the line that Parliament, the ultimate authority, should be taking

165
against or in view of the proposals of the Government.
Members therefore have to ask themselves whether Parliament is merely to be regarded as the PBI of the Administration, deployed, as the hon. Member for. Essex, South-East inferred, as tactics require. Or is the House to have a unified role which monitors and controls the Administration? Surely our constitution and the everyday needs of the modern world demand the latter. Yet the House of Commons has been notoriously slow to come to terms with its own work, and especially with the work of its Committees.
Members should regard themselves as plenipotentiaries who speak for the House. To this extent, the Committees should be supported by the House, and not treated with envy and malice. I hope that Select Committees will be interested not only in Government Departments, in Ministers and in outside experts. I hope that they will not overlook the potential of their colleagues to assist them in their work and to appear before them as witnesses.
I must comment further on the record of the Select Committees. I wish once more to draw on my experience, because it is easy to criticise Select Committees as being superficial, to say that they can only scratch the surface and that they can never get on equal terms with the Administration. But, in taking this view, it is easy to overlook their longer term effects. Given the way in which the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee shredded the policy on Chrysler in 1976, we can take it that there will not be another Chrysler. The work of that Committee reminded me again, as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East said, that such work is incomparably superior to Question Time or to Supply day debates. The effectiveness of that Committee's work is seen not only in its reports or in the minutes of evidence but in the response of Governments.
A good example of this hidden role can be seen by the way in which the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee broadened the terms of reference of the Industrial Development Advisory Board between the motor vehicle inquiry and the Chrysler investigation. Again I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East carries
166
most of the responsibility for this, but I hope that he will not mind the members of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee claiming just a little responsibility for the important broadening of the terms of reference of IDAB, and for believing that we assisted him in his decision to take in future social factors into account.
Subsequently, if I may say on behalf of the same Committee—and I hope that my successor will not mind my mentioning this—the work of myself and my former colleagues made the Civil Aviation Authority aware of the need to look again at its methodology and interpretation of fare applications as the result of evidence taken.
Thus the quality of the work of Select Committees has a proven track record. I recall once again the work of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee. It identified the problems of the car industry in general and British Leyland in particular, yet it took British Leyland two wasted years to realise that the avenues indicated by a Committee of this House were the only ones along which it could survive. This degree of effectiveness was achieved, first, by penetrating questions; secondly, by identifying the questions that needed to be asked; and, thirdly, by a willingness to be guided by expert advice. The Leader of the House has acknowledged the excellent work of all Select Committees and has expressed his confidence that it will be carried over to the new departmental Committees.
In conclusion, I hope that such Committees will have unqualified power to summon civil servants not merely from the Department which they are shadowing but also from other Departments. The hon. Member for Tiverton will recall that our own Committee provided the precedents. I hope that such departmental Committeess will have an independent secretariat. They should also have specialist advisers seconded for a minimum of one year on a salary at least equal to that which they are sacrificing.
I cannot stress too much the need for members of Select Committees to have the requisite qualities. No one could know better than I just how well-served was the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee which made a report on the motor industry, compiled by the hon. Member

167
for Tiverton, his right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall), and the former Member for Sowerby, Mr. Max Madden.
In 1974–75, four or five years ago, which seems only yesterday, we were working on the Committee and only we know that it is not merely assiduity but industry that is called for, and, above all, courage and integrity.
I suggest that the salary of the Chairman of a Committee is not as important as the fact that he should have tenure for at least a Parliament, if he is not to be nobbled by the Government or the Whips. The basic problem for any Member of Parliament who is on a Select Committee is to provide the Committee with the right conditions that will protect him from the blandishments, temptations and seductions, as well as the threats, of this place.
I hope that more time than eight days will be allocated to Select Committee reports and that Select Committees will have access to the usual channels for negotiations on time allocation. As I have indicated, the strength of the Committees will come down to their individual members
168
and the time that they are prepared to spend not only in Committee but in preparing themselves with a view to building up a corpus of expertise which can be used to investigate the working and efficiency of a Government Department.
Select Committees can help Governments by persuading Ministers to explain their actions and policies, and thereby become part of the information-gathering process. I look forward to the new departmental Committees fulfilling in a specific and different way the functions of Marston Moor, Naseby and Worcester—that is to say, reasserting the authority of the Queen in Parliament, thereby disposing once and for all of the rubber stamp image of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I should tell the House that there are two hours and 50 minutes left for all Members who wish to speak. Twenty-one Members have already indicated to me that they hope to speak, and they have not yet been called—that is without counting the Front Bench speakers. Therefore, despite the importance of the subject, I appeal to those who are called to make brief speeches.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Paul Dean: Like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), I warmly welcome these new proposals. The fact that there has been a broad consensus for these proposals on both sides of the House is a telling tribute to the hard work done by the Select Committee on Procedure in the last Parliament.
I also welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has brought these proposals forward so quickly. It is one thing for a party in Opposition to be enthusiastic about improving the performance of Parliament, but it is quite another thing for the Government of the day to be equally enthusiastic, particularly when that Government happen to have an overall majority in the House. I rejoice in the fact that the Government have an overall majority. It is all the more important that these proposals should be brought forward in that situation and that Parliament should be in a more effective position to undertake its watchdog controlling role.
I believe that these 12 new Select Committees will be an important step. I also feel that they will be a limited step. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he regarded them as a first instalment. They seem to me to be very much of the evolutionary rather than revolutionary tradition. They build on the experience of the Expenditure Committee that has been gained over some years now. But only practice will show how significant they are. There will be losses as well as gains. I for one regret that under the new proposals we shall be losing the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who was such a distinguished Chairman of that Committee, in his place. Equally, I regret that we shall be losing the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
Certainly in the early days I think we shall find that parliamentary control over those two areas will not be as good as it is at the present time. But, equally, I accept that we cannot have two types of Committee. If we are to decide tonight, as I hope we shall, to go for the depart-
170
mental approach, I do not think that we can have a combination of Committees marking Departments and Committees also marking Sub-Committees. Therefore, although in one sense I regret the passing of some Select Committees, there is a great hope of gain in the new proposals.
I very much agreed with the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) about the importance of effective staffing for these new Select Committees. They will ve very small in membership, and unless they are effectively staffed they will find it very difficult to cover the vast range of activities in the Departments concerned. I like the right hon. Gentleman's proposal that we could well look at the present facilities in the Library to see whether at least the research and documentation that these Corn-minces will need might be effectively provided through an extension of the research section of the Library.
In saying that, I express a purely personal view. I happen to be the new Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee, but that Sub-Committee has only just been set up and certainly has not considered the problem. However, I feel that this point is well worth considering. I am sure that some of these Select Committees will need outside experts to assist them, but there could be considerable advantage in some of the servicing being provided by the staff of the House, people who understand us and know our ways.
The other reason why I say that this is just a first step in improving our procedure for controlling the Government of the day is that what has always struck me as being the greatest weakness in recent times here is that Parliament is not consulted before legislation is drafted. I know that the Select Committee on Procedure considered this matter carefully in the previous Parliament, and it made some modest suggestions which I hope will be implemented before too long.
It has always struck me as very odd that the people who are supposed to be the legislators are the last to be consulted. In most cases, we do not see legislation until it actually appears in the form of a Bill. I hope very much that we shall be able to build on the experience we have gained over recent years with pre-legislation Select Committees.
For example, we had the pre-legislation Select Committee on the tax credit

171
scheme some years ago, and there is little doubt that the legislation eventually produced was far better and far more effective—although, admittedly, it was not put into operation—because a pre-legislation Select Committee looked at it. Equally, a similar Committee looked at the wealth tax. That example will not appeal very much to Opposition Members. However, it is very significant that that wealth tax did not see the light of day because when scrutinised by a Select Committee it was found to be so defective. There are considerable advantages in developing the pre-legislation approach as far as we can.
As I mentioned, it is a strange thing that hon. Members are virtually the last people to see the legislation, and by that time it is crystallised. The practice of consultation with interests outside the House is now very well established. There could be nothing but gain in Members of Parliament being in a similar position.
Furthermore, a second big advantage of this approach would be that if the opinion of the day had some say before legislation was crystallised, there would be less chance that they would say "We shall repeal the legislation when we get in"—with all the uncertainty that that creates for those outside who are affected by the legislation and have to handle it.
The third main advantage is that it goes to the root of financial control. Much of the public expenditure that is committed flows directly from legislation. Once the legislation is passed, the public expenditure commitments are there for years ahead. If the House has an opportunity of seeing proposals in pre-Bill form, we are far more likely to be able to do our job as financial watchdogs. Under the present arrangements in Standing Committees for the scrutiny of legislation, that job is pretty ineffective.
Those of us who have been Ministers and have conducted Bills through Standing Committees know that, with a Government majority on the Standing Committee as at present, one can lose every argument on a clause but one's last card is to say that it is a finely balanced Bill. Of course one understands the power of the arguments of one's hon. Friends and the Opposition, but a concession on, say, clause 2 could spoil the delicate balance
172
that has been worked out beforehand with outside interests. That is the trump card that one uses on those occasions, and often one carries the day on that alone, having lost every single argument on the merits of the clause.
I am glad that the Procedure Committee at least suggested that Standing Committees should be able to start as Select Committees and, before they begin to look at the details of legislation, spend some of their time calling witnesses, receiving evidence and examining the background of the legislation. I wish that that had gone further but it is at least a step in the right direction. I hope that in replying my right hon. Friend will say more about how the Government see these proposals. Will they bring forward the suggestion that Standing Committees should be able to start as Select Committees? I hope that the answer is "Yes". I further hope that we shall be told when the proposal will come forward. The new proposals for Select Committees will not be effective unless proposals for improving the performance of Standing Committees are brought forward at the same time.
In my view and that of most hon. Members who have spoken, we have made a good start, but it is only a first step and we must keep up the momentum. Parliament has lost far too much ground to the Executive in recent times, and we have a long way to go before that ground is regained.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: We have had a series of speeches from both sides of the House paying tribute to the Select Committee system. Those tributes are fully merited by the record of service to this House of many Select Committees. This is not, however, a debate about whether there should be Select Committees or whether they should continue. Nor is it a debate on whether the present system of Select Committees should be reformed or improved. We are debating whether we should sweep away the present system of Select Committees and have the specific Select Committees as proposed by the Leader of the House in his motion. The feature of those Committees is that they are designed to shadow individual Government Departments. I

173
believe that this proposal is based on a profound and fundamental misconception of the way in which British government works.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) referred to the way in which the American Congressional system works. Unlike the United States constitution, this House of Commons has never been based on contention between the Executive and the legislature. In the United States the Executive and the legislature are both different parts of the Government with roles entrenched in the constitution, together with the judicial part of the constitution. In order to become a member of part of the United States Executive, a member of the legislature must leave the legislature. The only career prospect for an American legislator is within the legislature and not as a member of the Executive. That is why there is a career structure within the United States Congress. That is why the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) misconceives his proposals for an alternative career structure in this House, other than the aspirations of hon. Members to serve in a Government when their party is in office.
In this country the Executive is drawn from the legislature and I understand that many hon. Members in this Chamber would be prepared to accept positions in the Administration if they were offered to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Berm) talked about "Ministers-in-waiting". It is very interesting that four members of the Select Committee on Procedure are now members of the Government.
The role of our legislature is very different from that of the legislature of the United States. It is to scrutinise the activities of the Government, to hold the Government to account and to sustain the Government. The sustaining is a very important part of our system. Also, where appropriate, the role of our legislature is to overthrow the Government, as this House did on 28 March last, exercising a legitimate function. But it is not, and it never has been, the role of this Chamber to place itself in direct contention with the Executive as some form of alternative Government. This House of Commons is not the Government and it is not its job to try to be a Government.
174
Our present Select Committees, the ones to which we shall say farewell when this motion is carried tonight, as it most surely will be, have not placed themselves in contention with the Government because they have no specific counterpart role of the kind that is being proposed by the Leader of the House, that of shadowing various Departments. It is inevitable that a system of Select Committees such as that proposed in the motion will place those Select Committees in direct contention with the Government Departments that they are designed to shadow. I believe that that could be very dangerous for this country and for the way that it is governed on the basis of parties, with an Opposition legitimately seeking to replace the Government and members of the party seeking to qualify for office when their party is elected.
These Committees obviously will evolve their own policies. It is in the nature of Committees to put forward proposals, and Committees which shadow Government Departments inevitably will evolve policies for those Departments. It is equally inevitable that those policies will be coalition policies, because that is the way in which Select Committees operate. Unless these Committees break all precedents and divide on party lines, that is bound to happen. I know that some of my hon. Friends would wish Select Committees to divide on party lines. That was the wish of Brian Sedge-more, who has now left us. The coalition policies thus evolved will carry great weight, because the newspaper headline "All-party committee proposes this or that" is a very great and potent pressure on any Government and any party.
Therefore, inevitably these Committees, whatever the policies they propose—and I am not suggesting that they will propose policies that are acceptable to one side rather than to the other on a consistent basis—will buttress either the Government or the Opposition by giving to one side or another a non-partisan seal of approval. Whichever way they go, they will seriously damage the party system of government which we have in this country and which is a valuable part of our Parliament.
I believe that this is a very great power to put into the hands of 9, 10 or 11 hon. Members of the House. Curiously, while

175
this system will inevitably create contention between hon. Members of this House and the Government, that contention could equally well be accompanied by complicity. If Departments are shadowed by specific Select Committees, it is inevitable that a very close relationship will develop between a Committee and the Department which it shadows.
It is also inevitable—I do not make this statement implying that in any way it is corrupt—that close personal relationships will, develop as well. Let me say to those of my Labour colleagues who have voiced suspicion of the role of the Civil Service in government that this will suit civil servants very well indeed. They thrive on the back-door relationship and on beguiling their critics at lunch or elsewhere, and they are well equipped, because they are exceptionally skilful operators, to manipulate. That being the case, I believe that this system—in which there will be a close relationship for the first time between hon. Members and the civil servants of a specific Department—will be bad for Parliament, because Parliament should operate at arm's length from the bureaucracy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East said that he regarded the proposals made by the Leader of the House as a victory for Parliament. I could not disagree with him more and, knowing his views on the ways in which we should seek to disentangle ourselves from the bureaucracy, I am surprised that he takes that view.
One other possibility, which is not to be dismissed, is that the Civil Service will seek to use the Select Committees for manipulation against a Minister. Civil servants will be in a position to manipulate a Select Committee in order to get a Minister to change policies from which they have failed to dissuade him and they will have another avenue through which to do so.
Mr. Jim Craigen: Surely, if a Minister is worth his salt, he will keep tabs on those civil servants and will sort them out.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A Minister who has a straightforward relationship with his civil servants is perfectly able to control them if he wishes to do so. But the back-door lunch in the Reform Club is a different
176
matter entirely. If civil servants were coming round to the back and operating with a Select Committee, a Minister who operated perfectly well within the Department could well find himself in an entirely different position.
The greater the complicity between the Select Committees and the Departments which they are asked to shadow, the greater the danger to this House of Commons. I say again that the greater the specialisation—and we shall have a specific departmental specialisation here—the greater the danger to the true power of the Back Bench Member of Parliament, because the true power of the Back Bencher does not lie in his ability to question Ministers across the table in Select Committee. That is important and I do not decry it. It resides in his ability to choose any issue that attracts his attention and to pursue that issue regardless of whether it is relevant to any Select Committee on which he happens to serve and regardless of whether he serves on a Select Committee at all.
An hon. Member pursuing that kind of issue can, of course, pursue it simply for the sake of trivial publicity. I see no very great harm in that. It is a legitimate use of the parliamentary role. But the Back Bench Member pursuing his role as a general Member of Parliament can also obtain other, even greater and sometimes controversial achievements. Hon. Members with not very long memories will know that. As a very new Member, Ray Carter—whose presence we miss in this House—made a great exposure on the Vehicle and General collapse. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) achieved one of many great successes on the Aldabra situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) changed Government policy on power station ordering by a campaign which had nothing to do with membership of a Select Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) made an absolutely basic change in the Scotland Bill simply by his powers of persuasion and by his argument after pursuing a case consistently in the House.
That was done by Back Bench Members acting as individuals taking up issues which interested them or which

177
they found important. The system that the Leader of the House is proposing tonight will lead to a decline in the scope of the general Member of Parliament. What we shall have instead—and I shall explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) why—is what the hon. Member for Withington wants. That is, hon. Members climbing the new ladder of the alternative career structure of the Select Committees, no doubt with knighthoods and salaries and the rest of it. I do not say that with any disrespect to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have justifiably obtained honours.
The reason why the general Member of Parliament will find his scope diminished—and I reply here to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central—will be that every Department will have its informed specialist who will have special access to the information of that Department. The rest will simply be also-rans in the House. What is more, the also-rans will also have less chance to speak in the debates in the House. On page 70 of the report of the Select Committee, we see in paragraph 6·9 that
"the belief that only members of the select committees concerned take part in the debates on their reports seems to rest on less solid foundations."
An analysis of recent debates on Select Committee reports, all of which arose on "take note" motions, reveals the participation of a number of non-Committee Members. It gives the figures. Of 74 Members who participated in five debates, 42 were not on Select Committees and 32 were. Nearly half of the debates were dominated by Select Committee Members. As the report makes clear, the number of Committee members participating in those debates is disproportionate.
Mr. William Hamilton: I hope to be on a Select Committee, but that will not inhibit me from ploughing a lone furrow in whatever direction I choose to go.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is an exceptional hon. Member. However, he knows that hon. Members who have served on subject Select Committees have not had to choose between Departments. Under the proposed system, an hon. Member will have to choose a Department and specialise in its work.
178
Because of its departmental nature, the Government's proposal will lead not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe said, to a unified role for Parliament but to a compartmentalisation of Parliament in which hon. Members will operate on the basis of whichever departmental Committee they belong to.
The proposals have been put forward with admirable intentions, but there are two possibilities for their future. Either they will be ineffectual, in which case they will not have been worth the trouble, or they will be effective, in which case they will lead to a serious weakening of the real power of the individual Back Bencher which is the real strength of the House. It may be difficult to exercise that power, but that does not diminish the possibility of exercising it.
The proposals may appeal to some new hon. Members who are rightly impatient of what they have found is the scope for them as hon. Members. I do not oppose the proposals in the romantic notion that the House as it is now is the fulcrum or crucible of the nation.
The House certainly needs to be made more businesslike, more efficient and stronger. It needs to be able to scrutinise the actions of the Executive far more penetratingly, but the way to do that is to give all Back Benchers proper accommodation and facilities and the staff that they need to do their job. It will not be achieved by enthroning 120 Back Benchers on a series of Select Committees. The way to strengthen the House is not by strangling it in a skein of Committees.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Philip Holland. As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, I ought to declare an interest in one of the proposals before the House. It is not a financial interest but one that could result in an increase in my work load.
I had hoped that the main motion would be even more imprecise, though it is imprecise enough in its terms of reference to enable the success or failure of the new Committees to depend to a great extent on the individual hon. Members on those Committees. Their purpose surely must be to restore authority to the House and to enable a more positive check to be exercised on the activities of the Executive.

179
As the degree to which the Committees achieve that consideration will inevitably depend on the compostion of each Committee, that places a heavy responsibility on those required to make the initial selection. Ideally, we must try to achieve a fair balance within the limitations imposed by the size of the Committees, because in party terms they will involve very small numbers. Nevertheless, I believe that we must try to create a balance that can be seen within the party nominations as well as across the Committee nominations as a whole.
I want to explain the selection process, but first I join the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) in the hope that the Select Committees may be able to extend their influence to cover not only the activities of Government Departments but also the activities and expenditure of the many quasi-autonomous off-springs of each Department.
Currently, many such official bodies control very large sums of public money but are hardly accountable at all for their expenditure or their activities to the elected representatives of the people. From a recent study I have made of the ubiquitous quangos, it is evident that out of the total of more than 3,000 such bodies which I have listed—the list will be published shortly—only 96 have their books audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. There are a few more which may be required to open their books to him for a specific reason, and there are about three dozen nationalised industry boards which are subject to a measure of scrutiny by the existing Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
But the remainder are, by and large, not accountable to Parliament either for their expenditure or for their activities to any great extent, and in most cases ministerial responsibility to the House is limited to answering questions on the names Ministers have appointed and the fees they are paying them. Other matters such as attendance records of these quasi-gurus and the expenses claimed by them are all too often matters not within the responsibility of the appointing Minister and may not, therefore, be the subject of parliamentary questions. But even more are we precluded in the House from influencing or even questioning the expendi-
180
ture or activities of so many of these bureaucrats.
While I happen to believe that a lot of work needs to be done to slim and trim their numbers, size and powers, what matters at the end of the day is that those who are left around be properly accountable to Parliament, and it is in respect of accountability that I foster the hope that the departmentally related Select Committees may have a major part to play.
In the past decade or so, we have seen the establishment of increasing numbers of influential and powerful bodies beyond the reach of Parliament, and we have an opportunity here for Parliament to reach out and bring them back into a measure of democratic control. I commend that thought to hon. Members who aspire to serve on these Committees, although my hon. Friends who hear me may take that as a nod or a wink to a blind horse.
I turn to the proposal that appointments to the Select Committees should be made by the Committee of Selection. When the House considered the motion to set up the Committee of Selection on 12 June, the speeches of some hon. Members indicated a misunderstanding about the way in which the Committee of Selection operates and in which it has, over the years, developed its internal procedures. We never regard that as a bad thing because we are willing participants in the evolutionary process, even in our procedures in the Committee.
In that debate, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for example, quoted the case of two hon. Members who had failed to be appointed to Committees of their choice. I was not quite sure whether he meant just that or that they had failed to be appointed to the sort of Committee to which he thought they should have been appointed.
On that evidence, however, the hon. Gentleman concluded that all who served on the Committee of Selection in the last Parliament were rubber stamps for some Machiavellian exercise in the Whips' Office. Perhaps it will be for the convenience of the House, therefore, in view of the decision to be taken later tonight, if I explain how the Committee of Selection operated in the closing years of the last Parliament as an indication

181
of the way we may be expected to discharge our duty in the early days of this Parliament, which is the crucial time for the setting up of Select Committees.
First, I must make it clear that the selection of all hon. Members from the majority party to serve on Committees is made by the hon. Members from the majority party on the Committee of Selection, and all Opposition Members for each Committee are selected by the Opposition Members on the Committee of Selection. Then each nomination is put forward at our weekly meeting for the approval or amendment or otherwise of the Committee as a whole. That seems to me to be a very sensible way to proceed.
I can, of course, speak with authority only about the Conservative procedure prior to the meeting, but I have no reason to suppose that it is any different from the procedure of the Opposition Members on the Committee. For our part, we are always pleased to receive suggestions from individual Members about Committees on which they would like or would not like to serve, and we receive numbers of such suggestions each week. We also receive suggestions from the Whips' Office, sometimes from party committee chairmen and sometimes even from Select Committee Chairmen about hon. Members who would be suitable to serve on different Committees We do not always accept every suggestion that we receive, but we consider them.
In addition, I also compile during the early months of a Parliament a dossier on the interests of my hon. Friends—I hasten to add, a dossier on their interests, not a black book. In addition, it has also not been unknown for us to consult Hansard for likely recruits. On our agenda every week we have published the names of all who speak on Second Readings, which is helpful to us in deciding who should be on Committees.
But, at the end of the day, the selection of Conservative Back Bench Members is made freely and with full discretion by the Conservative Members of the Committee and then endorsed by the Committee as a whole, or sometimes amended by the Committee as a whole. I am prepared at all times to accept full responsibility for what finally transpires and to accept, as I do from time to time, the brickbats and complaints. Human
182
errors and misjudgments occur, but we do our best. If we discover an error or misjudgment in time—it has to be very quickly after the meeting—we try to rectify it.
Sometimes, contrary to the belief of some members of the Press Gallery if we are to believe all that we read in the press, Committees are oversubscribed with volunteers and we have to disappoint some of them. I suspect that that will happen in the case of some of these Select Committees, if not all of them, because already, before the House has even taken a decision, I have received a substantial number of letters from hon. Friends pressing their claims in anticipation of the House accepting the motion.
In the case of Standing Committees, from time to time we find ourselves short of volunteers. It will not surprise the House to hear that. Then hon. Members may be assigned to Committees not because of their interests but because of their lack of employment over the previous few months. In that context, we try to balance out the work load as between one Session and another between hon. Members.
If any of my hon. Friends who are newly elected to the House are uncertain about how best to indicate their interests, I might point out that I have the worst memory in the world and that I appreciate the written word no matter how informally it may be presented.
Mr. George Cunningham: One of the most interesting things that the House might like to hear from the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, despite the fascinating details that he has been giving us so far of this, in practice, very secret Committee, is whether the Committee of Selection proposes to prepare nominations for the new subject Committees according to the method that he has just described for deciding the composition of Standing Committees.
Mr. Holland: We have to wait and see what is the decision of the House about this. But there is an amendment on the Order Paper which, if carried, will spell out in some detail—
Mr. Rooker: It has not been selected.
Mr. Holland: I am sorry. I was not sure. In any event, we must first await the decision of the House. If the motion

183
is approved, I propose a very much more exhaustive examination before making any nominations for the Select Committees, because these are being appointed not for one Bill which is likely to run for only one or two weeks but for the whole Parliament. There has to be very wide consultation, and we shall have to take very much greater care. I am merely trying to explain to the House how we work as an indication of the way in which we arrive at a process.
Mr. Philip Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that if the proposals go through there will be a case for less and not more consultation with party Whips?
Mr. Holland: I did not have the party Whips in mind when I spoke about considerable consultation. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will make their views and their wishes known. Clearly, with the small numbers involved, there will have to be selection at the end of the day. That will be done by the Committee of Selection.
Mr. George Cunningham: The point has been made about the desirability, recommended by the Procedure Committee, of maintaining, with some slight modification, the rights of Members under Standing Order No. 13—the Ten Minutes Rule—which allows an hon. Member to propose changes in Select Committees as well as to introduce Bills. As Chairman of the Committee of Selection, the hon. Gentleman presumably has no objection to the recommendation of the Procedure Committee that the rights of private Members under Standing Order No. 13 should be maintained despite the alteration proposed to nomination by the Committee of Selection.
Mr. Holland: I would wish to be the servant of the House in whatever the House decides on all these matters. For that reason, I shall not be voting tonight on the proposal that the Committee of Selection should select Members for the Select Committees. I believe that I should work with whatever the House decides. I shall accept that, and I shall be neutral. I shall accept whatever the House decides and try to serve the House as Chairman of the Committee of Selection.
184
It is my intention to support the motion setting up the Select Committees, although I realise that it may increase my own work load. What is proposed is in the best interests of the House and parliamentary democracy. It is my desire to serve the House and parliamentary democracy as I have served as Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I say without hesitation that it is the desire of all the members of the Committee of Selection, on both sides of the Committee, to achieve the same ends.
10.58 p.m.
Mr. Russell Kerr: We are deeply grateful to the Chairman of the Selection Committee for a unique insight into the working of the minds on that Committee. It is a pity that we were not aware of these matters 10 or 12 years ago. We would have been much smarter in the parliamentary sense.
Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman refers to 10 or 12 years ago. We develop the selection procedures over a period. It is a matter of evolution, just as we are now talking about Select Committees. I do not know what was the position 12 years ago. I have explained the position as it exists today.
Mr. Kerr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that further insight into the way his mind works.
I rise tonight with one main purpose in mind. As the most recent Chairman of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, I want to ask the House to support the amendment which has been put down in my name and that of the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry), who was Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee during my five years as its Chairman.
I take this opportunity to pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West for his unfailing help and co-operation during those years and to thank him sincerely for the major role he played in helping to produce a virtually unbroken series of educative and informative reports that went a long way towards establishing the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries as perhaps our senior investigative Select Committee. Certainly the Committee was much respected by those responsible for running those great industries.

185
I stress that it the main proposition were not amended as my former Deputy Chairmen and I suggest, we should see the total elimination of a Select Committee which over the last quarter of a century has earned the gratitude of Parliament and the people for the quality and regularity of its reports, all of which were the product of many hours of patient and probing questioning of witnesses and frequent visits abroad and at home so that we could inform ourselves of the true facts. It was not glamorous work compared with the wit and wisdom of some of the would-be Charles James Foxes, but it was valuable work which was relevant to Parliament doing its job properly.
Effective scrutiny of the Executive, including in this context the management of great industries which play a major role in the economic life of the nation, must remain a major parliamentary objective.
A few voices have suggested that the type of patient probing which often distinguishes the work of Select Committees from the boisterous and often prankish atmosphere in the Chamber is not really what Parliament is about. The school of thought supported by the former Leader of the House, who has many inspiring and bloodcurdling performances in the Chamber to his credit and is something of a constitutional authority, likes to pretend that the probing activity of a Select Committee upstairs is somehow exclusive from the day-to-day activity in the Chamber. Moreover, people such as the right hon. Gentleman appear to believe that the work we do derogates from the work of the Chamber and so weakens Parliament, leaving an untrammelled Executive to get on with the job of trampling on the rights of long-suffering Back Benchers. This is a load of balderdash from people who should know better, and probably do.
Far from competing with the Chamber, the investigative Select Committees, such as the SCNI, do work which is not only vital if Parliament is to carry out its responsibility and proper scrutiny of the activities of those entrusted with public money and assets but which the size and unwieldiness of the House prevents it from carrying out effectively.
The two activities are complementary rather than competitive. Inconvenient though it may be for those who believe
186
that the House of Commons Chamber is the only forum for debate, the investigative activities of a body such as the SCNI have been 10 times more effective in keeping this section of the Executive in check than all the uplifting and rafter-ringing declamations of the "House-only brigade".
Should any hon. Members doubt that, I recommend the report of my Committee on the British Steel Corporation made about 18 months ago. It became the subject of a major parliamentary debate which nearly brought down the Government. That debate was not only interesting because it showed beyond doubt that the Select Committee had sharp teeth when it chose to bite but demonstrated that when serious difficulties arose in industry and the question of who was to blame arose, the Committee was prepared to defend the managers of a nationalised industry whom it considered had done a good, albeit unlucky, job—even if that meant treading on a few political toes. Perhaps that is why, when the present proposals were mooted some months ago, almost to a man the chairmen of the nationalised industries swung to the support of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries.
That was not because we were nice fellows or because we washed behind our ears. It was because the chairmen, with all of whom a wholly arms-length relationship had been maintained, came not only to respect us and to realise that, as investigators, we were pretty tough but straight, fair and incorruptible but to realise that, far from being a latter-day version of the Spanish Inquisition, our prestige and experience could be invoked on their side when the Government or bureaucracy overstepped the mark and democracy had to rush to the rescue.
However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not what you, I or most of the chairmen of the nationalised industries think but what will constitute the best system of parliamentary scrutiny that matters. We debated these matters fairly briefly during the last Session of Parliament, and I do not intend tonight to cover again all the ground that I covered in my speech on 19 February, which went in some detail into the overwhelming case for retaining the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. For the benefit of new Members, I shall briefly summarise the arguments

187
that I used on that occasion in favour of retaining that illustrious and hard-working body. I recommend alt hon. Members to look up Hansard of 19 February in order to refresh their memories on these very important matters.
What are the reasons for retaining the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, irrespective of the other changes? First, looking after no fewer than 46 nationalised industries, large and small, is no petty job. Certainly it is no job to be handled as an adjunct to departmental investigations, which is, in effect, what has now been proposed. Inevitably it demands a degree of expertise based on experience, to which the present Committee, after nearly a quarter of a century of experience, can fairly lay claim. As all people experienced in this matter will testify, there is a world of difference between a Government Department and a nationalised industry and it is important not to get them confused, as the Procedure Committee has apparently done in this instance.
I am sorry to be critical of my colleagues, but in all modesty I fear that there are some among them who are without much significant experience of public administration, who feel that they have been presented with a new toy in the shape of a chance to alter the rules of Parliament and who are determined to enjoy this unique experience for all it is worth and while the fun lasts. I am sure that most of them are more or less sincere to the extent that they are persuaded that the present proposals are pretty good or, at any rate, will not do too much harm.
I believe, however, that the damage could be considerable and that the level of effective scrutiny could plummet almost to zero if it is confined to departmental Committees or to joint interdepartmental Sub-Committees as is proposed somewhere in this mish-mash.
One casualty of these proposals will be across-the-board inquiries, for example, into consumer relations in the nationalised industries. The proposed Sub-Committee would certainly not cover that subject, and yet this has been a most valuable aspect of the work of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, including, in the recent past, an inquiry into relations between
188
Ministers, the Government Departments concerned and the nationalised industries themselves. That is the sort of inquiry that could go right out of the window under the new proposals.
Another source of future friction sticks out a mile to anyone experienced in this area. The present proposals will result in different industries being treated differently by the different departmental Committees. That is not necessarily because of prejudice or because of differing degrees of political clout but because different Committees of only slight experience will inevitably employ different guidelines and different standards.
Let me now turn to the amendments in the names of my Deputy Chairman and myself. All three of them go together, and their proposed effect is to allow the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries to continue as before. Some will say that the proposal for a joint Sub-Committee will in effect provide for a Select Committee on nationalised industries. In our opinion, that is not so. We believe that that is a procedural and practical nonsense. Procedurally, a Sub-Committee must be a Sub-Committee of a main Committee, and this one therefore, I gather, is almost in limbo. Second, the existence of the Sub-Committee is permissive, not mandatory. The word "may" has been used rather than the word "shall", and there is a world of difference between those two words.
Thirdly, such a bastardised Sub-Committee would have no common purpose, no common experience and, above all, no esprit de corps. Perhaps I can say, in parenthesis, that one of the great things during the 12 years when I have been associated with the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has been the fact that right across party lines we have managed—anyone who has been a member of the Committee will confirm this—to develop a tremendous esprit de corps which, if I may quote our motto again without making my Friends on that Committee wince, is to let the facts be eloquent on our behalf.
Despite allegations of collusion and this and that, that was our guiding light and motto. Certainly during the 12 years that I was privileged to be a member of that Committee that is what accounts for the fact that we have a long record of fair,

189
deeply researched, well-produced reports to our credit. That little bit of work which we did collectively will always be one of the monuments of which I am most proud.
When we get to the stage—if we ever do—of producing reports, will all the reports of this alleged Sub or Joint Committee, or whatever it is to be called, have to be endorsed by all the main Committees involved? What happens when one of the Committees accepts a report from the Sub-Committee, one amends it and one rejects it? What sort of a Barnham and Bailey effort shall we get then? That would be playing it for laughs with a vengeance. I hope that that sort of un-parliamentary folly will not be something that we shall have pointed at us in a roar of laughter in the future.
It occurs to me that all members of such a Sub-Committee would be occupied with their existing Committees and would, in practical terms, not find much time to meet and put their minds to the problems on which we were asking them to concentrate for the good of the nation.
Some of the brighter hon. Members, recognising some of the difficulties to which I have alluded in passing, might suggest that it would be possible for such a body to report directly. That would make it not so much a Sub-Committee but a Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, therefore, returning, as it were—if we pursued that line of circuitous reasoning—back to square one. In the process, I suggest with great respect to the House, we would have made "BFs" of ourselves.
Accepting your advice to keep this short, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I say that it is far better to keep a separate Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and perhaps have a certain amount of overlapping membership with a relevant departmental Committee or two, so that out of a membership of, say, 15, one or two could also sit on each of the relevant departmental Committees.
As an alternative to the destruction of a body of considerable distinction and effectiveness, that would seem to me to be the way forward. Certainly, in my view we should, as a legislature, hasten slowly before carelessly committing ourselves to an ill-thought-out rearrangement to supplant a tried and true Select Committee such as that on nationalised industries which for a quarter of a century
190
and more has served this House and the country well.
11.14 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: As I rise to make my first and rather short contribution to debate in this place, I am conscious of two advantages. First, I have the great privilege of following my friend Jo Godber as Member for Grantham. He has represented the constituency for 28 years. During that time he served our country, this House and his constituents with unusual honour and distinction. Amongst those whom I represent his name will be remembered for many years with great respect, admiration and affection. My majority in May was in great part of a legacy from Jo Godber. I speak on behalf of his many friends in this House and elsewhere in saying that I am indeed pleased that he accepted a peerage. I am sure that he will continue to make an important and distinctive contribution to the conduct of affairs of the nation.
The other advantage of which I am conscious is the great privilege that I have of representing the constituency of Grantham. Having regard to the lateness of the hour and your injunction to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not propose to take hon. Members on a conducted tour around my constituency. Suffice it to say that I regard it as a great honour to be chosen by the electors of Grantham. I propose to serve their interests in this place to the best of my ability.
I fear that I am being a little presumptuous as a new Member in rising to contribute to the debate, conscious as I am that it requires a degree of specialisation. I hope that it will not be put down to arrogance but rather to joie de vivre.
I begin by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on so speedily and completely seeking to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure. A major function of this House is the scrutiny and control of the administrative workings of the Executive. We are here to restrain the workings of government. We ignore that obligation at our peril.
Individual Members or groups of Members acting collectively pursuant to some ad hoc arrangement are no longer able to scrutinise and examine, far less control, the day-to-day decisions of those Government Departments that affect the lives of

191
us all. The scope and range of government and the complexities of the issues that we are concerned with demonstrate that the constitutional arrangements that served nineteenth century Britain well are now quite inadequate for the purpose. It is only through the formation of the Select Committee system envisaged in the motion that this House can hope to subject the Executive to careful and continued scrutiny. That is the first and principal reason why I support the motion.
I have another reason. I share the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). In the past, most hon. Members who wished to make a positive contribution to debate and the conduct of public affairs tended to look to the hierarchy within their party for preferment. Naturally, they felt unwilling unduly to displease the grandees within their parties. I suspect that this placed some restraint upon their ability and willingness to act independently of the party line. I hope and believe that the existence of this kind of Select Committees will provide an alternative career for those seeking to make a positive contribution to the conduct of public affairs. I think that that is likely to increase people's independence of action and of thought.
It is with a sense of dismay that I realise that I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) expressed in his amendment. The dismay is mine. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need feel any concern. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, I think it important that the Committees should have the power to order the attendance of Ministers. As I understand it, the ultimate decision as to whether those Ministers attend will lie with the House. That is surely a sufficient answer to the anxiety expressed by my right hon. Friend that in certain circumstances it would be inappropriate or otherwise undesirable for Ministers to attend. To deny the Committees the power to order the attendance of Ministers is, in my judgment, to detract from their prestige and status.
I of course accept my right hon. Friend's assurances that his colleagues
192
will co-operate with Select Committees. But we are not tonight providing for one year, two years or three years. We are embarking on major constitutional change. We must contemplate, and in the end provide against, a breed of Ministers, perhaps not yet in the House, who will be less willing than my right hon. and hon. Friends to appear before Select Committees and answer questions. I have lived with the ministerial mind for many years. Although it is a remarkable mechanism, it is singularly unwilling to answer questions.
I welcome the motion. It introduces a valuable reform, which I hope is but the first of a number of constitutional reforms to be introduced by this Government. I wish the Select Committees well, and I ask my hon. Friends to do likewise.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: My first pleasant duty is to congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on surviving so well the ordeal of his first speech to the House. In a previous parliamentary incarnation I represented a northern rather than a south-western constituency and often travelled through the then traffic-filled main street of Grantham. That was before the improvement to the Great North Road was constructed. In those days it was impossible to admire the beauties of Grantham, but it is possible to do it well today.
The hon. Gentleman has added lustre to the constituency. We admire his fortitude in intervening on this subject and at this hour, and we look forward to hearing him again often, provided he does not take too much time from the rest of us. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him.
I join with two of my parliamentary colleagues who were members of the former Select Committee on Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), in drawing attention to the work that that Committee did in previous Parliaments from differing points of view.
Before doing so, I must say that there is a grand sweep in these new proposals that one can only admire in a sense. My doubt is whether these proposals will

193
achieve in practice all that is hoped for them in theory. It is possible that these new departmental Committees will divide on party lines, rather like Standing Committees, and that much vital information will not be demanded because it does not suit the convenience of the Government, backed by the majority of the Committee. There is that danger, and only time will show whether it eventuates.
I go back to 1966–67, when there was also a great passion for parliamentary reform. That was the time when the late Richard Crossman was Leader of the House. At that time the Select Committee on Science and Technology was established as a subject Committee. The Select Committee on Agriculture, which came to an untimely end, was also established at the same time. The Select Committee on Science and Technology survived up to now, but there is one aspect of its establishment that has been overlooked. Not only was it an outstanding monument to the reforming zeal of Mr. Crossman, in his search for greater parliamentary accountability and better scrutiny; it was also a response to the desire of the scientific and technical communty outside the House, which wanted to be kept in better touch with the Government and the operations of Parliament.
My concern is that if the House allows the Select Committee on Science and Technology to be submerged by departmental Committees, whatever their merits, the scientific, technical and industrial world outside will feel that such a change is not only a loss in itself but a step backwards. It will feel that once more there is the old, sharp division between the parliamentary world and the more real world outside. That is why I regret these proposals in the form in which they have emerged.
In its time, the Select Committee on Science and Technology was regarded as a great step forward. In the 12 years of its existence, it reported to the House no less than 36 times, excluding special and procedural reports. That is an average of about three reports a year—not bad going by any standards. These reports were far-ranging—from nuclear reactors to population control; from research councils to tracked hovertrains; from the computer industry to defence research and coastal pollution, and much
194
else besides. I doubt very much—and I was honoured to be Chairman of the Committee on and off—whether the departmental Committees will achieve the same record of effective performance.
Not enough of those reports have been debated. That does not mean that they have had no impact on opinion, especially when we have recalled Ministers. We have never had any problem about getting Ministers to appear before the Select Committee. There has not been a single refusal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has been before us many times and, as ever, has acquitted himself well. He, like others, has been subject to the closest scrutiny, and there has never been any suggestion on the part of any Minister—that I can recall—that he or she should not appear before us. That is why I am surprised at the worry of the Select Committee on Procedure that Ministers should refuse. I assumed, as a Chairman, that they would not refuse. They never have in fact.
The Leader of the House has paid tribute to the many excellent reports which the Select Committee on Procedure has prepared. My principal reason for supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo—the effect of which would be to maintain the Select Committee on Science and Technology in existence in this Parliament—is that experience has shown that the efficient investigation of important issues in the scientific and technical sphere cannot be narrowly confined to the responsibilities of any one Government Department.
I can give two examples of that. Our report on research and development policy in 1971–72 covered the work of six Government Departments. The population policy report of 1969–70—when the Committee was chaired by the late Mr. Airey Neave—covered 12 Government Departments. Even a recent report on energy conservation, which most of us suppose would easily be confined to the Department of Energy, covered six Departments. It is no good saying that all this work could be done by one departmental Committee.
Consider the Department of Education and Science. Presumably the Committee to be attached to it would take over some of the work we have done in the past.

195
The Department is, however, responsible for only a small proportion of what is normally regarded as science and technology. It looks after the science budget and gives financial support to research councils. That is about all.
This brings me to another important point. The Select Committee on Science and Technology has never been content simply to monitor Government activity in set areas. We have looked ahead, at new national needs and developments. That is why I asked the Leader of the House earlier today about incomplete inquiries. The Committee has several such inquiries. I have in mind particularly our wide-ranging investigation into genetic engineering, or genetic manipulation. Who will take that up? That was not a subject which would have arisen naturally from the work of a Government Department. There needs to be a lot of imagination and understanding to see the needs of the future in such matters. I very much doubt whether any of the new departmental Committees—being as kind as I can—would accord to genetic science the priority given to it by the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
I am not convinced by the argument of the Leader of the House that we are in an either/or position. That smacks of dogma. It is inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's great scholarship in these matters and with what I always regarded as the normal gradualist traditions of the Conservative Party. It is a doctrinaire approach—that there is one solution which will meet every need. In politics one should be suspicious of such an approach. I certainly am. I think that it is perfectly possible for the desire for greater parliamentary scrutiny to be consistent with both the departmental approach and the subject approach. They are not necessarily mutually contradictory.
I said when I started that I doubted whether departmentally related Committees would show the same degree of independence that the subject Committees have shown, not only the Select Committee on Science and Technology but the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries as well. There is the danger that they will be captured by the Department in the long run. I will give just this example of what I mean. If there was
196
ever a controversial subject in this country's industrial life, it is the fast breeder reactor. In the last Parliament the Labour Ministers had promised, before the construction of a commercial fast breeder reactor was attempted in this country, a public inquiry, on the lines perhaps of the Windscale inquiry into nuclear waste processing. The difficulty was that the two matters were not on all fours. It was fairly easy with the Wind-scale matter. It was a planning consent that was required. With the commercial fast breeder reactor, no planning consent is involved and it is very hard to see how a Government could procedurally have fastened on to this subject in spite of the promise.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology looked at the matter. We decided—using the independence that we possessed—that it was in the public interest that an inquiry should be held. It would, incidentally, perhaps have helped the Government, by taking them away from a dilemma in which they found themselves. At the wish of the Committee, I as Chairman wrote to the Ministers concerned, principally my right hon. Friends the then Secretaries of State for Energy and for the Environment. There is no reason why I should not reveal this to the House now; we have a great desire for open government. I asked my right hon. Friends, with the knowledge of the Committee, how they would view the prospect of the Select Committee on Science and Technology investigating the matter. We had replies which were not particularly favourable to our doing so. However, that did not deter the Committee. We proposed to go ahead. In fact, we had made a start on it before the Dissolution of the last Parliament.
I wonder from this whether the new Select Committee on Energy, or whatever other departmentally related Committee one likes to name, will show the same degree of independence in the future that the subject Committees, because of their nature, have been able to show in the past. I leave that thought with the House.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. Tim Renton: I have great pleasure in following the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr.

197
Palmer) and in joining him in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his truly excellent maiden speech. I thought that my hon. Friend wended his way with great clarity and precision through the recommendations of the Committee on Procedure, but I foresee one danger for him. If he should by any lucky chance find himself on any of the new departmentally related Select Committees, I do not think that he will stay there for long. I already hear the putative ministerial voice speaking in my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham—still at this stage ready to answer questions, but not for long. I therefore think that his life on a Select Committee might be rather brief.
My first point is to ask whether Back Benchers—this goes for Back Benchers on both sides of the House, of course—can effectively control executive Ministers who are yesterday's Back Benchers and, perhaps, such are the fortunes of life, tomorrow's Back Benchers—I say that in no party sense, I assure those on the Front Bench—and whether, particularly, we can do this when so many of us are anxious to step into the very shoes of those Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) referred to members of Select Committees as "Ministersin-waiting". Somebody else said that they had been described in the weekend press as "Ministers manqué". Indeed, those of us who serve on Select Committees might be better if we accepted that we were Ministers manqué. The trouble is that we do not accept that. We still feel that the ministerial mantle might fall on us.
This means that in our approach to Ministers who appear before us on Select Committees—I speak as somebody who in the last Parliament served on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr)—we tread delicately. Because in our future prospects, we are so intertwined with Ministers, I do not believe that these recommendations—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing them before the House—are all that important. I do not think that it will make all that much difference to the control of the Executive, whether there are five, six or twelve Select Committees.
198
I think that much more importance lies not in the machinery which I hope we shall set up following this debate but in the nuts and bolts. By that I refer to Members of Parliament themselves and the independence and skill they can bring to the job.
The first consideration, then, relates to the selection of the members of a Select Committee. I was pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) on that subject. I believe that the independence of the members of Select Committees is a matter of prime importance. When the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries had produced its reports on the British Steel Corporation, one of the members of that Committee, the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), was suddenly removed from our team. He disappeared overnight, and we asked ourselves why that had happened. We concluded that the hon. Gentleman had been just a little too good in pursuing Ministers; he had asked too many difficult questions, and we felt that that was why he had been translated. I am glad that he has reappeared on the Opposition Front Bench, and I congratulate him.
The independence of which I speak is necessary not only in a Select Committee itself but on occasions when its reports are debated on the Floor of the House. Our recommendations on the British Steel Corporation were agreed unanimously in the Select Committee, but when it finally came to debating those recommendations on the Floor of the House hon. Members who had been lions upstairs suddenly were converted into rather meek lambs and the motion to approve our reports on the Floor of the House turned into a party political debate and the motion was negatived.
The second consideration is that a Select Committee must be backed up by adequate and well-instructed staff. The Congressional Record for 1975—the last one I have managed to examine—points out that in that year representatives were each allowed to increase their staff to 18 members, and were allowed a salary of $250,000 just to pay their staff. Doubtless that figure has increased greatly since then because of inflation.
We content ourselves too much with half a Clerk and half a professional adviser. If we are to do this new job

199
which is entrusted to us, there must be suitable funds available both for the staff and for the travel that members of Select Committees think is necessary. I asked a question about this earlier, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he replies, will tell us a bit more about how he sees the situation regarding the availability of funds.
It will be most important that Committees should be able to study Bills in draft form. I do not mind whether this is done in Standing Committee or Select Committee. The essential thing is that Back Benchers on both sides of the House should be able to call technical evidence before them at the draft stage of legislation. We get technical back-up now from professional bodies when we are in Standing Committee. We receive briefs from professional bodies with their views on such and such a subject. But, as we all know, we then have the ridiculous pretence of not being able to refer to them directly, and certainly not being able to call in evidence those who have sent us the briefs.
How much better it would be if we could have those witnesses in front of us before the machismo—the virility—of the Minister and his Department has got intertwined with and attached to seeing that a Bill, having had its First Reading, is then passed by the Committee without any amendment whatsoever. That is the present, and so unnecessary situation. It should be avoided in future.
Then there is the question of the time of the hon. Members who sit on the Select Committees. It is impossible for any Member of this House to be intelligent at 10.30 in the morning if he has been up voting until well after midnight—until perhaps three or four in the morning—three or four consecutive nights previously. Let us face the fact that the expert witnesses we want to call before us in Select Committees are all intelligent. They know their jobs. That is why they are there. But they did not go to bed at three or four in the morning on the three or four nights previously.
It is ridiculous for us to feel that we can interrogate the Government Actuary, a nuclear physicist or the chairman of the British Gas Corporation with all the verve and alertness that we need if we
200
have been flogging through the Lobbies until some late hour the night before.
This brings me to a hobby-horse of mine. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take this on board as a future recommendation to the House. I think that the time will come when Members of Parliament, after the main vote at 10 p.m., must be able to pre-record their vote for the rest of the night's business.
Mr. William Hamilton: No, no.
Mr. Renton: I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) does not agree with me on this, though in the past there have been many things on which we have agreed. Let me put the advantages of this idea to him.
First, all those who were not interested in the business would be able to go home and prepare for the interrogation of expert witnesses the following morning. But even more important than that is the fact that those with an interest in the business after 10 p.m.—and on this occasion we are to go on voting, I am told, until three or four in the morning—would be able to go on speaking for the allotted time without having the Whips breathing down their necks saying "Is it not time that you shut up because the lads want to go home?" This is, as we all know, the kind of pressure that Back Benchers are put under at the moment.
There is no more humiliating business for Back Bench Members, on both sides of the House, than being kept around just to vote. For us to be treated as Lobby fodder; for us to be here simply in order to go through the Lobbies—it happens on both sides of the House all the time—in that context, we are not worth £6,000 a year, let alone £12,000 a year.
It would be a useful task for Inmos, that proud child of the National Enterprise Board, to produce a foolproof system—and I stress "foolproof"—to allow hon. Members to record their votes on all the expected Divisions until 2.30 the following afternoon.
Those are the matters which I believe are more important than the number of Select Committees: the time of hon. Members, their independence from the Whips on Select Committees and expert staff to back hon. Members.

201
I still believe that a far more effective watchdog than any parliamentary Committee would be partial denationalisation. A shareholder will always be more interested than any parliamentary Committee in the successful running of a business. But that is a debate for another night.
We are saying that we have not controlled the Executive well and, therefore, we are bringing in a new system. If the Government go on as their predecessors have behaved and provide many more examples of excessive and uncontrolled expenditure which are not properly monitored, our last state will be worse than our first.
The public will expect us to succeed in the new system. I shall vote for it, with some reservations, and I hope that we shall all do everything we can to ensure that it succeeds. Otherwise, the British people will indeed be disappointed.
11.52 p.m.
Mrs. Renée Short: I thought that the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) was about to launch himself on a discussion of one of my favourite hobby-horses—the introduction of reasonable hours for the House. It is crazy that we should hold debates at midnight and beyond.
It is remarkable that so many hon. Members have stayed throughout this debate from 3.30 p.m. without food or drink. Perhaps we need our heads examined for still doing that sort of thing. If we had more reasonable hours, that would bring control of Government to the crunch. They could not then extend the hours of debate and keep us here as captives when we are keen to contribute to a debate.
The keenness of hon. Members to take part in this debate and the fact that there is so little opposition to the Leader of the House's proposals are remarkable. I support the plan to set up Select Committees related to individual Departments. Before the general election, my Expenditure Committee covered the Departments of Employment and Health and Social Security. That was a large chunk of work for any Committee to take on board. There were a number of areas with political sex appeal that the Committee could investigate, and it could not concentrate on one Department but had to move from one to the other. That was a mistake.
202
Having Committees that concentrate on individual Departments is a good idea.
Under our existing system, Select Committees are responsible for looking at Departments' expenditure and they have the power to send for Ministers. I have never known a Minister refuse to attend. Not long ago, my Committee had that august personage the Chancellor of the Exchequer before us and we managed to squeeze out a bit of information that he was not willing to give before. We felt that we had done rather well.
One of the major advantages is that Members themselves can become well-informed about the responsibilities of a particular Department and can acquire a certain amount of expertise, which is a valuable contribution to debates in the House when Bills from that Department are before the House or when hon. Members raise matters on private Members' days.
I therefore welcome the proposal to set up these Select Committees. It is quite an improvement for the Committee to propose that we should have eight full days to debate the reports. That was proposed by the Select Committee but the Leader of the House is not saying anything about it. We are to have these 12 Select Commitees and there are suggested additions. Clearly, eight days would not be sufficient, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take on board the fact that we need to have more opportunities to debate the reports that come to us from the new Select Committees. We must keep pressing him for additional time.
If the Committees are to have additional time in the House, Ministers who have the responsibility to respond to the reports and recommendations they contain must prepare their replies very much more quickly than in the past. It is disgraceful that a Committee that has worked hard for nine months or so—most of the Session—should have to wait perhaps a year or more before a departmental reply is received.
I know that sometimes the reports are rather unacceptable to Ministers. I recall that when my Committee did an investigation into the effects of private practice on the National Health Service and we reported to no less a personage than the present Secretary of State for Industry, then Secretary of State for

203
Social Services, he did not like our report at all and kept us waiting for more than a year before replying.
Although I and other members of the Committee raised the matter in the House on many occasions, the right hon. Gentleman still continued to defy the Committee—because that was what his attitude meant—and kept us waiting for so long for his reply. That sort of thing does not help to maintain the interest of hon. Members, and I am all in favour of careful selection for the departmentally related Committees to ensure that people are appointed who are really interested in the work of the Department concerned.
There has to be some reciprocity from Ministers, and I hope that the Leader of the House will keep his chaps up to scratch, at any rate better than we managed to keep some of ours up to scratch and better than his predecessors in the last Conservative Government managed to keep their chaps up to scratch.
I refer now to some of the financial arrangements that appear in the report but which have not been included by the Leader of the House in his motion. The report makes strong recommendations for the improvement of the staffing and servicing of the new Committees. All of us would support them because a Committee of this kind cannot operate, with all the work in depth that it does, with one Clerk attached to it and perhaps a share of another Clerk in the Committee Office. That is simply not enough. There is an enormous amount of organisational work, especially if it is a Committee which travels out into the country, as most Select Committees need to. The staffing and servicing for the new Committees must be an improvement on the past.
There is no difficulty in the appointment of specialist advisers for the Committees. I understand that most of the Committees have appointed specialist advisers for the subjects they have been investigating. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), who left us some few hours ago, that I rather took exception to his remarks about the appointment of male specialist advisers—"maybe a woman", he said. My Committee, which sat up to the general election, had a very distinguished woman professor of epidemiology. She
204
was one of the three specialist advisers to the Committee, the other two being men.
I urge a less restrictive attitude on the part of the Leader of the House and the Government to the finances which are available to the Committees, and I hope that we shall hear how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to deal with the problem of Committees which wish to travel abroad. The procedure until the general election was that the Select Committee Chairmen prepared their requests, which went via the Chairman of the main Expenditure Committee to that nebulous body the Liaison Committee, which was composed of the Chairman of the Select Committees of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee, the main Expenditure Committee and others. That Committee was given a certain amount of money at the beginning of the Session to finance the journeys of the Select Committees. The case of each Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee had to be argued by the Chairman of the main Committee, which was not always as satisfactory as it might have been.
As I understand it, that is no longer the position. Accordingly, I endorse the proposal of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that finances should be made available to each Select Committee. This is a valuable suggestion. The Committees would then be masters of their own programmes and could plan their journeys, whether at home or abroad, accordingly. This seems to be a very sensible proposal. I hope that we shall hear from the Leader of the House what his alternative is. I think that this is a very important proposal.
Mr. William Hamilton: No. no.
Mrs. Short: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) does not agree. But he does not agree with a great deal that is said from both sides of the House.
I should like to hear from the Leader of the House how he suggests members of a Select Committee can express the minority view of that Committee. I have read the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on the voting and how the Chairman of a Committee can dispose of his or her vote. But there can remain in rather contested reports a very strong

205
minority view which insists on being expressed. I am not against that. I was in that position myself when we were reporting on the effect of private practice on the National Health Service. On that occasion the majority view of the Committee went forward as the Committee's report with all its recommendations. But at the meeting of the main Expenditure Committee, when the report had to be accepted or otherwise, I had the opportunity of moving as amendments to the report all the proposals that I and some of my hon. Friends on the Committee had put forward but which had been defeated. I am very pleased to say that many of those recommendations then became the basis of my party's policy, when in Government, for dealing with private pay beds in NHS hospitals.
One aspect of the report disturbs me greatly. It was referred to notably by the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). It is the decision that there should no longer be a Select Committee on Science and Technology but that the work should be carried out by all the other departmentally related Committees. This is a very bad decision.
We are facing an industrial revolution as a result of the rapid introduction of new scientific methods which will affect every industrial enterprise in the country in one way or another. Even simple ordinary jobs will be eliminated by the new techniques now being introduced. Clerical and warehouse jobs, stock control and replacement will all be replaced by electronic machines. Computers and digital electronic equipment will both displace many people and at the same time make great demands on our human resources. We shall need equipment, training and retraining, new education and newly trained people—different kinds of people—to design and to use the new equipment.
Telecommunications, television and transport will be affected. There is bound to be a revolution in motor car design and the internal combustion engine, probably more rapidly than many people imagine, as the search for new fuels continues. The Department of Education and Science, the Department of Industry, the Department of Employment, with its TOPS and youth opportunities pro-
206
gramme, the National Enterprise Board and the Manpower Services Commission will be affected. The engineering industry training board, many other training boards and the whole range of private industry will be involved.
I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he intended to take to increase the courses available in secondary schools in computer science. The reply stated:
"The balance and the breadth of curriculum in schools, however, remains a matter for local education authorities and the schools themselves."
That does not display much drive. To my question to the Secretary of State for Employment asking whether he was satisfied with the existing level of retraining courses in micro-chip technology, the reply was:
"Steps are therefore being taken, particularly by the Manpower Services Commission, to encourage industry to increase training and retraining in areas of known shortage. The Government are keeping the situation under careful review."
That does not get us very far. More encouragement is needed in this serious situation.
I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he would see that there was at least one British-built micro-computer in every secondary school within the next three years. A microcomputer has existed in every secondary school in France for the last three years. The reply by the Under-Secretary of State said:
"The provision of computing facilities for schools is primarily a matter for individual local authorities".
But they are not given the money. The answer goes on to say that
"The possibility"—
only a possibility—
"of a programme to promote awareness of microelectronics in schools and colleges is under consideration and one aim of such a programme could be"—
not should be, or will be—
"to foster and advise on the use of computers."
Finally, when I asked the Secretary of State for Industry what direct action he intended to take to increase Great Britain's expenditure on industrial research and development, I was told:
"The level of expenditure by industry on research and development is primarily a matter for individual firms".

207
I hope that some of the Select Committees will see that Ministers are kicked in the right direction and that some sense of urgency is brought to these matters. The Government are responsible for seeing that resources are made available for research and development. We compare badly with our international competitors. France, Germany, Japan and the United States are all spending more in this sphere. There are many interesting fields of investigation for the Select Committees when they are set up.
12.9 a.m.
Miss Janet Fookes: I hope to speak only for a few minutes. It is right to pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee on Procedure for the whole range of its recommendations. We are looking at only one section of that range tonight. I am glad to hear from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the recommendations tonight are to be considered only as a first instalment.
One concern about tonight's recommendations relates to the handling of draft Bills. I understand that the new-style Select Committees will have the opportunity to look at Bills in an investigative manner for a few days immediately before the traditional Committee stage. I hope that the new Committees will not be precluded from examining draft Bills. We may need more time to consider them than the new arrrangements allow.
I shall give an example from my experience as Chairman of a Standing Committee. The Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill came before that Committee but it soon became apparent that the Bill would have to be amended to give priority to certain categories of the homeless. At that point the Committee procedure broke down because it was so much of a straitjacket that it was not possible to consider the issue properly. The matter was deferred until Report stage. It would have been better had the appropriate departmental Committee had a chance to examine the issue. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will assure us that the new Committees will be able to examine draft Bills if they wish.
I am also worried about the vexed question of the power to send for persons
208
and papers. We had experience of this under the old Select Committee system. The words do not mean what they say. We have the power to send for some papers but not others. We have the power to send for certain people but not others. I am disappointed that this wording is to remain under the new arrangements.
I accept the sincerity of my right hon. Friend when he says that he will do his best to ensure that Government Departments co-operate with the Select Committees. But, with respect to my right hon. Friend, he cannot bind his successors. The proposal is no substitute for a written assurance.
The first special report from the Procedure Committee states that
"… it is desirable that every select committee having power to send for persons, papers and records should, notwithstanding the practice of the House, have power to order the attendance to give evidence to them of Ministers of the Crown who are Members of this House, and to order the production of papers and records by Ministers of the Crown …"
We have had experience in the Expenditure Committee of papers which were not forthcoming. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) recalled correctly that one paper was not made available to the Education Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, though, to rub salt into the wound, it was made available to the OECD. That is a slight which is not forgotten easily. There are other similar examples.
I turn to the question of the timing of Government observations on reports. It is not good enough that there should be inordinate delay. That means that the impetus is lost and the Government are given an excuse for inactivity. A report from the Expenditure Committee on the Charity Commission published in 1975 has not yet been the subject of Government observation. Marvellous reasons have been given, but after that length of time the excuses wear thin. I should like an assurance that there will be a different approach in the new system.
The new set-up gives us good opportunities to strengthen the position of Back Benchers and the power of the House. In that sense I disagree with tonight's speech by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). I am sure that we have much to gain from the new system, but I hope that it will not be

209
vitiated by the weaknesses that I have outlined.
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Like the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), I support the setting up of Select Committees to cover each Department of State. But, like her, I have some reservations. There can be no question but that over recent times there has been a sharp decline in the power of the legislature compared to the Executive, and that within the Executive the degree of ministerial control over the Civil Service has been much less close and much less comprehensive than is often supposed, and it now needs to be supplemented.
I think that the former is well understood, but the latter is much less so. I should therefore like to concentrate upon that as a major justification for these reforms. To paraphrase Dick Crossman, the power of the Civil Service has been growing steadily in recent years; it is still growing and it needs to be cut back. Grounded as it always has been in its permanence and continuity, it has been growing largely because of its huge organisational coverage over the assembly and the use and the filtering of information in a more technological age.
I accept that the slant of this power is not directly conspiratorial, and is not overtly anti-reformist. But it is certainly ideologically very much directed towards the maintenance of the status quo. These trends have steadily whittled the doctrine of a Minister's responsibility for his Department into not exactly a myth, because that is not true, but certainly into something of a facade.
Apart from the enormous staffs in modern Departments, about the vast majority of whose work no Minister could be, or could possibly even have the time to be, aware, the ministerial role has been dissipated by a whole variety of factors. These include the long time scale of many Government involvements—for example, in aerospace or in State pension schemes—and the complexity of many technological issues, whether concerning nuclear reactors, the Channel tunnel or whatever. Inevitably, therefore, it seems that under the present system the handling of many key issues in practice devolves into the hands of Home Office officials.
210
Another relevant development here has been the almost complete eclipse of the public body of inquiry—the Royal Commission—by the interdepartmental committee of officials. As the New Statesman revealed in a recent article, there are at least 35 Cabinet sub-committees and, underpinning them and to some extent perhaps pre-empting them, no fewer than 60 or 70 official committees.
Of course, in one sense the development of in-house skills of this kind is a very good thing, but it raises a number of important and so far unanswered questions about the political balance of power between the State bureaucracy on the one hand and elected Ministers on the other. Officials hold the power of the drafter and too often draft papers without consultation with the Minister. By the time a Minister receives the papers, it is virtually impossible for him to unpick an agreed Whitehall package. As Dick Crossman said in his memoirs,
"I have yet to see a Minister prevail against an interdepartmental official paper without the backing of the Prime Minister, the First Secretary or the Chancellor."
Another factor which undermines the political accountability of the Civil Service is the expertise of officials in employing the Whitehall network. As we know from experience, this involves such interesting devices as officials contacting opposite numbers in other Whitehall Departments to enable them to brief their Ministers against their own Minister, where the latter has taken a line which may be outside the broad Whitehall consensus. That, I submit, is the context for a real debate about the nature of executive power and what is required to regulate it. The re-establishment of genuine democratic control over the bureaucracy demands many reforms. I think that the setting up of these departmentally related Select Committees is an important one, but it certainly is not enough.
There are many other necessary reforms which in my view need to be established including the rights of Ministers. It should not simply be civil servants who are responsible for all top Civil Service appointments or at least have a major say in them. Another reform is the establishment of the right of Ministers to bring into office with them up to perhaps a dozen political advisers, not just one or two as at present, who are authorised to

211
sit on departmental and interdepartmental official committees and to pursue the Minister's political priorities where it counts.
A third reform which has been much talked about, but has not yet been achieved, is a freedom of information Act. But, given the entrenched strength of the bureaucracy, even the proposal to set up Select Committees shadowing Departments of State, important though this is, essential though I think it is, would certainly be invalidated if they were not given real teeth.
First, I do not think that it is right that the emphasis should be—as with Select Committees in the past—simply on expenditure and the need to control it. The purpose of these Committees is surely to ferret out what the Executive is up to, systematically to question it and, above all, to influence departmental policy thinking before it becomes a fait accompli. This is, as others have said, perhaps most important in the preparation of legislation.
I ask the Minister, as other hon. Members have done, whether he will give a guarantee that these new Committees will be able to consider, for example, the substantive content of Bills before they are published.
Secondly, and repeating what others have said, because I want to add my voice to it, it is absolutely necessary that a Committee should have powers to enforce the appearance of Ministers and the production of documents. It really is not good enough for the Leader of the House merely to give us a pledge that Ministers will co-operate. That did not prevent the non-attendance of Mr Harold Lever in defiance of the Expenditure Committee in 1976.
Mr. Emery: That was your Government.
Mr. Meacher: I was talking about Mr. Harold Lever not as an individual but as a Minister. I suggest that the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) would be very unwise if he did not regard that as a precedent for what may well happen on sensitive issues dealt with by the Committees which his Government are setting up.
212
It is no use saying that some relevant papers are confidential because, subject to proper safeguards in matters of national security or commercial confidentiality, they can be taken in secret session. On the question of the powers of enforcing the presentation of papers, it is no good hiding behind the anomaly involving whether a Department happens to be headed by a Secretary of State. Surely no one wants to go through the facade we had in February of last year to get the papers from the chairman of the British Steel Corporation.
Thirdly, will the Committees have a well-paid and extensive secretariat and research back-up? The odd part-time appointee, however good he is, simply will not be good enough. Full-time, expert staffs will be absolutely essential.
Lastly, I believe that there is a need for adequate, guaranteed parliamentary time for debating the reports of these Committees. At present the lack of any formal provision of parliamentary time by the Leader of the House for debating these reports—I also believe that a mere eight days as recommended by the Select Committee is quite inadequate—is a serious omission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give us a specific undertaking when he replies that adequate parliamentary time will be provided for debating most, if not all, of the Committee reports on substantive motions.
This proposal is only one step along the way, although an important one. There are a number of other important proposals from the same Select Committee for changing the hours of sitting in this Chamber and giving Standing Committees the right to examine witnesses before they get down to considering the clauses of a Bill. I hope that the Government will agree that these two issues should be put to an early free vote of the House, since the proposals being considered tonight do no more than merely set the momentum of reforming procedure in this Chamber and in Whitehall. I believe that this process still has a long way to go.
12.26 a.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have been listening carefully to the debate. I propose to introduce my own procedural reform by speaking for only 35 seconds. I do not propose to discuss the issues. I

213
simply point out that no amount of computers, silicon chips or scientific changes will solve the problems of Rhodesia, the Middle East and Northern Ireland.
On the question of the power of the House, when I was a junior Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), together with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), kyboshed the plans of a Labour Government with a majority of almost 100 to reform the House of Lords. I learnt then of the power of this Chamber on considered argument on a most important issue.
I also learned as a junior Defence Minister that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), whom I regard as one of the great Defence Ministers since Haldane, could, on his knowledge of the Department and without the aid of political advisers, get what he wanted. That is what matters, and it is rather different from Select Committees.
I have learnt in the last week that what the Leader of the House is offering tonight is evolution. What happens after that is up to this House. What happens tonight on the amendments is up to the right hon. Gentleman when he puts his case to us, having listened diligently to the debate since 3.30 p.m.
12.28 a.m.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: My first pleasant duty is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on his distinguished maiden speech. What a remarkable political city Grantham is. There must be something in the air that produces one political triumph after another. The maiden speech of my hon. Friend has impressed all who heard it and has added further lustre to a family political tradition of high distinction.
We have had an excellent debate, and by and large the Government's proposals have been warmly welcomed. I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) for what he said in his opening speech, and then again for his very generous remarks at the end. I have heard nearly all the speeches, except for three. I have sat here, along with other hon. Members, for no less than 10 hours. I do not think that I have ever been in the
214
House for a longer stretch before. The three speeches that I missed were faithfully reported to me by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who came in and resumed his old role on my behalf.
If one wants a well-attended debate, one must do two things—have a subject that really concerns the House and have a free vote. The idea that one can get hon. Members to the House only by a three-line Whip is disproved completely by looking around the Chamber today. There are more hon. Members here tonight than there are at times when a draconian three-line Whip is imposed.
The only discordant note came from my old friend the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
Mr. William Hamilton: Discordant?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: It was not discordant by the hon. Gentleman's standard but was discordant by anyone else's. When the hon. Gentleman opposes something, I regard that as the final accolade and the signal to go ahead, in the conviction that one is right.
There has been some vestigial suspicion of the Government's motives in putting forward the proposals. Motives are personal things, and I cannot look into the minds of ministerial colleagues. I can speak only for myself. Both in Opposition and in Government I have been a believer in parliamentary reform, in the rights of Back Benchers and in the importance of the Select Committee structure proposed by the Select Committee on Procedure. I believe that while the proposed measures will not solve all our parliamentary problems, they constitute a decisive shift of the centre of power from Whitehall back to Westminster.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) pressed me about the future. He asked "What about the rest of the report?", as did a number of other right hon. and hon. Members. I consider the motions to be only the first instalment, but a massive first instalment, of the Committee's proposals, covering almost one-third of them. It is the "premier pas qui coûte." [HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Gentleman is showing off."] It is not showing off, it comes naturally. The House should be thankful that that quotation is French, not Latin.

215
To reach this point has required a concentrated effort. It has required consultations with colleagues in the Cabinet and in the House, with Back Benchers of all parties. There will be a great deal more work in getting the Committees set up, obtaining the staff, having the members appointed and so on. Therefore, this instalment still requires a great deal of effort to bring it to a successful conclusion.
I have also announced today proceedings with regard to the Exchequer and Audit Department. A review is going on with a view to legislation. I was asked what books the Committee would be able to look at. That is one of the matters which is being investigated. The duty will be to find out where the books have been cooked—for that matter, what cooks to book—and other related subjects.
There is a further step. There are 50 or so recommendations of the Procedure Committee left: various pleas for limited time for speeches in certain circumstances, at certain times of the day, changes in the hours of the House, that the House should rise on Friday at, say, 9.30—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sorry. I have slipped into talking of 9.30 p.m. I meant beginning the sitting at 9.30 a.m. There are recommendations about the Public Bill procedure, which are extremely difficult, controversial proposals about which there will have to be wide discussions.
We have made a start. Once one embarks on a path one must go forward, and we must follow the path of parliamentary reform to a conclusion. I hope that I can reassure the House of the Government's intentions on that point.
I am sympathetic to the reappointment of the Procedure Committee, but we have a great deal of work from the Procedure Committee to be discharged before we engage in further obligations. Apart from the major report, we have a further eight reports of the Procedure Committee that have not been discussed by the House.
Mr. English: That is another Committee.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: That may be.
Hon. Members on all sides have rightly raised the question of staffing the Committees, and that is a practical part of
216
the problem that we face. My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and my hon. Friends the Members for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) were amongst those who raised the matter. If Committees of that order are set up, they must be adequately staffed. If one wills the end, one must will the means. The extent of the additional staff required can be assessed only when the Committees get under way in consultation with the Committees themselves and perhaps the Liaison Committee of Select Committee Chairmen, whatever form that may take. The House of Commons Commission will have the responsibility of ensuring that the Committees are properly supported in order to do their job.
Mr. Rooker: More money.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Some more money, but not an excessive amount. One does not want to go to the extreme of the American Congress, but neither does one want to deny these Committees the essential tools to do their job.
I also fully accept that we have to act within the parameters of the economic policy of the Government, and in the present circumstances there can be no extravagance. I have received an assurance from the House authorities that existing staff are available to get the Committees under way forthwith—and I pay tribute to the House authorities for ensuring that that is so and for all the other selfless work that they do. We must see how the system develops and get it off to a good but reasonable start.
The terms of reference of these Committees has been mentioned. The interpretation of these will be a matter for the Committees themselves as well as for the House. The raison d'etre of the reform is that there should be departmental Committees and that if they are to exercise their functions they must find Ministers who are exercising responsibility. I hope that the Committees will act within a reasonably wide frame of reference and not confine themselves to the narrowest possible interpretation of their range of responsibility.
A further important point that was raised was the chairmanship of the Committees. That is for the Committees themselves. It is accepted that the Committees will have a Government majority on them.

217
It does not follow that that Government majority will take all the chairmanships. I hope that some kind of equitable arrangement will be worked out that is fair to everyone in the House.
We have had reference to Cabinet committees, and the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) touched on that point. There is much less secrecy about Cabinet committees under this Government than under any of their predecessors. On 24 May my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in answer to a question, published for the first time an official reference to the four standing committees of the Cabinet and named their chairmen. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East was aware of that. If he was not, it merely confirms my view that if one wants to keep a secret one should talk about it on the Floor of the House. If it desired to have something widely publicised, one should mention it in one of the secret party committees upstairs and the objective will be achieved.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Oldham, West on his travails—so I took them to be—with the Civil Service. He, no doubt, has had his experience. The late Mr. Crossman had his. I can only say that in my experience of government, if a Minister knows his own mind and has the will to follow it through, he will get complete and loyal co-operation from the Civil Service. But, of course, if one dithers and is weak, nature abhors a vacuum and the Civil Service will obligingly step in to do the job.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West raised a question about the Committees and asked whether they would be allowed to see draft Bills. That is more a matter for the Committee dealing with public procedure. As I see these Committees working, I would have thought that members of the Committee, in the interchange of views and questions with Ministers and members of the Civil Service, would have a fairly good idea of the shape of coming legislation as the dialogue went on.
I mention Northern Ireland in passing. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised two points. The first has been disposed of and related to
218
whether the Northern Ireland Standing Committee, under Standing Order 72A, would go on. It will, but I stress again that it is an ad hoc Committee which meets to consider particular matters referred to it. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the PCA should consider reports from Northern Ireland. I have to say that there are difficulties of a technical nature here. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I shall look into this matter and see what can be done to meet the objections he has raised.
I come now to deal with the various groups of amendments which the House has been considering. There is a difficulty of arrangement here. The debate has ranged widely, over nearly 40 amendments, and although they have been divided into groups they were not discussed in that order. I propose to deal with them in the order of selection by Mr. Speaker and to speak briefly on these 15 groups of amendments which we have been discussing.
The first group, consisting of amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5, 36, 21, 24, 30, 37 and 38, are all concerned with Scotland and a Select Committee of one kind or another for Scotland. I hope that hon. Members will not press this to a Division in view of the assurance I have been able to give, in principle, that the Government will set up a Scottish Select Committee but that the terms of reference and the composition should await the outcome of the all-party talks which we are about to launch on this matter.
Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall give way, but I have very little time to deal with all the points raised.
Mr. Dewar: I hope the right hon. Gentleman realises that some Scottish Members have waited throughout the debate and unfortunately, for understandable reasons, have not been called. On this Scottish point, will he accept that there is a strong feeling in the House that a Select Committee on Scottish affairs should be dealt with in the context of the arguments we are having tonight about all the other departmental Committees? This has nothing to do with the need to produce something from the all-party talks on devolution. Devolution is about a transfer of power to Scotland

219
and the essence of it is a body which does not reflect the composition of this House but which reflects Scottish opinion. If the Select Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is, as it must, to reflect the views in this House and the composition of this place, it must be decided tonight and must not be used as a fig leaf in some way to cover the lack of Conservative policy on devolution.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that that is a rather strange way of putting the argument, but I have said that I accept the principle of that Committee. It is obvious that, if one accepts the Committee in principle, it must be left to the Government to draft the actual amendment on a Committee of this importance, so I hope that the course I am advocating will be followed by the hon. Gentleman and others. It is up to them to decide, but I have to recommend my hon. Friends to vote against their proposal in those circumstances.
I pass on the next group of amendments, Nos. 6, 12 and 19. These concern essentially the proposed replacement of the Select Committee on Science and Technology by a new Select Committee on Science and Arts. This is the anti-C.P. Snow motion. We have had a declaration from the two Renaissance men—my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Ginsburg), Leonardo da Vinci and Benvenuto Cellini. I as a mere Victorian believe that we have two cultures and that they do not fit in very well together.
As regards scientific matters, the Procedure Committee, whilst accepting that there were arguments on both sides, came down in favour of the approach that scientific and technological matters should be examined within the context of departmental policies. Although it is ultimately for the House to decide, I must say that the establishment of a Committee on Science and Arts would cut across the whole general structure of the proposed new departmentally related Committees.
That argument applies to the next group of amendments—Nos. 11, 26 and 31—seeking the retention of the Select Committee on Science and Technology,
220
ably argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd), to whose technological and scientific knowledge I certainly pay deference. He was supported by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who has been such a distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. For the same reasons as I have given, I am unable to accept that argument. I believe that the new departmentally related Committees, as appropriate, will be fully alive to their scientific responsibility and I think that much of the most important work done in the past by the hon. Gentleman's Committee fell in fact within the scope of a single Department—the Department of Energy.
The fourth group of amendments—Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 39—in the names of the hon. Members for Fife, Central and for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), concern numbers on a Committee. We could argue a great deal about numbers, but may I give to the House the rationale behind the numbers which the Government have inserted in their recommendations? The present proposal for numbers on a Committee is based on an average of 10, which was the average recommendation by the Procedure Committee, with 11 members for the Committees with power to establish Sub-Committees, 10 members for those represented on the Nationalised Industries Sub-Committee, and 9 for the remainder, defence being the exception, in that case 10 being justified by that Committee's importance. Therefore, I cannot accept those amendments.
We come next to the fifth group—amendment No. 13—in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), for the inclusion of the Law Officers' Department. As I have said, there are grave objections to this because of judicial appointments, confidential communications between the Lord Chancellor and the judges on judicial matters, and related matters of that kind.
I received welcome support on that point from the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who has experience in these matters. The point of the amendment is that it would include the matters which I have mentioned. There are no reservations in that amendment. Therefore, I am afraid that I cannot accept it. Indeed, there has not

221
been widespread support for it in this debate.
I turn to the next set of amendments, Nos. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 34. This was the group of amendments supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) dealing with the separation of trade from the Industry and Trade Committee. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, because I know he feels strongly about this matter and speaks with all the strength of experience, but the proposal in the motion is that the Department of Trade should be linked in a single Committee with the Department of Industry. I am afraid that I cannot agree to a further multiplication of committees.
I turn to the seventh group of amendments, Nos. 22 and 33, for the retention of the Nationalised Industries Committee put forward by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr), to whose work the whole House pays tribute. The work of his Committee has been highly successful and has made a major contribution to political life in the control of the nationalised industries. But, again, the amendments cut across the principle of this reform, and we have recommended that there should be a Sub-Committee to consider matters common to the nationalised industries and to determine the need for joint inquiries. That recommendation is accepted in principle in paragraph (5) of the motion. The motion does not establish the Sub-Committee. That will have to await the setting up of the Committees.
The eighth group of amendments concerns the Liaison Committee which, it is suggested, should exist on an informal basis. It has been suggested by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West that it should be a formal Committee. I see no reason for opposing that suggestion. I am anxious to accommodate the House and to please the hon. Gentleman, who has made a great contribution. I accept his amendment in principle as suitable, and later, following consultations with the hon. Member, my colleagues, the other channels and everybody else, I shall bring a proposal before the House.
The proposal to have a separate Committee dealing with race relations and immigration appeals to me personally. It was put forward by the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs). I am a for-
222
mer member of that Committee and I am aware of the importance of the subject of race relations, and, indeed, I made my maiden speech on it. However, there is a "but" involved here, and it would be impossible for the Home Affairs Committee to set up a Sub-Committee on race relations which would meet many of the points put forward. I am afraid that I cannot agree to that amendment.
We then have before us amendment No. 27 to set up an official information Committee. That policy is not accepted by the Government. Our policy is to make as many background papers and analytical studies on major policy decisions as readily available as possible. We believe that these proposals are a major contribution to open government.
On the number of Sub-Committees—amendment No. 28 in the name of the hon. Member for Heeley—I am sympathetic but I am afraid that it is not possible to multiply the number of Sub-Committees. Then we have the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on the question of whether there should be a permanent Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, on overseas development. That is a matter for the Committee to decide. It would be possible for the Committee to set up a permanent Sub-Committee with one subject for the whole of the Parliament, or a permanent Sub-Committee with various changes of subject. I stress to my hon. Friend that that is a matter for the Committee and not for me.
The question of time is most important, but I do not think that it is desirable to write in an eight-day limit because that would tend to be a maximum. However, it is certainly my intention, and the intention of the Government, that substantially increased priority should be given for debates on Select Committee reports. There must be. It is an essential part of the package. But not every report will need a debate. We must have flexibility here. If that is not found satisfactory, we can look at it again. We can come back to it and see whether other arrangements need to be made.
With regard to powers, we have the amendment from the hon. Member for Fife, Central, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth,

223
Drake (Miss Fookes). I take the view that the undertakings that I have given are sufficient. They take another view. It is summed up in "Henry IV", part 1, in a passage which will be familiar to you Mr. Speaker:
"Hotspur: I think there's no man speaks better Welsh: I'll to dinner.
Mortimer: Peace … You will make him mad.
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I; or so can any man:
But will they come, when you do call for them?"
I consider that the undertaking that I have given is sufficient to conjure up, not necessarily spirits, but at any rate Ministers. I hope that the House will accept that undertaking.
There is the question of the nomination of Select Committees (Committee of Selection). The hon. Member for Nottingham, West asked me why I had changed my mind on this. In fact, I did not change my mind. What I did was to put down a motion intended to apply to the 12 Committees in terms which were too wide and which covered all Select Committees. That was the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, I quite agree, but we did not intend to implement that recommendation all at once. We intended to implement it in relation to these Committees. That is the truth of the matter, and I dare say no one will believe me.
In conclusion, I say that here we are offered an opportunity, not a guarantee. The success of this experiment depends upon Members themselves. I hope that it will not be thought of as a vehicle for ministerial advancement by Ministers manque, of whom we have heard this evening. I hope that it will offer an alternative course of action, not to the exclusion of ministerial office but to let people move to and fro.
We are far too rigid in our legislature in these matters. There is a better example
in the United States, where people move in and out of politics, in and out of commerce, and from the academic world to politics. Let us have freedom of movement here. It is at any rate a start. It is, I believe, a good start, and I have been encouraged by the reception which the House has been kind enough to accord to these proposals.
I congratulate hon. Members on the interest they have shown. I congratulate them on the stamina they have shown by being here. It is a quality desiderative of the turf. That is not on the note which I have just received. That note says "Keep talking until one o'clock." Some horses can hold on and others cannot. May I say to hon. Members "Do not overdo it." It is the right of Members, of course, to divide the House. I have tried to answer as fully as I can the points that have been raised. I have tried to give assurances as fully as I can, and I hope that the House will respond to the lead I have given and support the motion.
It being One o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion relating to Select Committees related to Government Departments.
Mr. Speaker: I shall call hon. Members in succession to make the first amendment in each group on the published selection list. If the first amendment is defeated, consequences will follow for others listed with it.
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in line 5, leave out
'Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland'
and insert
'Secretary of State for Northern Ireland'.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 187.

Division No. 18]

AYES

[1.00 a.m.

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dobson, Frank

Ancram, Michael

Carmichael, Neil

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Beith, A. J.

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Dubs, A.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cook, Robin F.

Dunwoody Mrs Gwyneth

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Cryer, Bob

Eastham, K.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dalyell, Tam

English, Michael

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Evan, John (Newton)

Field, Frank

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Flannery, Martin

McNally, T.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Forrester, John

McNamara, Kevin

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Foulkes, G.

McWilliam, J. D.

Skinner, Dennis

Fraser, P. (South Angus)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Freud, Clement

Maxton, J.

Soley, C. S.

George, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

Spearing, Nigel

Hardy, Peter

Mikardo, Ian

Sproat, Ian

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Steel, Rt Hon David

Heffer, Eric S.

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Stoddart, David

Hogg, N. (East Dunbartonshire)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Straw, J.

Home Robertson, John

Myles, David

Tinn, James

Hooley, Frank

O'Neill, M.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Howells, Geraint

Palmer, Arthur

Welsh, M.

Huckfield, Les

Pollock, A.

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Prescott, John

Winnick, D.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Woolmer, K. J.

Kerr, Russell

Radice, Giles

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Kinnock, Neil

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Wright, Mrs S.

Lamond, James

Richardson, Miss Jo

Leighton, Ronald

Roberts, E. (Hackney North)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Robertson, George

Mr. William Hamilton and

Mckay, Allen (Penistone)

Rooker, J. W.

Mr. Donald Dewar

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Fookes, Miss Janet

Monro, Hector

Alison, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Archer, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Arnold, Tom

Fox, Marcus

Mudd, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Needham, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Nelson, Anthony

Banks, Robert

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Nott, Rt Hon John

Beaumont-Dark, A. M.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Bendall, Vivian

Gow, Ian

Osborn, John

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Gray, Hamish

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grist, Ian

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gummer, J. S.

Parkinson, Cecil

Blackburn, John

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom & Ewell)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Blaker, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pattie, Geoffrey

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hannam, John

Percival, Sir Ian

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)

Hastings, Stephen

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)

Bowden, Andrew

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hayhoe, Barney

Proctor, K. Harvey

Braine, Sir Bernard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Bright, Graham

Higgins, Terence L.

Raison, Timothy

Brinton, Timothy

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Rathbone, Tim

Brittan, Leon

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hooson, Tom

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brooke, Hon Peter

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Renton, Tim

Brotherton, Michael

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Rhodes James, Robert

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridsdale, Julian

Butler, Hon Adam

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rifkind, Malcolm

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roberts, M. (Cardiff North West)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Channon, Paul

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Roper, John

Churchill, W. S.

Kimball, Marcus

Rossi, Hugh

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rost, Peter

Clegg, Walter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Cockeram, Eric

Lamont, Norman

St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Cope, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Cormack, Patrick

Latham Michael

Shersby, Michael

Costain, A. P.

Lawrence, Ivan

Silvester, Fred

Crouch, David

Lawson, Nigel

Sims, Roger

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Speed, Keith

Dickens, G.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Speller, Tony

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Dorrell, S.

Loveridge, John

Stanley, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

McCrindle, Robert

Steen, Anthony

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stevens, M.

Durant, Tony

MacGregor, John

Stradling Thomas, J.

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Marlow, Antony

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Eggar, T.

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tebbit, Norman

Emery, Peter

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Eyre, Reginald

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mayhew, Patrick

Thompson, Donald

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mills, I. (Meriden)

Trotter, Neville

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Miscampbell, Norman

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Viggers, Peter

226

227

Waddington, David

Wickenden, K.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Wakeham, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Waller, Gary

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wheeler, J.

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Tony Newton and

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Wolfson, Mark

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Speaker: The grouped amendments fall. Next is amendment No. 6, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price). I understand that he does not wish to move it.
Mr. David Price: That is so, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The next amendment is No. 8, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). Does he wish to move it?
Mr. William Hamilton: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The next amendment is No. 11, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). Does he wish to move it?
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, in line 15, column 2, leave out 'Science'.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 201.

Division No. 19]

AYES

[1.11 a.m.

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Huckfield, Les

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Richardson, Miss Jo

Carmichael, Neil

Kerr, Russell

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Rooker, J. W.

Cryer, Bob

Lawrence, Ivan

Rost, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Leighton, Ronald

Shersby, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Loveridge, John

Skinner, Dennis

Eastham, Ken

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Evans, John (Newton)

McNally, Thomas

Stoddart, David

Flannery, Martin

McNamara, Kevin

Waller, Gary

Foulkes, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Welsh, Michael

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Meacher, Michael

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

George, Bruce

Mikardo, Ian

Winnick, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Winterton, Nicholas

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Myles, David

Hardy, Peter

O'Neill, Martin

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Heffer, Eric S.

Osborn, John

Mr. Ian Lloyd and

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Prescott, John

Mr. Arthur Palmer.

Home Robertson, John

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Butler, Hon Adam

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Alison, Michael

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Alton, David

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Ancram, Michael

Channon, Paul

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Arnold, Tom

Churchill, W. S.

Field, Frank

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clegg, Walter

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Banks, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

Fookes, Miss Janet

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cope, John

Forman, Nigel

Beith, A. J.

Cormack, Patrick

Forrester, John

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Costain, A. P.

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Berry, Hon Anthony

Crouch, David

Fox, Marcus

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Freud, Clement

Blackburn, John

Davis Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Blaker, Peter

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Dobson, Frank

Gow, Ian

Bowden, Andrew

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Gray, Hamish

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dorrell, Stephen

Grist, Ian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dubs, Alfred

Gummer, John Selwyn

Bright, G.

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Brinton, Timothy

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brittan, Leon

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Hannam, John

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Durant, Tony

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Brooke, Hon Peter

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Hayhoe, Barney

Brotherton, Michael

Eggar, Timothy

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Emery, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Bryan, Sir Paul

English, Michael

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Eyre, Reginald

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Hooson, Tom

Monro, Hector

Speed, Keith

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Speller, Tony

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Mudd, David

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Howells, Geraint

Needham, Richard

Sproat, Ian

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Stanley, John

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Steel, Rt Hon David

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Steen, Anthony

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Stevens, Martin

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Stradling Thomas, J.

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Straw, Jack

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Pattie, Geoffrey

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Kimball, Marcus

Percival, Sir Ian

Tebbit, Norman

King, Rt Hon Tom

Proctor, K. Harvey

Temple-Morris, Peter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Lamont, Norman

Radice, Giles

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Raison, Timothy

Thompson, Donald

Latham, Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Lawson, Nigel

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Trotter, Neville

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Renton, Tim

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rhodes James, Robert

Viggers, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Waddington, David

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Macfarlane, Neil

Ridsdale, Julian

Wakeham, John

MacGregor, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wheeler, John

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Whitehead, Phillip

McWilliam, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Marlow, Antony

Robertson, George

Wickenden, Keith

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Roper, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Rossi, Hugh

Wolfson, Mark

Maxton, John

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Woolmer, Kenneth

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mayhew, Patrick

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Wright, Miss Shella

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Shephered, Colin (Hereford)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Silvester, Fred

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Sims, Roger

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Miscampbell, Norman

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mr. Tony Newton and

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Soley, Clive

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 13, in line 21, after ' Home Office', insert
'Lord Chancellor's Department, Law Officers' Department.'—[Mr. English.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 87, Noes 186.

Division No. 20]

AYES

[1.23 a.m.

Alton, David

Howells, Geraint

Roberts, A. (Bootle)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Huckfield, Les

Roberts, E. (Hackney North)

Beith, A. J.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Robertson, George

Benn, Rt Hon Antony Wedgwood

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Kerr, Russell

Rooker, J. W.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Kinnock, Neil

Roper, John

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Lamond, James

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Leighton, R.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Carmichael, Neil

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Cook, Robin F.

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Skinner, Dennis

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Dalyell, Tam

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Soley, C. S.

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

McNally, T.

Steel, Rt Hon David

Dobson, F. G.

McNamara, Kevin

Stoddart, David

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

McWilliam, J. D.

Straw, J.

Dubs, A.

Marlow, A.

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Maxton, J.

Tinn, James

Eastham, K.

Meacher, Michael

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Evans, John (Newton)

Mikardo, Ian

Welsh, Michael

Field, Frank

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Flannery, Martin

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Whitehead, Phillip

Forrester, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Winnick, David

Foulkes, G.

O'Neill, M.

Woolmer, Kenneth

Freud, Clement

Palmer, Arthur

Wrigglesworth, Ian

George, Bruce

Prescott, John

Wright, Miss Sheila

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Heffer, Eric S.

Richardson, Miss Jo

Mr. Michael English.

Hooley Frank

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Glyn, Dr Alan

Parkinson, Cecil

Alison, Michael

Gow, Ian

Patten, C. (Bath)

Ancram, Michael

Gray, Hamish

Pattie, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Grist, Ian

Percival, Sir Ian

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gummer, J. S.

Pollock, A.

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom & Ewell)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Banks, Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Proctor, K.

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hannam, John

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Raison, Timothy

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hayhoe, Barney

Rathbone, Tim

Blackburn, J. G.

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Blaker, Peter

Higgins, Terence L.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Renton, Tim

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Rhodes James, Robert

Bowden, Andrew

Hooson, Tom

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Ridsdale, Julian

Bright, G.

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Brinton, Timothy

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Brittan, Leon

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rossi, Hugh

Brooke, Hon Peter

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rost, Peter

Brotherton, Michael

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Browne, J. (Winchester)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Bryan, Sir Paul

Kimball, Marcus

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shersby, Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Silvester, Fred

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Lamont, Norman

Sims, Roger

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Channon, Paul

Latham, Michael

Speed, Keith

Churchill, W. S.

Lawrence, Ivan

Speller, A.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lawson, Nigel

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Clegg, Walter

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sproat, Ian

Cockeram, E.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stanley, John

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Steen, Anthony

Cope, John

Loveridge, John

Stevens, M.

Cormack, Patrick

McCrindle, Robert

Stradling Thomas, J.

Costain, A. P.

Macfarlane, Neil

Tebbit, Norman

Crouch, David

MacGregor, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Mackay, J. J. (Argyll)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dickens, G.

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Thompson, D.

Dorrell, S.

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Thorne, N. G. (Ilford South)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mayhew, Patrick

Trotter, Neville

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Durant, Tony

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Viggers, Peter

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Mills, I. (Meriden)

Waddington, David

Eggar, T.

Miscampbell, Norman

Wakeham, John

Emery, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Waller, Gary

Eyre, Reginald

Monro, Hector

Warren, Kenneth

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Wheeler, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Faith, Mrs S.

Mudd, David

Wickenden, Keith

Fenner, Mrs P.

Myles, D. F.

Wiggin, Jerry

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Needham, R.

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Nelson, Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas

Fookes, Miss Janet

Newton, Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Forman, Nigel

Nott, Rt Hon John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Fox, Marcus

Osborn, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Garel-Jones, T.

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Speaker: We come now to amendment No. 14 concerning a separate trade Committee. Mr. McCrindle.
Mr. McCrindle: Not moved, sir.
Amendment proposed: No. 22, in line 29, at end insert:
232
'(3) There shall in addition be a select committee to examine the nationalised industries; the committee shall consist of fifteen members, of whom the quorum shall be five; and the committee shall have power to appoint subcommittees.'—[Mr. Russell Kerr.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 60, Noes 193.

Division No. 21]

AYES

[1.34 a.m.

Alexander, Richard

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Richardson, Miss Jo

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ridsdale, Julian

Bowden, Andrew

Huckfield, Les

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Carmichael, Neil

Lawrence Ivan

Smith, Cryil (Rochdale)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Leighton, Ronald

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Crouch, David

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Soley, Clive

Cryer, Bob

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)

Stoddart, David

Dalyell, Tam

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Dewar, Donald

McNally, Thomas

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Dorrell, Stephen

McNamara, Kevin

Thompson, Donald

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Marlow, Anthony

Welsh, Michael

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Durant, Tony

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Winnick, David

Eastham, Ken

O'Neill, Martin

Winterton, Nicholas

Evans, John (Newton)

Osborn, John

Wright, Miss Shella

Forrester, John

Palmer, Arthur

Foulkes, George

Prescott, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

George, Bruce

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Mr. Russell Kerr and

Glyn, Dr Alan

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. Ian Mikardo.

Hardy, Peter

NOES

Alison, Michael

Field, Frank

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Alton, David

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mayhew, Patrick

Ancram, Michael

Flannery, Martin

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Arnold, Tom

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Miscampbell, Norman

Banks, Robert

Forman, Nigel

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Beith, A. J.

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Hector

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Freud, Clement

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Mudd, David

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Myles, David

Blackburn, John

Gow, Ian

Needham, Richard

Blaker, Peter

Gray, Hamish

Nelson, Anthony

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Newton, Tony

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Bright, Graham

Hampson, Dr Keith

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Brinton, Timothy

Hannam, John

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Brittan, Leon

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Parkinson, Cecil

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hayhoe, Barney

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Pattie, Geoffrey

Brotherton, Michael

Higgins, Terence L.

Percival, Sir Ian

Browne, John (Winchester)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Hooson, Tom

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Butler, Hon Adam

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Radice, Giles

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Raison, Timothy

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Howells, Geraint

Rathbone, Tim

Channon, Paul

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Churchill, W. S.

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Renton, Tim

Clegg, Walter

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Cockeram, Eric

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rifkind, Malcolm

Cope, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Cormack, Patrick

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Costain, A. P.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Kimball, Marcus

Rooker, J. W.

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roper, John

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Lamond, James

Rossi, Hugh

Dobson, Frank

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rost, Peter

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Latham, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawson, Nigel

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Dubs, Alfred

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Shersby, Michael

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Silvester, Fred

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Loveridge, John

Sims, Roger

Eggar, Timothy

McCrindle, Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Emery, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Speed, Keith

English, Michael

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Speller, Tony

Eyre, Reginald

McWilliam, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sproat, Ian

Fairgrieve, Russell

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Stanley, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Steel, Rt Hon David

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Maxton, John

Steen, Anthony

234

235

Stevens, Martin

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Wickenden, Keith

Stradling Thomas, J.

Viggers, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Straw, Jack

Waddington, David

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Tebbit, Norman

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Wolfson, Mark

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wakeham, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Waller, Gary

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Warren, Kenneth

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Wheeler, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. John McGregor and

Trotter, Neville

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) wish to move his amendment No. 23?
Mr. English indicated dissent.
Amendment proposed: No. 25, in line 34, at end insert:
'(3A) There shall in addition be a select committee to review policies, but not individual
cases, in relation to (a) the operation of the Race Relations Act 1976 with particular reference to the work of the Commission for Racial Equality; and (b) the admission into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens and foreign nationals for settlement; and the committee shall consist of ten members, of whom the quorum shall be three.'—[Mr. Dubs.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 177.

Division No. 22]

AYES

[1.44 a.m.

Alton, David

George, Bruce

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Beith, A. J.

Hardy, Peter

Richardson, Miss Jo

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Heffer, Eric S.

Robertson, George

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)

Rooker, J. W.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hooley, Frank

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Huckfield, Les

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Skinner, Dennis

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Cook, Robin F.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Cryer, Bob

Lamond, James

Soley, Clive

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Lawrence Ivan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Dalyell, Tam

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Steen, Anthony

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stoddart, David

Dewar, Donald

McNally, Thomas

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Dobson, Frank

McNamara, Kevin

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dorrell, Stephen

McWilliam, John

Welsh, Michael

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Marlow, Anthony

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Dubs, Alfred

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Winnick, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Maxton, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Eastham, Ken

Meacher, Michael

Woolmer, Kenneth

Evans, John (Newton)

Mikardo, Ian

Wright, Miss Sheila

Flannery, Martin

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Forrester, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Foulkes, George

O'Neill, Martin

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon and

Freud, Clement

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. Jack Straw.

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Prescott, John

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Field, Frank

Alison, Michael

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Arnold, Tom

Channon, Paul

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Churchill, W. S.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Forman, Nigel

Banks, Robert

Clegg, Walter

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cockeram, Eric

Fox, Marcus

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Cormack, Patrick

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Crouch, David

Glyn, Dr Alan

Blackburn, John

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Gow, Ian

Blaker, Peter

Dickens, Geoffrey

Gray, Hamish

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Grist, Ian

Bowden, Andrew

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gummer, John Selwyn

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bright, Graham

Durant, Tony

Hannam, John

Brinton, Timothy

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Brittan, Leon

Emery, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

English, Michael

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Brotherton, Michael

Eyre, Reginald

Higgins, Terence L.

Browne, John (Winchester)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Fairgrieve, Russell

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Hooson, Tom

Butler, Hon Adam

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Needham, Richard

Sims, Roger

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Nelson, Anthony

Speed, Keith

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Newton, Tony

Speller, Tony

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Nott, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Sproat, Ian

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Osborn, John

Stanley, John

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Stevens, Martin

Kimball, Marcus

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Stradling Thomas, J.

King, Rt Hon Tom

Parkinson, Cecil

Tebbit, Norman

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Percival, Sir Ian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Latham, Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thompson, Donald

Lawson, Nigel

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Radice, Giles

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Raison, Timothy

Trotter, Neville

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rathbone, Tim

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Loveridge, John

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Viggers, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Waddington, David

Macfarlane, Neil

Renton, Tim

Wakeham, John

MacGregor, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Waller, Gary

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Warren, Kenneth

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Wheeler, John

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Ridsdale, Julian

Whitehead, Phillip

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Rifkind, Malcolm

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Wickenden, Keith

Mayhew, Patrick

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Wiggin, Jerry

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Roper, John

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Rossi, Hugh

Wolfson, Mark

Miscampbell, Norman

Rost, Peter

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Monro, Hector

St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Shersby, Michael

Mr. Peter Brooke and

Mudd, David

Silvester, Fred

Mr. John Cope

Myles, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 27, in line 34, at end insert:
'(3A) There shall in addition be a select committee, to be called the Official Information Committee, to examine the arrangements for public access to official information, to make recommendations for the extension of the rights of members of the public to have access to official documents in the possession of government
departments, local authorities, and associated public bodies, and to monitor progress towards the implementation of such recommendations; and the committee shall consist of eight members, of whom the quorum shall be three.'—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 72, Noes 172.

Division No. 23]

AYES

[1.54 a.m.

Alexander, Richard

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Robertson, George

Alton, David

Hard, Peter

Rooker, J. W.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Roper, John

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hooley, Frank

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Bowden, Andrew

Howells, Geraint

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Huckfield, Les

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Lamont, Norman

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Leighton, Ronald

Soley, Clive

Carmichael, Neil

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Steel, Rt Hon David

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Stoddart, David

Cook, Robin F.

McNally, Thomas

Straw, Jack

Cryer, Bob

McNamara, Kevin

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dalyell, Tam

McWilliam, John

Waller, Gary

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Warren, Kenneth

Dobson, Frank

Maxton, John

Welsh, Michael

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Dubs, Alfred

Mikardo, Ian

Whitehead, Phillip

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

O'Neill, Martin

Wickenden, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Palmer, Arthur

Woolmer, Kenneth

Evans, John (Newton)

Prescott, John

Wright, Miss Sheila

Field, Frank

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Flannery, Martin

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Forrester, John

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Mr. Charles Morris and

Foulkes, George

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Mr. Clement Freud.

George, Bruce

NOES

Alison, Michael

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Ancram, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorest)

Beith, A. J.

Arnold, Tom

Banks, Robert

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Hannam, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Blackburn, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Percival, Sir Ian

Blaker, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Proctor, K. Harvey

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Higgins, Terence L.

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Raison, Timothy

Bright, Graham

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Rathbone, Tim

Brinton, Timothy

Hooson, Tom

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Brittan, Leon

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Renton, Tim

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rhodes James, Robert

Brotherton, Michael

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Browne, John (Winchester)

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Bryan, Sir Paul

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Ridsdale, Julian

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rifkind, Malcolm

Butler, Hon Adam

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Kimball, Marcus

Rossi, Hugh

Channon, Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom

Rost, Peter

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Clegg, Walter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Cockeram, Eric

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Shersby, Michael

Cope, John

Lawrence Ivan

Silvester, Fred

Cormack, Patrick

Lawson, Nigel

Sims, Roger

Costain, A. P.

Le Marchant, Spencer

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Crouch, David

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Speed, Keith

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Speller, Tony

Dickens, Geoffrey

Loveridge, John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Dorrell, Stephen

McCrindle, Robert

Sproat, Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanley, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Steen, Anthony

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marlow, Anthony

Stevens, Martin

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Durant, Tony

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Tebbit, Norman

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Temple-Morris, Peter

Emery, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

English, Michael

Mayhew, Patrick

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendson S)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Thompson, Donald

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Miscampbell, Norman

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Trotter, Neville

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Monro, Hector

Viggers, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Waddington, David

Forman, Nigel

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Wheeler, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mudd, David

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fox, Marcus

Myles, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Needham, Richard

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Nelson, Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Newton, Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Glyn, Dr Alan

Nott, Rt Hon John

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Gow, Ian

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Gray, Hamish

Osborn, John

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grist, Ian

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Mr. John MacGregor and

Gummer, John Selwyn

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Mr. John Wakeham.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 28, in line 35, leave out paragraph (4) and insert:
'(4) Each Committee shall have the power to appoint one sub-committee and may seek leave of the House to appoint a second sub-committee
if the range of their responsibilities makes this seem desirable.'—[Mr. Hooley.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 174.

Division No. 24]

AYES

[2.00 a.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Howells, Geraint

Beith, A. J.

Dubs, Alfred

Huckfield, Les

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Lamond, James

Bowden, Andrew

Eastham, Ken

Leighton, Ronald

Braine, Sir Bernard

English, Michael

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Brotherton, Michael

Evans, John (Newton)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Field, Frank

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Flannery, Martin

McNally, Thomas

Carmichael, Neil

Fookes, Miss Janet

McWilliam, John

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Forrester, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Cook, Robin F.

Foulkes, George

Maxton, John

Cryer, Bob

George, Bruce

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Dalyell, Tam

Hardy, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Mikardo, Ian

Dobson, Frank

Heffer, Eric S.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Rooker, J. W.

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Waller, Gary

O'Neill, Martin

Silvester, Fred

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Palmer, Arthur

Skinner, Dennis

Winterton, Nicholas

Prescott, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Soley, Clive

Wright, Miss Sheila

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Spearing, Nigel

Richardson, Miss Jo

Stoddart, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Straw, Jack

Mr. Frank Hooley and

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Mr. Kevin McNamara.

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Tinn, James

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Osborn, John

Alison, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Alton, David

Gow, Ian

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Ancram, Michael

Gray, Hamish

Parkinson, Cecil

Arnold, Tom

Grist, Ian

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Percival, Sir Ian

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Banks, Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Hannam, John

Raison, Timothy

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Rathbone, Tim

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hayhoe, Barney

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Blackburn, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Renton, Tim

Blaker, Peter

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Hooson, Tom

Ridsdale, Julian

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Rifkind, Malcolm

Bright, Graham

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Brinton, Timothy

Hunt, John (Wirral)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Brittan, Leon

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rossi, Hugh

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rost, Peter

Brooke, Hon Peter

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Browne, John (Winchester)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Bryan, Sir Paul

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Shersby, Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Kimball, Marcus

Sims, Roger

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Smith Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Speed, Keith

Channon, Paul

Lamont, Norman

Speller, Tony

Churchill, W. S.

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Sproat, Ian

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Latham, Michael

Stanley, John

Clegg, Walter

Lawrence Ivan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Cockeram, Eric

Lawson, Nigel

Steen, Anthony

Cope, John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stevens, Martin

Cormack, Patrick

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Costain, A. P.

Loveridge, John

Tebbit, Norman

Crouch, David

McCrindle, Robert

Temple-Morris, Peter

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Macfarlane, Neil

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

MacGregor, John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Thompson, Donald

Dorrell, Stephen

Marlow, Anthony

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Trotter, Neville

Durant, Tony

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Mayhew, Patrick

Viggers, Peter

Emery, Peter

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Waddington, David

Eyre, Reginald

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Wakeham, John

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Miscampbell, Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wheeler, John

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Monro, Hector

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Wickenden, Keith

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Wiggin, Jerry

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Mudd, David

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Forman, Nigel

Myles, David

Wolfson, Mark

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Needham, Richard

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Fox, Marcus

Nelson, Anthony

Freud, Clement

Newton, Tony

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The next amendment is No. 29, in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler). Does he wish to move it?
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next amendment is No. 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in line 49, at end insert—
'(6a) At least 8 Mondays each Session shall be allotted as Select Committee Days. The choice of reports to be debated on these days shall be left to Her Majesty's Government
after consultation with other parties and with select committee chairman.'
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 145.

Divison No. 25]

AYES

[2.15 a.m.

Alton, David

Fookes, Miss Janet

Richardson, Miss Jo

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Forrester, John

Ridsdale, Julian

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Foulkes, George

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Beith, A. J.

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Robertson, George

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

George, Bruce

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hannam, John

Rooker, J. W.

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Hardy, Peter

Roper, John

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Heffer, Eric S.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Higgins, Terence L.

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Brinton, Timothy

Hooley, Frank

Skinner, Dennis

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Howells, Geraint

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Brotherton, Michael

Huckfield, Les

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Soley, Clive

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Cook, Robin F.

Lamond, James

Steel, Rt Hon David

Crouch, David

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stoddart, David

Cryer, Bob

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Straw, Jack

Dalyell, Tam

McNally, Thomas

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

McNamara, Kevin

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Dewar, Donald

McWilliam, John

Thompson, Donald

Dickens, Geoffrey

Marlow, Antony

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dobson, Frank

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Waller, Gary

Dorrell, Stephen

Meacher, Michael

Warren, Kenneth

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Dubs, Alfred

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Whitehead, Phillip

Duffy, A. E. P.

O'Neill, Martin

Wickenden, Keith

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Osborn, John

Winterton, Nicholas

Durant, Tony

Prescott, John

Woolmer, Kenneth

Eastham, Ken

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wright, Miss Sheila

Emery, Peter

Radice, Giles

Evans, John (Newton)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

TELLERS FOR THE AYE:

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Mr. John Maxton and

Field, Frank

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mr. William Hamilton.

Flannery, Martin

NOES

Alexander, Richard

English, Michael

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Alison, Michael

Eyre, Reginald

Lamont, Norman

Ancram, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Arnold, Tom

Fairgrieve, Russell

Latham, Michael

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Lawrence Ivan

Banks, Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Lawson, Nigel

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forman, Nigel

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Blackburn, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Loveridge, John

Blaker, Peter

Fox, Marcus

McCrindle, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Freud, Clement

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Bowden, Andrew

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Macfarlane, Neil

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Bright, Graham

Glyn, Dr Alan

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Brittan, Leon

Gow, Ian

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gray, Hamish

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Mayhew, Patrick

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Butler, Hon Adam

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Miscampbell, Norman

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Channon, Paul

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Monro, Hector

Churchill, W. S.

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hooson, Tom

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Clegg, Walter

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Mudd, David

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Myles, David

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Needham, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Newton, Tony

Costain, A. P.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Nott, Rt Hon John

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Page, John (Harrow, West)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Kimball, Marcus

Parkinson, Cecil

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Percival, Sir Ian

Sims, Roger

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Proctor, K. Harvey

Speed, Keith

Viggers, Peter

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Speller, Tony

Waddington, David

Raison, Timothy

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Wakeham, John

Rathbone, Tim

Sproat, Ian

Wheeler, John

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Stanley, John

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Rhodes James, Robert

Stevens, Martin

Wiggin, Jerry

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Stradling Thomas, J.

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Tebbit, Norman

Wolfson, Mark

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Rossi, Hugh

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

St. John Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Shersby, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Mr. John McGregor.

Silvester, Fred

Trotter, Neville

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 35, in line 49, at end insert—
'(7) (a) Select committees appointed under this Order shall have power to order the attendance before them of Ministers of the Crown for the purpose of giving evidence.
(b) In the event of a refusal or failure to comply with a request for the production of papers and records by any Minister of the Crown the committee which made the request shall make a report of the circumstances to the House, and the chairman of the committee, or another Member
acting on his behalf, may thereafter give notice of a Motion for an address for, or the Return of, the papers and records specified in the request; and unless such a Motion has been previously withdrawn or otherwise disposed of it shall be set down for consideration at the commencement of public business on the seventh day on which the House sits after the day on which the notice was given.'—[Mr. William Hamilton.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 158.

Division No. 26]

AYES

[2.26 a.m.

Alton, David

Freud, Clement

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Beith, A. J.

George, Bruce

Robertson, George

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hardy, Peter

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Heffer, Eric S.

Rooker, J. W.

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Roper, John

Bowden, Andrew

Hooley, Frank

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Howells, Geraint

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u'L)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Huckfield, Les

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Brinton, Timothy

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

Skinner, Dennis

Brotherton, Michael

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Brown, Ronald W. Hackney S)

Lamond, James

Snape, Peter

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Soley, Clive

Cook, Robin F.

Lawrence, Ivan

Spearing, Nigel

Cowans, Harry

Leighton, Ronald

Steel, Rt Hon David

Crouch, David

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stoddart, David

Cryer, Bob

McCrindle, Robert

Straw, Jack

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Dalyell, Tam

McNally, Thomas

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

McNamara, Kevin

Tinn, James

Dewar, Donald

McWilliam, John

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Dobson, Frank

Marlow, Anthony

Waller, Gary

Dorrell, Stephen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)

Warren, Kenneth

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Meacher, Michael

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

Dubs, Alfred

Mikardo, Ian

Whitehead, Philip

Duffy, A. E. P.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wickenden, Keith

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)

Winterton, Nicholas

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Woolmer, Kenneth

Eastham, Ken

O'Neill, Martin

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Evans, John (Newton)

Palmer, Arthur

Wright, Miss Sheila

Field, Frank

Prescott, John

Flannery, Martin

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Fookes, Miss Janet

Radice, Giles

Mr. William Hamilton and

Forrester, John

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. John Maxton.

Foulkes, George

Richardson, Miss Jo

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Berry, Hon Anthony

Browne, John (Winchester)

Alison, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Bryan, Sir Paul

Ancram, Michael

Blackburn, John

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Arnold, Tom

Blaker, Peter

Butler, Hon Adam

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Boscaswen, Hon Robert

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Banks, Robert

Bright, Graham

Channon, Paul

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Brittan, Leon

Churchill, W. S.

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Clegg, Walter

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Cockeram, Eric

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rhodes James, Robert

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Cormack, Patrick

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Costain, A. P.

King, Rt Hon Tom

Ridsdale, Julian

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Lamont, Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Dickens, Geoffrey

Latham, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rossi, Hugh

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Emery, Peter

Loveridge, John

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

English, Michael

Macfarlane, Neil

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Eyre, Reginald

MacGregor, John

Shersby, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Silvester, Fred

Fairgrieve, Russell

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sims, Roger

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Speed, Keith

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mayhew, Patrick

Speller, Tony

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Forman, Nigel

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

Sproat Ian

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stanley, John

Fox, Marcus

Miscampbell, Norman

Stevens, Martin

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Monro, Hector

Tebbit, Norman

Glyn, Dr Alan

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Gow, Ian

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Gray, Hamish

Mudd, David

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon s)

Grist, Ian

Myles, David

Thompson, Donald

Gummer, John Selwyn

Needham, Richard

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)

Nelson, Anthony

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Newton, Tony

Trotter, Neville

Hannam, John

Nott, Rt Hon John

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Viggers, Peter

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Osborn, John

Waddington, David

Hayhoe, Barney

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Wakeham, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Wheeler, John

Higgins, Terence L.

Parkinson, Cecil

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Wiggin, Jerry

Hooson, Tom

Percival, Sir Ian

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wolfson, Mark

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Raison, Timothy

Mr. John Cope and

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Mr. Peter Brooke.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 12.

Division No.27]

AYES

[2.36 a.m.

Alexander, Richard

Butler, Hon Adam

Evans, John (Newton)

Alison, Michael

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Eyre, Reginald

Alton, David

Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Ancram, Michael

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Fairgrieve, Russell

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Channon, Paul

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Arnold, Tom

Churchill, W. S.

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Field, Frank

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clegg, Walter

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Banks, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

Flannery, Martin

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)

Beith, A. J.

Cook, Robin F.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cope, John

Forman, Nigel

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Cormack, Patrick

Forrester, John

Berry, Hon Anthony

Costain, A. P.

Foulkes, George

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Crouch, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Blackburn, John

Cunningham, George (Islington S)

Fox, Marcus

Blaker, Peter

Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Dean, Paul (North Somerset)

Freud, Clement

Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Bowden, Andrew

Dobson, Frank

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Dorrell, Stephen

George, Bruce

Braine, Sir Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bright, Graham

Dubs, Alfred

Gow, Ian

Brinton, Timothy

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Gray, Hamish

Brittan, Leon

Duffy, A. E. P.

Grist, Ian

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Gummer, John Selwyn

Brooke, Hon Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm & Ew'll)

Brotherton, Michael

Durant, Tony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)

Eastham, Ken

Hannam, John

Browne, John (Winchester)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)

Hardy, Peter

Bryan, Sir Paul

Emery, Peter

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

English, Michael

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Shersby, Michael

Heffer, Eric S.

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Monro, Hector

Silvester, Fred

Higgins, Terence L.

Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)

Sims, Roger

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Smith, Cyril (Bochdale)

Hooley, Frank

Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)

Soley, Clive

Hooson, Tom

Mudd, David

Spearing, Niger

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Myles, David

Speed, Keith

Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)

Needham, Richard

Speller, Tony

Howells, Geraint

Nelson, Anthony

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Huckfield, Les

Nott, Rt Hon John

Sproat, Ian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

O'Neill, Martin

Stanley, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs Sally

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Osborn, John

Stevens, Martin

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Stoddart, David

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Palmer, Arthur

Straw, Jack

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Parkinson, Cecil

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Tebbit, Norman

King, Rt Hon Tom

Percival, Sir Ian

Temple-Morris, Peter

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Pollock, Alexander

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Lamont, Norman

Prescott, John

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)

Latham, Michael

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Thompson, Donald

Lawrence Ivan

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Lawson, Nigel

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)

Leighton, Ronald

Radice, Giles

Trotter, Neville

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Raison, Timothy

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rathbone, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Loveridge, John,

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)

Waddington, David

McCrindle, Robert

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Wakeham, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Renton, Tim

Wailer, Gary

MacGregor, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Warren, Kenneth

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wheeler, John

Mackay, John (Argyll)

Richardson, Miss Jo

White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)

McNally, Thomas

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Whitehead, Phillip

McNamara, Kevin

Ridsdale, Julian

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

McWilliam, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wickenden, Keith

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)

Wiggin, Jerry

Marten, Neil (Banbury)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)

Maude, Rt Hon Angus

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Winterton, Nicholas

Maxton, John

Robertson, George

Wolfson, Mark

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Rodgers, Rt Hon William

Woolmer, Kenneth

Mayhew, Patrick

Roper, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Meacher, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wright, Miss Sheila

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rossi, Hugh

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mikardo, Ian

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)

Mr. Spencer Le Merchant and

Miscampbell, Norman

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mr. Tony Newton.

NOES

Cryer, Bob

Lamond, James

Winnick, David

Dalyell, Tam

Marlow, Anthony

Dewar, Donald

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rooker, J. W.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. William Hamilton.

Kimball, Marcus

Question accordingly agreed to
Ordered,

That—

(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments set out in paragraph (2) of this Order and associated public bodies, and similar matters within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

(2) The committees appointed under paragraph I of this Order, the principal departments of Government with which they are concerned, the maximum numbers of each committee and the quorum in each case shall be as follows:

Name of committee

Principal government departments concerned

Maximum number of concerned

Quorum

6.

Environment

…

…

Department of the Environment

…

…

10

3

7.

Foreign Affairs

…

…

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

…

11

3

8.

Home Affairs

…

…

Home Office

…

…

…

…

…

11

3

9.

Industry and Trade

…

Department of Industry, Department of Trade.

11

3

10.

Social Services

…

…

Departments of Health and Social Security

…

9

3

11.

Transport

…

…

…

Department of Transport

…

…

…

10

3

12.

Treasury and Civil Service

Treasury, Civil Service Department, Board of Inland Revenue Board of Customs and Excise.

11

3

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Order this day,
That Standing Order No. 87 (Expenditure Committee) be repealed.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]
Question agreed to.

NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEES (COMMITTEE OF SELECTION)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That no Motion shall be made for the nomination of Members to serve on a select committee designated in paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Select Committees related to Government Departments), or for their discharge, unless:

(a) notice of the Motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and

(b) the Motion is made on behalf of the Committee of Selection by the Chairman or by another member of that Committee.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order this day to put forthwith
252
the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion.
Amendment proposed: No. 1, leave out
'designated in paragraph (2) of Standing Order (Select Committees related to Government Departments)'.—[Mr. English.]
Amendment negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.

PENSIONERS' PAYMENTS AND SOCIAL SECURITY BILL
Ordered.
That notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to the Pensioners' Payments and Social Security Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
Ordered.
That, during the proceedings on the matter of the Welsh Economy, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day

253
on which they shall meet, and notwithstanding the provision of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of Standing Committees) the second such sitting shall not commence before four o'clock nor continue after six o'clock.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

DEATH GRANT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]
2.50 a.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate has such a good record in the matter of pensioners' care.
The subject of death is often avoided by politicians, but the greatest certainty of life is that finally we have to die. If we are fortunate enough to be spared into old age, there comes that time when the mind must adjust to passing, and we think of the enormous cost of a funeral. It worries people to think of the cost of even a modest funeral.
This brings me to the need to raise the level of the death grant, which is today exactly what it was in 1967—a paltry £30. The history of the grant is a sad reflection on successive Governments, who since its introduction in 1949, at £20, have between them increased it only twice in 30 years. This is a disgrace.
It took nine years, from 1949 to 1958, to raise the grant by just £5, and another nine years, from 1958 to 1967, to raise the level again by only £5. Here we are in 1979, 12 years on, with no increase whatsoever.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: It is a scandal that there has been no increase in the death grant for 12 years. Is it not an even greater scandal that tens of thousands of our most elderly pensioners are entitled to no death grant at all?
Mr. Dickens: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Certainly there are limitations to the grant of which people are not aware. I was coming to this matter. For instance, when death occurs at age 95 or over in the case of men, or 90 or over in the case of women, no grant is paid. Therefore, my hon. Friend is right. Where death occurs at the age of 85 or over in the case of men
254
or 80 or over in the case of women, a reduced grant of £15 is paid. A grant of £15 is payable in respect of children aged 3 to 5 and £9 in respect of children under 3.
Let me deal with the human angle before returning to the cost, which is not often realised by the decision-makers here in Parliament. Many elderly people in my constituency—
Mr. Donald Thompson: It is not only Huddersfield. In many urban areas there is an ageing population. In my constituency, for instance, at the Todmorden end, many people are very old, and the age rate is higher than in many so-called retirement areas, such as Harrogate. Great distress is caused amongst an ageing population.
Mr. Dickens: My hon. Friend is quite right. This is not a problem in my constituency alone, although of course I wish to refer to my constituency in this debate. It is a problem throughout the United Kingdom.
People are haunted by the prospect of a pauper's burial. A modest funeral these days can cost between £250 and £400, excluding charges for churches, cemeteries, doctors, legal costs and so on. Pensioners who truly wish to make provision for their own funeral are unable to keep up with inflation, which outpaces their ability to save from their pensions. Years ago pensioners took out insurance for pennies or tuppence, and thought that when the policies matured they would provide enough money at least to bury them. But in this inflationary world it has not proved to be enough. This is very sad. Pensioners are cutting down on their food and heating because they cannot save sufficient funds.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many pensioners, in cutting down on the cost of heating and food, are hastening their death and will regrettably have to meet the cost of their funeral far earlier than they might otherwise have done?
Mr. Dickens: The hon. Member is right. Although I have no concrete evidence, we hear of hypothermia in the winter, and it must be the case. If elderly people cut down on their heating that would be the result for a number of them.

255
It is sad and silly, but we cannot say that they are unwise. I am pleased to say that we cannot yet rule the hearts of the elderly from Westminster.
I do not wish to take away the responsibility for funerals from individuals and their families. The State should not have to pay to bury people. Families wish to do that for their elderly folk and elderly people wish to try to save sufficient money. I am trying to highlight the problems so that the death grant can be made a more meaningful contribution.
I ask the Government to consider the following action. First, I ask them to restore the death grant to its original 1949 value of £132. That is based on the general index of retail prices. Secondly, there should be an immediate abolition of the age restriction.
The cost of paying the grant at the higher level will be about £55 million a year and the extension of the grant to those very elderly people excluded would cost a further £12 million a year. The House will agree that £67 million is a small item in our total national budget. I hope that we can move towards a situation in which people can preserve dignity even in death with the help of us all and in the fullness of time with the help of the Minister.
2.57 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I should first, like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) for raising this subject because of the welcome opportunity it gives us to look at the national insurance death grant.
It is welcome, first, because of the concern which has been expressed over the grant in many quarters, not least by the all-party committee concerned with the affairs of pensioners, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) and others. In the short period since taking office, I have received from many honourable Members and the public representations that reflect the concern expressed by various organisations and many individuals in different parts of the country.
However, it is also welcome because many years have elapsed since the grant was introduced and that is, in itself, suffi-
256
cient reason to suggest that there is a case for looking at it afresh.
The death grant as introduced by the National Insurance Act 1946 was an entirely new feature of State insurance which originated in the proposals made by the wartime Beveridge report for a "universal funeral grant". The report justified the inclusion of such a benefit in compulsory State insurance on the grounds that that was administratively the simplest—and probably financially cheapest—way of meeting a universal need.
The grant introduced by the Act was a straightforward lump sum payment made on the death of a contributor, his spouse or children. Amendments were later introduced to include the handicapped adult relatives of contributors. Since the grant was a new benefit it was decided that only people who contributed under the scheme should be eligible for it. Hence, those who were over pensionable age at July 1948 were ineligible and those within 10 years of pensionable age qualified for only half the standard grant. This is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown, to which I shall return.
There was a simple contribution condition to be met and this was, in later years, relaxed even more. It now requires at most the payment of 25 weeks' contributions—even less with employed earnings above the minimum level. This is a test which very few people fail to satisfy. But the grant still stands at £30.
When the grant was first introduced at a rate of £20 it went some way towards the cost of a simple funeral, but we should note that, in framing the legislation, it was decided quite deliberately that, unlike Beveridge's proposals, the grant should not be linked to the cost of funerals. It was, as I say, simply a lump sum payable on the death of most contributors and their families. It was a contribution towards the cost of a funeral. Even if it was not absolutely universal, the grant was available to most contributors to meet a need which, at that time, was felt to be widespread.
When the first grants were paid in July 1949 there were reduced amounts payable for children as well as those who, because of age, qualified for only half the standard rate. In 1958 the standard rate

257
was increased to £25 and in 1967 to £30, with corresponding increase in the reduced rates. The rates have remained unchanged since 1967.
It is obvious, therefore, that the grant has failed to keep up with inflation and that its real value has fallen over the years. For example, based on the movement of the index of retail prices to May 1979, the latest month for which figures are available, the grant would have to be increased to £133·7 to have the same real value as it did in July 1949. To equal its value when last increased in October 1967 the grant would have to be £103·78.
Similarly, if one compares the level of the grant with funeral expenses, it has clearly fallen behind. It is hard to be certain about the figures, as funeral costs vary widely throughout the country, but it seems that in 1949 the grant met about 60 per cent. of the cost and in 1967 about 35 per cent. Nowadays, with the average cost of even a simple funeral probably about £200, the grant contributes 15 per cent. or less towards the cost. It has been suggested that, because of the declining value of the grant, it ought to be increased. We must, therefore, consider the costs which would be involved.
The present grant costs about £16 million a year. To increase the grant to restore the real value it had in 1967 would mean spending an extra £40 million a year, while to restore the real 1949 value would cost an extra £55 million a year. To increase the grant to £200, as has peen suggested by some correspondents, would cost an extra £91 million a year.
As my hon. Friend has said, these figures do not take account of the groups who, on account of their age, are excluded from the grant or qualify for only a reduced rate. Whatever justification there might have been in 1949 for excluding them because of the contributory principle underlying the grant, it could now be argued that these people have suffered more than most from the effects of inflation, particularly in recent years. They include many of the individuals who most need the help of the State. To include them in the present grant would require an extra £10 million a year, on the basis of the 1949 value, or, on the basis of a £200 grant, about an extra £17 million a year.
258
To restore the value of the grant would, therefore, involve considerable extra sums of money. At the same time, however, I very much appreciate the concern which has been expressed about the grant. I have, for example, received letters from those who are involved with pensioners—not just organisations which write to us frequently but individuals such as home helps working with elderly people who express clearly the worry of elderly people about this matter. There is no doubt that many elderly people are frightened about dying and about what will happen to them.
It is because of the concern which has been expressed that I feel that the Government must give consideration to the whole problem of the grant's future role, not simply to paying more to those already entitled to the grant.
Of course, people would be helped it we were to increase the grant across the board. We shall consider this, but I am sure that it is not necessarily the best answer to the problem. It can be argued that, although the death grant is insufficient for many, it is not needed by some; that is to say, the grant is at present paid in cases where it is no longer essential. If that is the case, I question whether it would be right to increase the amount paid to everybody, without reconsidering the purpose of the grant and the needs it should meet.
In fact, to obtain more information on the payment of funeral expenses and the part played by the death grant, the research branch of my Department has carried out an independent survey. It has not yet been published, but it might be appropriate if I say a little about the results which seem to be emerging.
First, it notes that there has been, since the war, a trend towards more simple, modest funeral practices. Some of the more expensive customs of the past have become the exception and burials are now less common than cremations. It records that most of those in the sample surveyed received payment of a life assurance policy following the death, to which were added payments from superannuation and other sources such as the savings of the deceased. Very few of the respondents said that they had any difficulty in finding money to meet the costs; 93 per cent. of them said that they had no difficulties.

259
The survey makes the point that the payment of funeral expenses—despite the decline in the value of the death grant—has ceased to be the major social problem of the scale experienced 40 or 50 years ago. The reason for this may lie in social factors. There are changes in funeral customs. There has been a relative steady fall in the relative cost of a funeral when compared with wages, and there is a decline in the number of people dying in extreme poverty. But that does not diminish the problem for those who are in difficulty. It is shown by the genuine concern apparent in letters I receive.
However, the problem is a different one from that which had to be faced when
260
the death grant was introduced in 1948. As the problem has changed, we must look more widely than at a simple increase in death grant if an appropriate solution is to be found. I assure my hon. Friends and others who have written to tell me their thoughts on the matter that this wider consideration which is taking place is bound to take time and regretfully we have been forced to conclude that we cannot consider any action on the grant this year. Nevertheless, I should like to assure the House that we are considering the matter as urgently as possible and that as soon as we can make an announcement we shall certainly do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Three o'clock a.m

  SKYLAB
  SKYLAB
  MOTABILITY
  MOTABILITY
WALES
  Unemployment (Gwynedd)
  Unemployment (Gwynedd)
  Psychiatric Beds
  Psychiatric Beds
  Local Authority Finance
  Local Authority Finance
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  Leasehold Houses
  Leasehold Houses
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  River Derwent Barrage
  River Derwent Barrage
  Fishing (Fuel Costs)
  Fishing (Fuel Costs)
  Pigmeat
  Pigmeat
  Bacon
  Bacon
  Forests (Public Access)
  Forests (Public Access)
  Meat Products (Intra-Community Trade)
  Meat Products (Intra-Community Trade)
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Whales
  Whales
  Crown-owned Farms and Smallholdings
  Crown-owned Farms and Smallholdings
INDUSTRY
  Regional Policies
  Regional Policies
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries (Tyneside)
  Engineering and Shipbuilding Industries (Tyneside)
  CBI
  CBI
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Industrial Assistance
  Industrial Assistance
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development Certificates (West Midlands)
  Industrial Development (Northern Region)
  Industrial Development (Northern Region)
  Engineering Profession
  Engineering Profession
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Telephone Accounts (Computer Dispute)
  Telephone Accounts (Computer Dispute)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Transport)
  Civil Servants (Transport)
  Boyle Report
  Boyle Report
  Civil and Public Servants (Salaries and Expenses)
  Civil and Public Servants (Salaries and Expenses)
  Public School Fees
  Public School Fees
  Scientists and Technologists (Pay Negotiations)
  Scientists and Technologists (Pay Negotiations)
SCOTLAND
  Uranium Prospecting (Orkney)
  Uranium Prospecting (Orkney)
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Scottish Special Housing Association
  Munn and Dunning Reports
  Munn and Dunning Reports
TRADE
  Shipping (Shetland and Foula)
  Shipping (Shetland and Foula)
  Oil Tankers (Scotland)
  Oil Tankers (Scotland)
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Aviation Fuel
  Aviation Fuel
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Sales Practices
  Sales Practices
DEFENCE
  British Bases
  British Bases
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Job Release Scheme)
  Royal Ordnance Factories (Job Release Scheme)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Modern Schools (Definition)
  Modern Schools (Definition)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Further and Higher Education
  Further and Higher Education
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Grammar Schools
  Grammar Schools
  Catchment Areas
  Catchment Areas
  COMPANIES ACTS (PROSECUTIONS)
  COMPANIES ACTS (PROSECUTIONS)
  PHOTOGRAPHS OF WITNESSES (COURT PRECINCTS)
  PHOTOGRAPHS OF WITNESSES (COURT PRECINCTS)
  CONTEMPT OF COURT
  CONTEMPT OF COURT
  RHODESIA (SANCTIONS PROSECUTIONS)
  RHODESIA (SANCTIONS PROSECUTIONS)
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACTS
  LANDLORD AND TENANT ACTS
  DIVORCE
  DIVORCE
  MR. RICHARD RASTALL (PROSECUTION COSTS)
  MR. RICHARD RASTALL (PROSECUTION COSTS)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  Australia (Crown Agents' Property)
  Australia (Crown Agents' Property)
ENVIRONMENT
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  Public Works Departments
  Public Works Departments
  House Building
  House Building
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Central Lancashire New Town
  Somerset House
  Somerset House
  Sunday Markets
  Sunday Markets
  Private Landlords
  Private Landlords
  Charities (Water Supplies)
  Charities (Water Supplies)
  Palace of Westminster (Central Heating)
  Palace of Westminster (Central Heating)
  Public Servants (Transport)
  Public Servants (Transport)
  Rents
  Rents
  Public Works Departments
  Public Works Departments
  Housing Authorities (Financial Allocations)
  Housing Authorities (Financial Allocations)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Housing Waiting Lists
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Tenants (House Purchase)
  Tenants (House Purchase)
  Economic Planning Councils
  Economic Planning Councils
ENERGY
  Pressurised Water Reactor Plant
  Pressurised Water Reactor Plant
  British National Oil Corporation (Ministerial Instructions)
  British National Oil Corporation (Ministerial Instructions)
  Fuel Bills
  Fuel Bills
  Nuclear Capacity (International Comparisons)
  Nuclear Capacity (International Comparisons)
  International Oil Supplies
  International Oil Supplies
  Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Imports (International Comparisons)
  Crude Oil and Petroleum Product Imports (International Comparisons)
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
  Solid Fuels
  Solid Fuels
  Petrol Supplies
  Petrol Supplies
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  Fast Breeder Reactor
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Aviation Fuel
  Aviation Fuel
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Family Taxation (Reform)
  Family Taxation (Reform)
  Earned Income Allowance (Married Women)
  Earned Income Allowance (Married Women)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Railway Users (Tax Allowance)
  Railway Users (Tax Allowance)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Liverpool (Free Port Status)
  Liverpool (Free Port Status)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  War Widows (Pensions)
  Inflation Forecasts
  Inflation Forecasts
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Export Licences (Wild Fauna and Flora)
  Export Licences (Wild Fauna and Flora)
  Investment Income
  Investment Income
  Motability
  Motability
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Exchange Control
  Exchange Control
  United Kingdom Companies (Overseas Subsidiaries)
  United Kingdom Companies (Overseas Subsidiaries)
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Community Nursing Staff
  Community Nursing Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates' Courts (Criminal Proceedings)
  Magistrates' Courts (Criminal Proceedings)
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
  Street Crime
  Street Crime
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Firemen (Insurance)
  Firemen (Insurance)
  Iranian Refugees
  Iranian Refugees
  Suspected Persons (Arrests)
  Suspected Persons (Arrests)
  Nationality
  Nationality
  Woolworth's, Manchester (Fire)
  Woolworth's, Manchester (Fire)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (West Yorkshire)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (West Yorkshire)
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
  Local Government Boundaries
  Local Government Boundaries
  Postal Votes
  Postal Votes
  Boundary Commission
  Boundary Commission
  Her Majesty's Prison, Hull
  Her Majesty's Prison, Hull
  Immigration Appeal Tribunals
  Immigration Appeal Tribunals
  Immigration Officers (Heathrow)
  Immigration Officers (Heathrow)
  General Elections (Free Post)
  General Elections (Free Post)
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
  NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM
  VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM
  WORKS OF ART (EXPORT)
  WORKS OF ART (EXPORT)
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
  NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
TRANSPORT
  Driving Age
  Driving Age
  Trains (Fuel Consumption)
  Trains (Fuel Consumption)
  Thirsk Bypass (Bridge Headroom)
  Thirsk Bypass (Bridge Headroom)
  Road Markings
  Road Markings
  A30
  A30
  River Rhine (Commission)
  River Rhine (Commission)
  Medallion Services
  Medallion Services
  PASSPORTS
  PASSPORTS
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Simonstown Agreement
  Simonstown Agreement
  Helsinki Final Act (Implementation)
  Helsinki Final Act (Implementation)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Border Incidents
  Border Incidents
  Radio-detonated Bombs
  Radio-detonated Bombs
  Terrorists
  Terrorists
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Terrorism (Statistics)
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  School Transport
  School Transport
  Expenditure Cuts
  Expenditure Cuts
  Madams Bank Bridge
  Madams Bank Bridge
  Civil Service (Student Employment)
  Civil Service (Student Employment)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Mental Handicap Nursing and Care (Jay Report)
  Mental Handicap Nursing and Care (Jay Report)
  Heart Pacemakers
  Heart Pacemakers
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Chiropody
  Chiropody
  Health Authorities (Chairmen's Pay and Expenses)
  Health Authorities (Chairmen's Pay and Expenses)
  Depo-Provera
  Depo-Provera
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Early Retirement
  Early Retirement
  Widows
  Widows
  1981 Census
  1981 Census
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme (Review)
  Supplementary Benefits Scheme (Review)
  Detoxification Centres
  Detoxification Centres
  Rheumatism and Arthritis (Children)
  Rheumatism and Arthritis (Children)
  Tobacco Smoking
  Tobacco Smoking
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Motability
  Motability
  Kidney Transplants
  Kidney Transplants
  General Nursing (EEC Directive)
  General Nursing (EEC Directive)
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
  St. George's Hospital, Tooting
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Training Opportunities
  Training Opportunities
  Industrial Training Scheme
  Industrial Training Scheme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  School Leavers (Penistone)
  School Leavers (Penistone)
  Earnings (Pontefract and Castleford Constituency)
  Earnings (Pontefract and Castleford Constituency)
  Plate Glass (Safety Standards)
  Plate Glass (Safety Standards)
  Work Force (Greater London)
  Work Force (Greater London)
  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group
  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group
  Penistone (Employment Subsidy)
  Penistone (Employment Subsidy)

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

CAREERS TEACHERS: TRAINING
Baroness VICKERS: 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, in view of the need for school-leavers to be given adequate advice in regard to obtaining a job, what training is given to those selected as career teachers.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, advice to school-leavers on obtaining a job, and assistance with placement, are available through the careers service which each local authority is required to provide and which works in close co-operation with the schools. In addition, schools provide programmes of careers education to help young people make sound vocational choices. There are no formal requirements for the training of those teachers who undertake careers work, but there is a wide variety of provision for in-service training, including courses of varying lengths provided by local education authorities.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she not consider that there ought to be a reappraisal of the liaison between education authorities, schools and industry in order to improve this very important service, which I do not think is working at present as adequately as it should?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I shall certainly take note of the very significant point which my noble friend has raised.
1210
Discussions are taking place on this important matter with my colleagues in the Department of Employment. I shall certainly ensure that my noble friend's comments are passed on to them.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the items of advice which might be given is that it is a good thing to get a job?
Baroness YOUNG: Yes, my Lords.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that careers teachers are encouraged to dissuade young people from making, as she says, a sound vocational choice, and in particular from taking an interest in technology and engineering, because universities unfortunately do not allow an "A" level in engineering to be regarded as an entrance qualification?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this question on university entrance is somewhat wide of the precise Question which I have been asked on careers training, and I should prefer not to comment upon it. However, a great deal of encouragement is given to young people to take those courses which will lead them to the kind of jobs which are available.

MORGAN CRUCIBLE SITE: BATTERSEA MURAL
2.39 p.m.
The Earl of GOSFORD: 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 take action to prevent a repetition of the conduct of the Morgan Crucible Company in relation to the destruction of the Battersea mural on 6th June 1979.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: No, my Lords. When the Secretary of State granted outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the Morgan Crucible site in 1978, following a public local inquiry into an appeal by Wates Limited against Wandsworth Borough Council's refusal of planning permission,

1211
he did not make it a condition of that planning permission that the mural be preserved.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the company trespassed on public land in the dead of night with heavy plant in order to destroy the mural. This mural had taken 60 people two years to complete, and the only people to be arrested were the artist and six local residents who ventured on to the site later in the day.
Lord MOWBRAY and SOUTRON: My Lords, I am sorry to make the noble Earl unhappy, but I am not aware of those facts. I understand that the machinery which was used to destroy the wall was operated from the company's own site, and I understand that they were completely within the law. What happened to the people whom the police arrested is not in my brief, nor does it have anything to do with the Question which I have been asked.
The Earl of GOSFORD: My Lords, on a point of correction, if I may make one, the plant did not come from the Morgan site. It came across public land, because there is a 20ft. drop on the other side of the Morgan site.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I still do not think that this is relevant to the Question.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Morgan Crucible Company are endeavouring to improve the site which is in question at the moment and that they should be helped to do so in every possible way?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, planning permission was given for redevelopment with houses and offices.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the Question which has been put by the noble Earl refers to repetition of this conduct? My noble friend is asking—this is something about which many of us on all sides of the House are concerned—that where there is a mural
1212
(it may not be this one but others) and an attempt has been made to improve the environment, it should be taken into account. I believe that my noble friend is thinking, also, of the future.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. I totally concur. Every case must be looked at on its merits, and the Government will do so.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, following the question from the Front Bench, may I ask the Minister whether he will look rather deeper into this question? Is it not the case that this mural painting won national recognition as a work of art, and was it not very desirable that this artist and the 60 local people who co-operated with him should seek to beautify the area rather than that the kind of slogans which are so often put on walls should be found there? Will not the Minister look at the issue in that wider context?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I completely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that this shows a very noble, volunteer spirit. When artists like Mr. Barnes and 60 volunteers are prepared to beautify an area which is not very beautiful, I do nothing but applaud. However, if I may put the other side of the coin, when these people asked the owners of the wall for permission to do this they knew that a planning application had been submitted. The Arts Council gave help to the painters, in the full knowledge that their work might be destroyed.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, surely the point that the noble Earl has made is the fact that the Morgan Crucible Company were allowed to break the law quite flagrantly and other people were arrested. Is this not a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I have told the noble Earl that I am not aware that the Morgan Crucible Company have broken the law.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that his earlier remark, that all such cases would be looked into carefully, is not very

1213
helpful after the job is done? I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that there is very little that can be done to replace a mural which has been demolished; and should it not be the object of Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, of everyone in the country—to ensure that any such mural, if it is accepted, is retained and not demolished?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the planning consent was given in 1978; the appeal to the historic buildings division was made and turned down under the noble Lord's Government. I have every sympathy, but murals painted on outside brick walls will not of themselves be permanent paintings. At best, they are transitory. If it is decided that something is of such enormous artistic merit, no doubt applications would be made to buy the painting concerned.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that throughout Italy and other countries there are many murals outside buildings on walls which are preserved?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think that is a little wide of the original Question, in any case the climate of Italy is different from that of Battersea.

FISH FARMING: MEASURES TO ASSIST
2.45 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 any steps are being taken to implement any of the recommendations made by the NFU in their report of last July to redress some of the fish farmers' disabilities.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, a series of consultation meetings with appropriate bodies will begin next month.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord
1214
for that reply I should like to ask him a supplementary question. I have seen that there is to be a survey of likely nuclear stations around the coasts of our islands. When that survey is made, if the benefit to fish farming is taken into account in connection with the erection of nuclear reactors, which produce warm water, would it not be most beneficial to the fishing industry?
Lords SANDYS: My Lords, while recognising the benefit which flows from existing power stations which are sited around our coasts, to the fish farming industry, and indeed to fish culture generally, at the present moment it is not the practice to include this as part of the scheme of design. I shall be only too happy to pass on to my right honourable friend the suggestion made by the noble Baroness.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether they are to continue the R & D expenditure amounting to about £1 million, given by the previous Government, or will that be a victim of the economy axe?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I regret that at the present moment I am unable to confirm or deny what the noble Lord has said.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that very small changes, usually downwards, in the temperature of the sea cause fish to desert their traditional feeding grounds, and that by extension only very small changes upwards are needed to re-establish, for example, the sardine fishing industry off the coast of Cornwall? Will he further agree that power stations, nuclear or otherwise, could well be sited with such considerations in view?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while wholly agreeing about the historical movement of fish mentioned by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, I feel that this is a matter worthy of scientific investigation and when making recommendations I will emphasise it to my right honourable friend.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords may I ask the noble Lord to suggest to the Ministry that they make

1215
inquiries as to what is going on in this respect in Germany, where they have gone a long way towards using their nuclear power stations to help fish farmers?
Lord SANDYS: I will bear that in mind, my Lords.

THE GENEVA COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT
2.49 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 endorse the proposals which the previous Labour Government made to the Geneva Committee on Disarmament, and are actively advocating them at the Committee.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government will continue to work for balanced and verifiable measures of disarmament. We shall play a constructive part in the work of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for that reply but for the very full letter which I have received today, but I ask him whether the Labour Government's proposals did not include negotiations with the objective of reducing and eventually eliminating nuclear weapons, instituting nuclear-free zones in the world and the prohibition of chemical and radiological weapons? Are these not very radical proposals, and can we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will support them at the Geneva Committee?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the document to which I think the noble Lord refers is a full and comprehensive one which is being closely studied by the new Ministers and therefore I do not think I can add much to what I said originally, but the Government certainly share the view of all other Members of the United Nations that this must be the ultimate goal of arms control efforts.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure we may take it from the Minister—may we not?—that it is the intention of the present Government to ensure that a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will from time to time be attending the plenary sessions of the reconstituted Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. May I, in asking that exhortatory question, add the query: is the Minister in a position to say whether a Minister at his office has been designated as Minister for Disarmament?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot say whether that will be done. It certainly has not been done yet.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I made two points. The first was that a Minister would attend some of the plenary sessions of the reconstituted Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. The second was a distinct question: will a Minister be designated as Minister for Disarmament?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not know whether a Minister will be designated as a Minister for Disarmament as such. There may be some difficulties about that. However, I have no doubt that my right honourable friends will be attending in Geneva from time to time.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, we are in the dark as to what is happening at the Geneva Committee. Can the Minister give us any detailed account of the progress which has been made in these disarmament proposals?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, not at Question Time.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS: INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that certain papers, including the Minute, are not being printed as usual. This is the result of action being taken by overseers at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press who are members of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. The IPCS are in dispute with the Civil Service Department over a pay claim for professional and technical officers affecting

1217
those grades. In accordance with previous practice when production of the Parliamentary Press has been interrupted, the authorities of the House are making the necessary arrangements to ensure that the continued production of essential supplies is done on an emergency basis. I very much hope that normal service will be resumed as quickly as possible.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I think that my noble friend said that the papers were not, as usual, being printed. Did he mean that they were being printed as usual, or as usual were not being printed?
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I shall need a certain amount of time to work out what is the difference!

LIMITATION AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is, as your Lordships will be aware, a law reform Bill and I would like to remind noble Lords that in my speech on the Address I ventured to quote from two of my predecessors on the subject of law reform. The first quotation came from Lord Campbell, who said that law reform was either by consent or not at all. The second was from Lord Haldane, who said that it took three successive Lord Chancellors to effect any significant change in the law. To this I would add a third of my own which is that law reform should be continuous and evolutionary rather than abrupt and dramatic.
I hope that this little Bill will exemplify each of those three precepts. It would rather surprise me if my noble and learned predecessor Lord Elwyn-Jones were altogether astonished either at the appearance or the contents of the Bill. Indeed, with a little coaxing I trust that he may even be persuaded to take some modest credit for his own work in its preparation. As for the third Lord Chancellor, well, modesty forbids that I should identify him. I can only say that the Bill owes its origin to a reference by the then Lord Chancellor to the Law Reform Committee on 26th April 1971. Thus it
1218
only remains for me to justify the third principle. When I sought to introduce this Bill into the present Government's programme for legislation, one of my colleagues asked me: "What is the limitation of actions?" So, I had better begin by answering that question.
James I and VI (of blessed memory) had the happy idea of introducing into English Law in 1623 the first Statute of Limitations which had as its basic principle the thought that if you let your rights sleep for too long you had better not wake them up. The reasons which underlay this principle were many and various and I do not propose to trouble the House with them now. The purpose of some of them has evaporated with the passage of time, but the basic principle remains and is enshrined for the present in the Limitation Act 1939—passed within my own legal and legislative career. Perhaps I should say that that canny race the Scots had already provided themselves with a similar —but of course not identical—principle obtained, presumably, from the praetors edict in ancient Roman Law.
But I had better come immediately to the point and start explaining what the Bill is really about. It derives, as I have indicated, from the report of the Law Reform Committee which I initiated in 1971 and which delivered its report to my then successor—and present predecessor—significantly, just after the expiry of the statutory six years in September 1977. The Bill brings into effect almost all the recommendations of that committee.
Clause 1 of the Bill remedies what has for long been considered a minor injustice in the present law. Under the law as it stands, where a loan is made repayable on demand or without a specified time for repayment, the time of limitation begins to run from the making of the loan. That discourages indulgence on the part of the creditor. In future, if Clause 1 is passed, time will only begin to run against the creditor from the presentation of a written demand.
Clause 2 removes the immunity from suit at present available to a thief or to a receiver of stolen goods, after six years of unbroken unlawful possession. In future it will only be the innocent purchaser for value—if any—who will be immune. The thief will no longer be

1219
able to sit on his own ill-gotten gains. Clause 3(1) relates to what are called tenancies at will. Here the time will begin to run from the actual determination of the tenancy, and not as now from an arbitrary date fixed at the first anniversary of the date at which the tenancy began. Clause 3(2) amends Section 9(3) of the Limitation Act 1939. The lessor's title will be extinguished when rent is paid for a period of 12 years to a person other than the landlord. But there is a saving for small rents and, in future, to suit the change in money values, the limit is raised from £1 to £10.
Clause 4 abolishes a legal fiction about the time after which possession of land is deemed to be adverse to the true owner. In future the court will be able to look at the actual facts of the case instead of fictions. Clause 5 is for the protection of trustees when they are faced with a claim from an alleged beneficiary who turns up more than six years after the distribution of the estate. In future he will be liable only for the share of trust property which he would have had to pay to the late-corner had all the beneficiaries been sued in time, instead of as now for the whole of the late-comer's claim. Clause 6 provides that once a cause for action has been barred under the provisions of the principal Act it will be incapable of renewal.
Clause 7 is a restatement of old law in modern language. The committee found that the present and principal Act no longer reflects the principles on which the courts in practice act in case of fraud on the part of the defendant or mistake on the part of the plaintiff. The new provision confers an extension of time where there has been deliberate concealment which includes a deliberate breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time. Clause 8 is procedural. It amends and re-enacts Section 28 of the principal Act and deals with the incorporation, by amendment, of new claims in pending actions. After the expiration of the relevant limitation period, amendments may be made only if they satisfy the conditions imposed by Clause 8(5) of the Bill, and any further limitations imposed by rule of court. It covers both set-offs and counterclaims and also proceedings made in third party
1220
proceedings as well as new causes of action.
At the Second Reading stage I do not think I need say any more, except to make two points. First, save in so far as Clause 7 deals with concealed fraud and mistake, there is no provision in the Bill relating to the thorny question of latent damage. I am told that this was the decision of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was a member, and it is also the conclusion of Her Majesty's present Government. The second point is that as a result of the passing of this Bill—if it is passed, as I hope it will be—I hope that by 1980 I shall be in a position to introduce a Consolidation Bill, which is always a useful piece of legislation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.1 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing and explaining the Bill—as he always does—so clearly to us. It is sometimes necessary to explain the apparently obvious. I remember that when I took one of the three original copies of Magna Carta to Congress—on loan I may say—I was a little confused to be told that an American schoolboy, on being asked "What is Magna Carta?", replied "Magna Carta is Jimmy Carter's mother". Therefore, there is always room for explanation about the apparently obvious.
I am certainly not surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has introduced this Bill. Indeed, it might be described as conceived by him, nurtured by me and now christened by him today. As he pointed out, it was he who, in 1971, invited the Law Reform Committee to consider what changes in the law regarding limitation of actions are, in the opinion of the committee, desirable. In 1974 that committee submitted a report on the limitation of actions in cases of personal injury; that report was substantially implemented by the Limitation Act, which I introduced in 1975, about which before the end of these proceedings

1221
we may hear a certain amount of questioning and, indeed, suggestion that some of the matters arising since then should be considered in this Bill. However, we shall see what happens when the Committee stage is reached.
Of course, on the dissolution of a Parliament, there is always a danger that law reform measures tend to get lost. I am glad that that has not happened on this occasion and that the labours of the Law Reform Committee of Lord Justice Orr and his colleagues—who so generously gave of their time and effort to produce, in 1977, their final report—have not been in vain, and that they should have the satisfaction of knowing that at any rate Parliament has taken up most of their recommendations, as it is now doing in considering the Second Reading of this Bill.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—ever watchful to see that Lord Chancellors are kept up to the mark (a process which I hope he will continue in the course of this Administration}—asked me what the previous Government's intentions were. In March this year lie asked me whether the Government accepted the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee on limitation of actions. I assured him then that we had decided to promote legislation for England and Wales, usimy, the well-known expression, "as soon as suitable opportunity arises". Unhappily, it did not arise owing to the fluxion of time and the course of events.
Therefore, I welcome the noble and learned Lord's introduction of the Bill today. It is a useful measure of law reform. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated, several of its provisions will aim to achieve a wider measure of fairness and equity in the field of limitation with which the Bill deals. The noble and learned Lord has explained the Bill helpfully, as indeed has the admirable Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, which has certainly eased the task of noble Lords and myself who have sought to follow the Bill. I do not propose to comment on Second Reading on the details of the Bill's provisions. Happily, there is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships' House and no doubt we shall consider the matter carefully and in detail as we proceed.
1222
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, the Bill does not deal with the difficult matter which is raised in the final report of the committee —the problem of when the limitation period starts in the case of latent damage. We gave a good deal of thought to this difficult matter and some of us who considered it were as divided as was the committee itself. However, I certainly, and the majority of my colleagues, came down in favour of the view taken by the majority of the committee and favoured leaving the law as it is, certainly for the time being, so that the limitation period should start from the accrual of the cause of action. The minority of the committee favoured granting the court itself a residual discretion to override the limitation period in cases of latent damage, if the court thought it just to allow the litigation to proceed. That was the formula arrived at in considering limitation in relation to personal injuries.
The view that I certainly formed, and it was the view of most of my colleagues, was that in the absence of clear evidence that the current absence of that kind of judicial discretion outside the personal injury field causes serious hardship to a relatively small number of plaintiffs, it would not be sensible to put at risk the chance of obtaining insurance cover. I take the view—and it may well be that the noble and learned Lord takes the same view—that it would be preferable to await further judicial development of this matter before contemplating legislation in this particular field.
As I have said, it is not my intention to enter into the details of the Bill at this stage. The Law Society has criticised various aspects of it and it may well be that some of my colleagues who are members of the legal profession will take up its points and bring forward points of their own. Some also may be a little critical of the fact that the House has not been given enough time between publication of the Bill and Second Reading to consult interested persons or bodies on its contents. I have sympathy with that point of view, but it is right to say that, as in the case of reports of the Law Commission itself, the Law Reform Committee submitted a questionnaire in reply to which it received memoranda from a very large number of experts in the field; and interested bodies,

1223
including the Law Society itself, and a number of individuals, gave written evidence.
It is partly the wide nature of consultations of that kind—which is also the job of the Law Commission—which gives an assurance to Parliament when these measures come forward on the strength of its recommendations, that at any rate soundings have been taken carefully in the quarters which could have much to contribute and which would be most affected. Therefore, I hope that those who are not wholly happy about the immediate scene with which we are presented, nevertheless will join with me in welcoming the Bill.
3.10 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I lack the temerity of being critical of a Bill which is sponsored by two Lord Chancellors. The noble and learned Lord, and I will not say the late but the former Lord Chancellor, share responsibility for this measure, and I would not wish to be critical of it in any respect, except that I do not think it deals with all the matters which it should. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to his desire to introduce a consolidation measure. Before that is done, consideration ought to be given to another aspect of our statute law with regard to limitation of actions.
I think I am right in saying that over the years Parliament has reduced the period within which an action for personal injuries can ordinarily be brought from six years to three years, bearing in mind how necessary it is to have liability determined fairly soon after an accident has occurred. But, as the law now stands, to that rule there is an exception for persons suffering under a disability. One category of persons who in law suffer under a disability are infants. Recently there came before this House a case which illustrates quite clearly the situation which I do not myself think should be allowed to continue. In 1964 a child stepped off a pavement. She was three and a half years old, and she suffered brain damage. As your Lordships may well know, claims in respect of brain damage may lead to very large awards of damages. I think that last week this
1224
House decided that an award should be of a sum of about £250,000.
An action could be started in respect of that claim from the day it occurred when she was three and a half until three years after she reached the age of 18. So that from that time for about 17½ years the defendants had the possibility of an action being brought against them for damages. I may say that I do not know to what extent she suffered brain damage, but that can be a serious injury as one knows.
In respect of the accident in 1964 a writ was issued three years later in 1967. It was served a year later in 1968. Then there was notice in 1977 of an intention to proceed with the action by the solicitors then acting. This was in 1977, with the accident in 1964, 13 years afterwards. Not surprisingly there was an application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. But that application failed in this House because it was held that it was pointless to dismiss that action when, immediately that action was dismissed, another one could have been started, and started, I think I am right in saying from recollection, at any time before some date in 1982.
May I quote from the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock in dealing with this case. He said:
"My Lords, it is not and cannot be disputed that by 1977 there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay in the prosecution of the action and that the delay has given rise to a substantial risk that it will not be possible to have a fair trial of the issue of liability in respect of a road accident which happened nearly 15 years ago. It is also likely to have caused prejudice to the defendants, whose insurer's files upon the matter have by now been destroyed; so have the police records and statements relating to the accident."
In those circumstances, one may well wonder whether, if this claim ever does come to trial, there can be anything in the nature of a satisfactory trial of it. That is why I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to take steps to ensure that this problem is considered with some immediacy, with the hope that some amendment can be made to this Bill in the course of its passage through both Houses, so that the day may come when he can achieve his desire and introduce a satisfactory consolidation measure.

1225
I am not going to suggest, or take up time by suggesting, what is the right answer to the problem. Of course one does not want an infant to be deprived of his rights because of his infancy. At the same time, one must have regard to the interests of defendants. Before the law was changed to what it now is there was a more limited period extending beyond the ordinary period within which an action could be brought if the child was in the custody of a parent. That led to some difficulties, but it may be that some consideration and slight amendment of the former provisions would be better than the present situation, and lead to more fairness and better administration of justice.
However that may be, I plead with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and I am supported in this by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock—to take steps to secure, if he can, that the law in this respect is improved by this Bill, and the Bill itself contains some amendment of the existing law in relation to disabilities before it reaches the statute book.
3.8 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, if ever, while your Lordships are tolerant of me, I am displaced in the list of speakers by anybody, I would always hope that it would be by somebody of the calibre and charm of the noble and learned Viscount.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to apologise?
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, even to receive the noble and learned Viscount's apology at the start of my speech is a privilege. May I first join in the congratulations extended by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the lucidity and clarity with which he introduced the Second Reading. My observations—quite a deal of them inspired by the Law Society, of which I am proud to be a member—will be limited to points that should be raised on Second Reading in order to perhaps make the Committee stage of this Bill more intelligible to this House.
This is a matter of law reform which, rather peculiarly from the point of view of
1226
my learned profession, is not an esoteric topic. It is one which all your Lordships would be interested in because it deals with a balance of rights and a balance of equities as between a defendant over whom the sword of a prospective action should not dangle for too long, with all the attendant difficulties in obtaining evidence at a late stage and of lack of recollection, and the justice that is due to a plaintiff in the exercise of remedies that he may have because of rights of his which have been impinged. It is a delicate balance, but is one on which very often the layman has as clear a judgment as the lawyer, and it may be at times a better judgment. It is against that background that I beg leave to bring to the House the following matters which are relevant at this stage. I do so on the principle which should be enunciaated quite clearly, namely, that it is not the right which is expunged but purely the remedy as the result of a period of time having elapsed.
I wish to deal with four categories of matters arising out of the Bill which are relevant on Second Reading. The first category is some recommendations made by the Law Reform Committee but which are not followed in the Bill; the second category is a recommendtion which is followed but which I respectfully suggest should not have been followed in the Bill; the third category is a subject matter of the report already referred to by my noble and learned friend which is ignored by the Bill —indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to it—and that is the question of latent damage; and the fourth category concerns a case which was decided after this report appeared and therefore is not mentioned in the 21st Report of the Law Reform Committee with which we are dealing, but which is ignored by the Bill as though the case had not occurred.
On the first category—the recommendations made but not followed in the Bill—I am delighted that the noble and learned Viscount preceded me because he mentioned a certain case where there was a mental disability. The first point I wish to make is that the committee recommended—this is not the first time it has been recommended—that mental disability, mental disorder, should be defined. There is no clear definition until you get to protection order cases as dealt with in the Mental Health Act 1959, and the committee

1227
recommended that in this Bill or in any enactment following on their recommendations the definition in the 1959 Act of mental disorder, a very good one, should be followed. It does not appear in this Bill.
Secondly, the committee recommended that what seemed to be a rather illogical preservation, of a 12-year period after judgment had been obtained in cases for actions on the judgment, should be abolished. This Bill does not abolish. Thirdly —and in view of the dry-as-dust remarks which I have to make, I hope your Lordships will forgive an attempt at some light relief—I observed on reading the report that there is a heading dealing with the matter of landlord and tenant which is called "The Saint Marylebone case". Bearing in mind the title which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor enhances, I was intrigued at that heading, but I was intrigued further when I went on to read, and I do not know whether this is a subtle reference by way of prescience to the hoped for continuity of the Lord Chancellor's office:
"Reversal of the Saint Marylebone decision might prejudice the lessor"—
and it goes on to say—
"who could find himself saddled with a tenant whom he had never wanted".
Whether that is a hoped for prayer for the continutiy of the present Lord Chancellor I know not, but I revert to the heading of that chapter of the report which deals with landlord and tenant and I bring to your Lordships' attention the fact that Clause 3(1) of the Bill deals with the question of tenants at will and the change that was recommended by the report, but for some reason which escapes me does not make a similar change in respect of periodical tenancies where there is no written lease.
I come to the second category, the case where the recommendation has been followed but where, in my respectful submission, it should not have been, and here I deal with Clause 6 of the Bill. I believe it would be in your Lordships' knowledge that where, after the expiration of a period of limitation, an acknowledgement is made by the proposed defendant, or he makes a part payment, the time begins to run again and, in spite of the fact that the period of limitation has expired,
1228
a plaintiff can bring an action. The Bill follows the recommendation of the committee in that respect and does not revive that time-barred remedy. If I may say so respectfully, I cannot see the logic behind that because, to re-enunciate the principle, it is that it is not the right that goes but the remedy, and there can surely be no hardship on a defendant where indeed an acknowledgement of the indebtedness has been made, and a part payment has been made. I therefore respectfully observe that I cannot see why that recommendation has been accepted.
The third category—the example of an important issue which has apparently been ignored—brings me to the observations made by Lord Elwyn-Jones and to the question of latent damage. To put it in simple terms, most of us recognise it in a building case, where you suddenly find that the building that was built for you, a house perhaps, throws up a latent defect. The courts, as I am sure the Lord Chancellor will agree, have tended in recent times to take the point of the accrual of the cause of action as the discoverability of the damage, and that seems to be extrememly logical. This Bill ignores the question of latent damage, and does not deal with the recommendations made by the minority of the committee, who said that the proper course here is to give the court discretion to allow a case to be brought on consideration of its merits and the facts, even though prima facie the limitation period has gone. This would appear to be such a sensible recommendation, and in view of the fact that one cannot get certainty—which was the real reason for the majority decision to which Lord Elwyn-Jones referred—when one must go into the whole issue of when it could have been discovered by a reasonable person, I should have thought makes the majority decision unacceptable and that at least we ought to have had this difficult matter, and it is a difficult one, dealt with in the Bill, but it is not.
The last category to which I come is a category where a case has been decided since the committee sat and the Bill, as I see it, does not take any cognisance of it. The case was that of Batty v. Metropolitan Property Realisations [2 Weekly Law Reports, 1978; p. 500.] That case dealt with the following issue, which I should like to put to your Lordships very briefly and very simply. When

1229
there is a breach of contract, the period of limitation starts as from the date of breach. When there is a tort, which is a civil wrong (such as negligence), it dates as from the date of damage. There is a type of case (as this one was) in which there is an option either to go on contract—that is normal in a breach of duty case; for example, against a professional man—or to go on negligence, with different dates from which the date of accrual of the cause of action arises. The court decided in the 1978 case that the plaintiff could go for the one that suits him the better; in other words, the one which gives him a longer period by way of limitation. To have, in fact, under two roots of law, contract and tort, different periods from which the accrual of a right of action starts, when indeed in so many cases it may flow from both, seems to me to be an illogicality and an untidiness which obviously ought to be relieved under the Bill.
My Lords, I have spoken for long enough and your Lordships have listened with your usual tolerance. I have raised these points in order possibly to save time at the Committee stage by seeing how—if I may say this respectfully—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor deals with them, and by seeing whether or not he would welcome amendments at the Committee stage relating to the matters to which I have referred.
3.31 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is clear from the way in which the Bill has been courteously and helpfully treated by those who have played a useful part in the debate, first, that this is a highly technical and difficult matter, and, secondly, that it is nothing more nor less than a bundle of Committee points. That it is a bundle of Committee points does not involve myself in any criticism of any of the points which have been made. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it can help the Committee stage of the Bill if, on Second Reading, in effect public notice has been given by way of the banns read out in church (as it were), so that we have notice of what may be raised, and those who wish to raise them are able to know the kind of points which can be said against them.
May I deal, not necessarily in order, with the various points that have been
1230
made, but before doing so I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord my predecessor for the kindly welcome which he gave to the Bill. He acknowledged that law reform of this kind is a continuous process and that Lord Chancellors have the civilised habit of picking up the threads of law reform where their immediate predecessors have left them. indeed, I do not consider that with a technical matter of this kind it would be possible to have law reform and not to act in this nonpolitical way. Of all the offices under the Government, probably that of Lord Chancellor has the greatest degree of continuity. We usually know, though we do not always disclose, exactly what our predecessors, and indeed our successors, think about particular subjects, because we often discuss matters in an informal way. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the welcome that he has given to the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount on the Cross-Benches raised an interesting and important point, but while the questions are fresh in my mind—and they are quite numerous—I want to come first to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from the Labour Back-Benches. I believe that the noble Lord represents in broad terms the views of the Law Society, of which he is not only a member, but of which he is quite rightly proud to be a member.
First, the noble Lord took a series of recommendations of the Law Reform Committee which he claimed have not been followed in the Bill. In this regard he said that I have left undone those things which I ought to have done. The noble Lord wanted to find in the Bill—and said that he could not—a definition from the Mental Health Act of disability. I think that the noble Lord is perhaps mistaken in thinking that that is not in the Bill. I do not in the least blame him for missing this because I should have missed it myself in similar circumstances. I ask the noble Lord to look at paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 where he will probably find what he is seeking. Schedule 1 deals with the amendments to the principal Act, and it contains the usual gobbledygook involved in such legislation. Paragraph 11 states:
"In Section 31(3)—"
that is of the principal Act—
"for the words from 'but' to 'presumed' there shall be substituted the words 'a person is of unsound mind if he is a person who, by reason

1231
of mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959, is incapable of managing and administering his property and affairs; and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, a person shall be conclusively presumed for the purposes of that subsection'".
I am advised that the noble Lord will find that that deals with the first of the points that he raised.
Then he complained that there was no reduction in the period for an action on a judgment from 12 to six years. Again I ask him to look at Schedule 1, and this time in particular at paragraph 2(d). He will see that it states that in Section 2 (that is of the principal Act):
"in subsection (4), for the word 'twelve' there shall be substituted the word 'six' …".
So I think that I have probably successfully defended myself against the category of those things which I have not done but ought to have done.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who, with characteristic mercy, has dealt with those first two points. Furthermore, may I offer merely the excuse that I am afraid that I had not had time properly to study the schedule in view of the brief period that elapsed between the printing of the Bill on 14th June and this Second Reading debate. That is my only excuse.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord has a very good point there. Indeed, earlier the noble and learned Lord referred to the shortness of the period, and of course he is quite right. He knows as well as I do—or probably better—the difficulties of slotting these items into the legislative programme. A technical Bill of this kind is not particularly contentious and we have to find something for the Lords to do in the early part of the Session; if we do not, they will not do it. We know what happens at the end of a Session if we do not. Thus one struggles very hard to provide provender in order for the hungry mouths to be fed. One is in that kind of difficulty, but I also understand the noble Lord's difficulty.
I turn now to the third point which he said I had left undone, and he is right in saying that I have not done it, although whether I ought to have done it is another
1232
matter. I refer to the absence of the recommendation with regard to periodical tenancies. I suppose that that means that subsection (2) of Section 9 of the principal Act should be repealed along with subsection (1).
The effect of this would be that a periodical tenancy would no longer be deemed, for limitation purposes, to be determined at the end of the first year or other period, but would be determined only when actually determined by the lessor. The reason for retaining this subsection is that it would be more in the general interest than would its repeal. If a periodical tenant could never prescribe against his landlord when the latter vanished, he would be disinclined to improve or maintain the property and would have difficulty in making title for the purposes of a mortgage for improvement, and so on. The policy was discussed between departments—and here I am supposed to say pompously that I have discussed it with the Secretary of State for the Environment, although of course I have done nothing of the kind; in fact it has been discussed at an official level—and the position is that we decided as a matter of policy, and for the reason I have given, to omit that particular thing.
In passing, I should like to say that my general approach to these committee and commission reports on law reform is that I tend to back the committee or commission where I can, but if my view is defeated in Committee by those who think they know better then, having made a valiant fight, I shall not resign immediately but will consider that perhaps the Committee may be right and I may be wrong. On the other hand, we think that as a matter of policy this is better left out of the Bill.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I do not know whether it will comfort the noble and learned Lord to know that I discussed this matter with the then Secretary of State for the Environment, and that I am inclined to agree with the noble and learned Lord. That may give him a certain amount of assurance; I do not know.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is all the more encouraging, my Lords. At

1233
any rate, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, having heard my explanation of the matter, may on balance think that there is something in it. Now a much more substantial question—and this is a matter upon which the committee was divided—was the question of the effect of acknowledgment or part-payment on a claim which is statute barred. Following extreme legal accuracy and traditional legal learning, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the Law Society represented to us that the cause of action is not destroyed by the time bar; it is only, as it were, buried but not dead, and disinterment by acknowledgment or part-payment will set time running again. This is of course absolutely accurate legal learning, but I happen to take the other view, as did a bare majority of the committee and, I believe, the previous Government. One can be too learned about these things, but I am going to try to be a little pedantic myself.
When the original limitation period of 1623 was introduced during the reign of James I, of course the mischief which was then aimed at was different from the mischief which is aimed at now, although the period happens to be the same. In those days, after six years a wicked and cunning plaintiff would get a lot of perjured witnesses to allege the existence of a contract or a cause of action and put up a false case against a defendant which he could not answer, and the reason why he could not answer it, as students of Dickens will remember, is that until comparatively recently neither the plaintiff nor a defendant could give evidence at all. Therefore, the mischief was that of a trumped-up, false case. Nowadays, the mischief you are aiming at is not that but the absence of certainty in dealing with insurance claims and in dealing with the carrying on of business.
The view of the majority of the committee—I will not read it all, but it is Part II, paragraphs 2.70 and 2.71, of the little blue report—was in favour of certainty after six years. It is quite true that there is an element of illogicality if you pursue the strict, legally accurate, view that what happens when an action is statute barred is that the remedy is removed but not the right. But the committee came to the conclusion that this was basically—and I use the word without offence—gobbledygook, and that
1234
what was wanted was certainty. On balance, I agree with this view. I quite acknowledge that other people may differ, and the question is on which side you come down, the majority or the minority view. I am with the majority on this occasion. We can try it out, if we want to try it out, in Committee. I shall not take it ill if the the Committee takes an opposite view, but I shall still vote for the position as I have argued that it should be.
The next point which the noble Lord raised concerned latent damage, and I think I can perhaps deal with that at the same time as I deal with the case with the rather unpromising name of Batty, to which he referred, which undoubtedly was decided after the committee reported. The first point about that—and, again, it is one about which opinions may differ —is my conclusion that the law is better left for the judges to develop at this stage, and it is better not to try to impose an artificial certainty by statute. The committee divided itself on the subject of latent damage, some members coming down on the side of discoverability and some coming down on the side of certainty. Here again, on the whole, I come down on the side of certainty but subject to the kind of case which Anns v. London Borough of Merton and Batty were really discussing. For myself, I do not think it is a bad thing for the judges to be left to develop the law on the lines upon which it appears to be developing. The law relating to negligence has been developed a very great deal in recent years. The point of departure was the Scottish case about the snail and the ginger-beer bottle. There, nobody ever discovered whether there was a snail or whether there was a ginger-beer bottle to contain it, but it formed a point of departure for the law of negligence which has been developing ever since. What has been happening in some of the fields is that, of their own motion, the courts seem to be developing, in relation to negligence, but not in relation to other causes of action, a doctrine of discoverability of their own; and that is what happened in Batty.
I can understand the interest of the Law Society in this matter, because I suppose the Law Society, being interested in the practice of the solicitors' profession, have hitherto thought themselves immune from actions for negligence after six years on the basis of the fact that they have a contract with

1235
their clients, and it was thought until recently that the cause of action arising on the contract protected them absolutely. They are quite right in thinking that the effect of Batty is to put that degree of certainty in jeopardy. I am quite willing to pursue this matter at a later stage in Committee if the noble Lord wants to revert to it, but my present inclination is to let the thing develop a little further before we try to legislate, and I believe that is the prudent decision. But it is a matter of judgment. It is not a question of politics: it is a question of weighing one particular point against another. I am afraid I am being very dull, but this is a rather technical subject.
My Lords, I come back to the very interesting and very important point which was raised by the noble and learned Viscount on the Cross-Benches. This is a personal injuries point. It relates to the disability, probably by way of minority, but not I think necessarily by way of minority, and the effect of the Statute of Limitations on a person suffering from a disability—and I shall deal with the child as typical even if he is not the only case. It is true that after 1939, when the principal Act was passed, it was thought by Parliament, rightly or wrongly—and I think that it is still open to question which view is the better—that six years was far too long within which to bar an accident case, which is the main personal injuries category; so three years was chosen as the definitive period. I have forgotten the exact date on which this was done. Then it was discovered that three years was too short and a great deal of argument was expounded on various anomalies which were then thrown up. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, in his place. It is a matter in which the trade unions have taken a close and absolutely legitimate interest because injuries by employees are very closely affected by this. It was discovered very soon that injuries by employees became apparent or definitively serious at a date after the three-year period had expired.
The result was that there was quite a series of amending Acts. Indeed, the last one was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, only a year or two back. I forget whether it was 1975 or 1976, but he made a brief passing reference to it in his own speech on this
1236
particular Bill. That was designed to remedy a misunderstanding by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House of what had been intended in one of the amending Acts. I myself wonder whether the original decision to reduce the period from six years to three years has not been more trouble than it was worth. That is a matter on which opinions may differ.
I want to say this to my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. He will be aware of it, but as the point is raised in public I should remind him of it in order to put it on the record that the very point which he mentioned was closely argued in the earlier and interim reports of the committee. They put the case forcefully the other way, in paragraphs 107 and 108 of the 20th Report. So that the other side of the matter may be seen by the House, I think that I might quote at any rate parts of those paragraphs because they state the contrary case quite clearly.
They were discussing the very point of what the effect of disability and, particularly, minority should be in the case of an accident where a child or a person under some other disability was injured. This is what they say. I begin with paragraph 107:
"In view of his wide experience of accidents to persons under disability we also asked Mr. Turner, the Official Solicitor, to deal specifically with this subject and we are grateful to him for the trouble he took in answering our inquiries. Mr. Turner's opinion was that the rule must give rise to hardship"—
that is, the rule that there was an absolute bar in that some minors' claims for personal injuries have been and will be lost through the ignorance or indifference of a parent.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Cross-Benches rightly stated that the previous rule had been that where a child was effectively represented by a parent in custody of him the disability did not stop the running of the period. The report goes on:
"He gave us particulars of 18 cases between July 1968 and August 1971 selected at random from his records in which he had been asked by solicitors in private practice to act as next friend to minors whose claims would not otherwise have been prosecuted. On these he makes the comment that since there is no legal obligation on anyone to seek his intervention it is fair to infer that there must be many cases in which infants suffer loss by default."

1237
This is the conclusion that the committee then arrived at:
"We think that the Official Solicitor's comment quoted above is justified. His evidence does call in question the validity of the assumption underlying the rule"—
that is, the rule which, as I understand it, my noble and learned friend would wish to introduce; namely that if minors—
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point? I did not suggest going back to the old rule. I am fully aware of the difficulties that arose from that. What I am suggesting is that the present rule which allows a situation to arise when an action can no longer be tried properly be looked at, with possibly a reduction of the period during which a person suffering disability can start proceedings.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I quite see that. If I may say so, in relation to this point, it is the sort of point which will be looked at since it comes from a very exalted source and it may be publicly argued at the Committee stage.
I shall refer the House to paragraph 108 of the report, and I shall not read it for it might be that I am wearying the House about it; but I want the House to realise that, if the noble and learned Viscount's suggestions were embodied in this statute, a certain number of disability cases would be barred through the negligence of somebody else; namely, a parent or guardian who had failed to prosecute the case with due diligence. It may be that the House will think that the balance of advantage is in the retention of the present position.
As a kind of trustee for the Law Reform Committee I must say that I rather deliberately chose not to embark on the treacherous quicksands of personal injuries in this Bill. I have got to see, if I can, that this Bill gets through, and I am wondering myself whether that particular quicksand is not one into which it might become engulfed if we use this Bill as a vehicle for improving the law in that field, if indeed it requires improvement. I will look at what the noble and learned Viscount has said about it. What he says is not only accurate but weighty and it might be that we can think of something better. We are only at Second Reading now. I am afraid that we shall
1238
never get on if I do not sit down. I think that concludes it.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
3.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is my first Bill which I introduce with some trepidation. I am not a lawyer and I was not involved in the debates or discussions on the previous Administration's Bill. I find myself reading with some astonishment my name printed on the back of this Bill; but I have been made happier by the Lord Chancellor's reference to gobbledygook and also to his phrase on the previous measure that one can be too learned about these things. I reflected that all these remarks are relative, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who is to speak after me, will, if necessary, pronounce the words in Clause 48 in the language of the Principality.
This Bill deals with the implementation of the EEC Second Directive on company law and certain closely related matters. The Directive, and hence this Bill, is concerned with the formation of public companies, the subscription and maintenance of their capital and the payments of dividends. The House will recall that the Select Committee on the European Communities in their 24th report in the 1974/75 Session made a detailed study of this draft Directive, which was debated along with several others on 8th April 1976. I shall be dealing with the main provisions of the Bill and referring to the points raised in the Select Committee's report in a few minutes' time. In moving this Bill, it might be helpful to your Lordships if I first explain the Government's wider intentions for the reform of company law.
The Bill which we are debating today is the first of two Bills which we intend to introduce. A second Companies Bill will be brought forward in 1980. This first Bill omits a number of important measures of company law reform which were included in the Companies Bill

1239
introduced by the previous Administration and which were debated at length in Standing Committee in another place. This does not mean that subjects like the law relating to loans to directors, the proposals on insider dealing and the new provisions for the protection of the interests of minority shareholders have been dropped. They have not been dropped; but several of the more important proposals are being re-examined in the light, for example, of the recent Inspectors' reports into the affairs of Peachey Property Corporation and Dow-gate and General Investments.
However, the United Kingdom are already out of time, as noble Lords will know, in implementing the EEC Second Directive which was adopted in December 1976, with the requirement that our law should have been amended to implement it by December 1978. So in order not to delay further our obligation to implement the Second Directive, this Bill is confined in major part to that purpose, and it is hoped that it can be enacted quickly. This will clear the way for a further substantial Companies Bill in 1980 which will need to cover the implementation of a further EEC Directive, the Fourth Directive which deals with company accounts as well as a number of other measures of reform, including those that I have mentioned from the previous Administration's Bill.
The Government intend, before the Summer Recess, to publish a consultative document on company accounting and disclosure which will put forward detailed proposals for implementing the Fourth Directive. If I may just reiterate: the consultative document will be published before the Summer Recess in relation to the Fourth Directive, and there will be a further Bill in 1980 covering that and the main points which are not in this Bill.
So turning now to the content of the legislation that we are debating today, Part I of the Bill provides new definitions as a basis for classifying companies as public or private companies; and new machinery for registration and re-registration of companies, together with certain transitional provisions which will apply during the changeover to the new classification of companies. Clause I introduced an important change into our
1240
law. At present, private companies are defined as those which meet the three tests set out in Section 28 of the Companies Act 1948, which means that public companies at present in our law form a residual category. But the EEC Second Directive now applies only to public companies and imposes a number of new requirements upon such companies.
Many companies at present classified as public companies in Britain could not be expected to meet the conditions required by the Directive. Therefore Clause I of the Bill defines a public company, and private companies will thus in future form the residual category with Section 28 of the 1948 Act being repealed. The main requirements which companies will have to meet in future in order to qualify for registration as a public company are as follows: first, the memorandum of association must state that the company is a public company. Second, its name must end with the designation: "Public Limited Company" or "PLC", with an appropriate alternative in Welsh as required by Clause 2 of the Bill. Third, the company must have a minimum authorised capital as required by Clause 3.
The minimum capital is set out in Clause 52 at £50,000. Before commencing business, a newly-formed public company will have to obtain a certificate from the registrar as provided in Clause 4. To obtain the certificate, the issued share capital must be not less than £50,000, paid up to not less than 25 per cent. of the nominal value together with the whole of any premium. The requirements for private companies intending to convert into public companies are set out in Clauses 5 and 6, and the position of existing public companies is dealt with in Clauses 8 and 9.
I should perhaps explain that Clause 8 has been extensively re-drafted from the previous version of the Bill in order to deal with a defeat drawn to our attention by the Law Society; namely, that it will be necessary to know whether a company which is a public company now has, after the coming into force of the legislation, become a private company, or whether it is a public company which has not yet taken the necessary steps to re-register as a public limited company. In making this change. Clause 8 has been extensively recast and the consequences of failure are

1241
set out separately in a new Clause 9. These changes, it is believed, will also make this provision easier to follow.
Before leaving Part I of the Bill, I should also mention for the benefit of those who followed closely the Committee proceedings in another place on the 1978 Companies Bill that the definition of proprietary company inserted into Clause 1 of the Bill by the then Opposition has been dropped. This should not be taken to indicate a change of heart on the part of the Government in relation to relieving the legislative burden on small private companies; it is merely a change of method. We shall be dealing specifically with the question of disclosure and audit of small companies and with the definition of a proprietary company for these purposes in the consultative document on company accounting and disclosures, which I mentioned earlier, which is to be published before the Summer Recess.
Part II of the Bill deals mainly with the requirements of the Second Directive relating to the share capital of public companies. Certain of these requirements are, however, based on principles which apply equally to all companies, and therefore in appropriate cases the provisions are applied to private as well as public companies. This is the case with Clause 14, which provides that directors may not issue shares or other securities without proper authority from the company in general meeting. The importance of Clause 15 is that it makes it a new criminal offence for private companies to offer their shares and debentures to the public. Under our present law if a private company were to make such an offer no criminal penalty would be incurred.
Clauses 17 to 19 deal with pre-emption rights and require companies to offer equity securities to their existing equity shareholders in proportion to their present holdings before they offer them to other people for cash. The principle that an equity shareholder should have a right to maintain his proportionate stake in the company when shares are issued for cash has, I understand, wide support, and there is a Stock Exchange requirement along these lines. Indeed, the clauses extend to the private companies, because we feel the protection they provide for shareholders is valuable and is needed. Of course flexibility is important, and the clauses
1242
provide for the restriction or withdrawal of rights to pre-emption with the consent of shareholders. There is also provision for preserving pre-existing arrangements which are not compatible with these new rights. Under those clauses, in a large number of cases an annual general meeting or a special meeting of shareholders can override this general protection.
There were a number of difficulties with the earlier versions of these clauses. These have been eased, for example, by the removal of bonus shares from the scope of the provisions. However, some problems do remain where offers are made to overseas residents, particularly in the United States of America. The means of overcoming these remaining difficulties is already provided in Clause 18, but we are still exploring the possibility of improving Clause 17—and having tried to read it three times, I myself am glad to hear that—so as to avoid the problem altogether.
Clauses 20 to 31 of the Bill deal with the payments of share capital, and the underlying theme of the Second Directive provisions on which these clauses are based is that a public company's share capital must be properly paid for in money or money's worth. Shares may not be issued at a discount—that is Clause 21; nor may the consideration for shares in the case of public companies include an undertaking to perform work or provide services—that is Clause 20. Where the consideration includes a non-cash asset, the Directive requires that an independent expert's report must be obtained to ensure that the value of the asset is at least equivalent to the value of the shares obtained for it. This provision of the Directive has been implemented in Clauses 24 and 25.
When the Select Committee on the European Communities examined these provisions in 1975, they considered them to be rather too detailed and rigid. They were particularly concerned about the proposal that an expert's report must be prepared where the consideration included a non-cash asset, and felt that such a provision would put companies to unnecessary delay and expense. I am afraid that it did not prove possible during the final stages of negotiations on this Directive to secure any substantial amendment to

1243
these proposals which, as I have indicated, are intended to ensure that the capital of a public company is subscribed on a sound basis—an intention to which I am sure we would all subscribe.
I should like to mention a new feature of Clause 24. This now provides that where a non-cash asset is valued by a sub-valuer, that sub-valuer must be independent of the company and may no longer be an officer or employee of the company, as was the case in earlier versions of this clause. The change has been made to bring the clause into line with the provisions of Article 10 of the Directive, and I am given to understand that it will not give rise to difficulty.
Finally in relation to Part II of the Bill, I should mention Clause 35, which prohibits a company from acquiring its own shares. Clauses 36 to 38 deal with related matters. The Government intend to review the question of whether and, if so, under what conditions, a company might be permitted to buy its own shares. This review will cover both the position of small family companies, where problems can arise if, for example, a member of the company wishes to retire and sell his shares, and also the question of whether listed companies with surplus cash resources might be permitted to buy in a proportion of their shares, as in the United States of America. I do not expect that this review will he completed in time for it to affect these clauses but any amendments necessary will be incorporated in the later Bill.
Part III of the Bill contains new rules governing the distribution of profits to shareholders. This is one area where the adoption of EEC Directives has provoked a long-overdue reform of our law. The new provisions on dividends cover both private and public companies and implement both the Second Directive and certain provisions of the Fourth Directive on company accounts.

Clause 39 defines profits available for distribution as the accumulated, realised profits of the company, so far as they have not previously been utilised, less the accumulated, realised losses, so far as these have not been previously written off. No distinction is made between capital and revenue profits or losses. A
1244
new rule in this clause is that unrealised profits may not be distributed. At present, under English law I understand that such distribution is permitted, but in Scotland it is not. As long ago as 1962 the Jenkins Committee recommended that the distribution of unrealised capital profits should be prohibited, and this reform is clearly overdue. Noble Lords on the Select Committee will realise that their point has not been fully met here on differentiating between capital and revenue accounts for this purpose. We frankly believe that, in line with modern accounting, it is probably wrong to do so.
Public companies will also have to comply with an additional test in paying dividends. This is laid down in Clause 40 and requires that a dividend may be paid only if the net assets of the company are, after payment of the dividend, at least equal to the capital of the company plus any reserves which are not available for distribution. The principle which lies behind this provision is the capital maintenance concept, which is closely linked to the principle in Part II of the Bill that the capital of a public company must be paid up for proper consideration. The effect of this new rule is that public companies will have to cover net losses, whether realised or unrealised, from realised profits before paying a dividend.
Clauses 41 and 42 deal with special classes of company. Clause 41 provides special exemptions for investment trust companies, and Clause 42 clarifies the definition of "realised profit" as applied to insurance companies. A change has been introduced into Clause 43, which deals with the accounting aspects of dividend distribution, to remove the requirement that interim accounts of public companies should be audited. This was a point where the Select Committee's views have been fully met. Clause 44 provides for the recovery of dividends which have been made in contravention of the provisions of the Bill—that is, if in the interim dividend too much has been paid under the rules which I have just explained, then there is the ability for shareholders to be required to repay. But they would be required to repay only that part of the distribution which was unlawful and not the whole of it.
Of the miscellaneous and general provisions in Part IV of the Bill I will mention

1245
only one—Clause 46, which permits existing public companies to use both their old and new designations for a period of six months after re-registration as a public limited company, in order to allow them to use up stocks of stationery and the like. This six months period of grace has now been extended to cover any other legislative requirement relating to the display of a company's name; for example, under certain labelling regulations.
I have described the Bill as briefly as I can. It is largely, we believe—and I hope it will be agreed to be—a technical measure, although there have been considerable difficulties, which the Select Committee's report rightly foresaw, in the matching of the more detailed and prescriptive legal approach of most other EEC countries embodied in the Second Directive with that of the United Kingdom, which in company law matters leaves a great deal to the discretion of the courts. The Bill does, however, contain a number of useful measures of reform. Before I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading, I should like to say that I hope noble Lords will accept what is included, and what is not included, in this Bill and, if possible, in the main, concentrate upon it.
I have questioned my noble friend and his department quite closely on the demarcations. They stem from the Second Directive. But the Bill has to include changes to British law in a slightly wider field, in order to make a compatible package. The Directive also makes necessary, or almost necessary, the repeal of some of our existing legislation and this, in turn, dictates the inclusion of some of the clauses in this Bill. It may be argued that we could have included more, but speed and the factors which I have just outlined have been our guide. My Lords, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Trenchard.)
4.22 p.m.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, this is not the first time on which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I have discussed company matters across the Floor of the House. We did so at some length on the Patents Bill, and I recognise his experience in company matters. If I
1246
may say so—if I may repeat the language of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—there was a good deal of gobbledygook in that. At the end of the day, I at any rate, began to understand.
But I am bound to say, bearing in mind the noble Viscount's own experience in company matters and his knowledge of the long-standing need for more fundamental and significant reform than this Bill contains, that I have been disappointed with the little morsel of reform that he has offered the House. It is a morsel of great size but of little substance, although I quite agree that it must be done to give effect to the EEC's Second Directive. The Long Title of the Bill is very encouraging—no holds are barred—on the field for law reform. It is described as "An Act to amend the law relating to companies", so we may look forward to a fruitful period in Committee when the matters requiring law reform, which my noble friends and other noble Lords in the House may wish to bring forward, can receive careful consideration.
One of the curious things about the history of company law is how reluctant Conservative Administrations have been to introduce any companies Bills. I think that their last one was in the time of Mr. Baldwin, and it is quite a long time since then. They nearly had one in 1973, but they did not get through with it owing to the effluxion of time and the course of events. When I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier, describing the previous Bill as, perhaps, being introduced in order to give the Administration and the House something to do in the earlier part of the Session, I wondered whether that was the explanation for this rather tenuous Bill. But I accept that the more positive explanation is that it is brought forward because we are under a mandatory duty to implement the EEC's Second Directive on company law of 1976. Otherwise, without that compulsion, I doubt whether we should have had a Bill on company law at all even now.
The sadness about the matter is that there is readily available for Parliament a Bill introduced by the previous Administration in November of last year, after massive consultations with interested bodies. It was unopposed in another place on Second Reading. It underwent

1247
no less than 24 sittings in the Committee stage in another place, after Second Reading in November, and almost all the points of substance which were raised on that Bill were, I submit, dealt with and most of the criticisms had been met. As I understand it, legitimate concerns that were raised were capable of being dealt with by comparatively minor drafting Amendments. Now it seems that that good work that was done last year, and the beginning of this year, is in danger of being thrown away.
It is quite true that the noble Viscount has expressed the Government's intentions to legislate on the vitally important matters, in addition to those relating to the EEC's Second Directive, which were contained in the Companies Bill of last year. But the difficulty is that things always crop up in slotting things into the parliamentary legislative timetable, which, again, may present very grave difficulties for the Government's intended Companies Bill, and I warn the noble Viscount of the dangers that lie ahead. The general experience has been that Ministers who want to bring forward Companies Bills fight the Government unsuccessfully in the legislation committee, they tend to come in right at the end of the Parliament and then founder. Perhaps I ought to speak of this in sackcloth and ashes, because that was precisely the experience of the previous Administration, and it concerns me very much that what could be accomplished now may be the subject of indefinite postponement.
There are matters about which I think we are entitled to get a view from the Government at this stage, and perhaps the noble Viscount will be a little less coy about not lifting the veil of the promised land that is to come in 1980 to deal with the highly important matters, which I shall identify in a moment, which were included in last year's Bill but which we do not find in the present Bill. After all, company law represents the legal framework for most of our commercial and industrial institutions, and one wonders many times why it is that Conservative Governments have been so reluctant to change matters. Perhaps we shall have an explanation of that. Some of my noble friends behind me will, I have no doubt, suggest some explanations that occur to them, and my noble friend Lord Wedderburn gave a
1248
clear warning in an earlier speech of what is in store in this field.
But there is one preliminary matter about which I should like to ask the noble Viscount, and that arises from a statement by my right honourable friend Mr. John Smith when he introduced the Labour Bill in another place. He put forward the proposal that, instead of continuing the practice of intermittent reports on company law by ad hoc committees, there should be an independent and public body—a standing advisory committee on company law—on which not only the professions but industry, the City and the trade unions would be represented to undertake a continuing review of company law. I believe that that proposal was widely accepted in the City, in industry, in commerce and by the trade unions, and I hope that in the course of this debate the noble Viscount may be able to enlighten us with regard to that basic proposal. We should like to know the response of the Government and what they propose to do in that field.
So far as the Bill seeks to implement the provisions of the Second Directive, we can examine in due course the extent to which it fails to do so and the extent to which, if any, it departs from the requirements of that directive.
Quite apart from the non-EEC Directive matters to which I shall be referring but which the Bill does not deal with, I should also like to know the extent to which the present Government's Bill differs from the previous Bill in dealing with the EEC Directive. My impression is that it is mainly a question of drafting differences, but if there are differences of substance perhaps the noble Viscount will amplify the position—I think he mentioned one or two—when he comes to reply. If, however, it is preferable to deal with that matter at the Committee stage, I shall of course understand.
Coming to the lost opportunity, to which I have already referred, of introducing proper company law reform now, the fact is that the present Bill omits wholly a substantial part of the earlier Labour Government's Bill dealing with the duties of directors and conflicts of interest. I did not note that there was any reference to that subject in the preview which the noble Viscount gave of what is

1249
in store, if and when we see a Companies be expressed in statutory form in what Bill in 1980.
I submit that the proposals contained in Part IV of our Bill expressed succinctly the rules with regard to a director's fiduciary duty as they have been developed in a wide variety of court decisions over the past 100 years. A statutory statement of the kind which was set out in the Bill was recommended by the Jenkins Committee in 1962 and endorsed by the Bullock Committee in 1977. We also took the view that, as my right honourable friend Mr. Smith said on Second Reading in another place, it is no longer acceptable that company law should require directors to act solely in the interests of shareholders. This does not reflect the reality of business operations in the 20th century, or the practice of responsible boards of directors, and we believed that the law should be amended to reflect those changes.
We proposed in the Bill that the statutory duty relating to the definition of directors should require directors to take into account the interests of the company's employees generally as well as the interests of the shareholders. After all, an employee who works for a company for many years, perhaps for most of his working life, has an immense stake in that company—in many respects a more significant stake than many of the shareholders. We think that this is a fundamentally important matter. I hope that even at this stage the noble Viscount will be able to give us some assurance that this is something which the Government have in mind.
We think that it would be helpful to make clear what the law expects of a reasonably conscientious director with regard to his company's employees, and I do not believe that what I have proposed would receive serious opposition from responsible company directors. Indeed, it is very interesting that the right honourable gentleman, the present Secretary of State for Employment, said in an open letter to Conservative trade unionists dated 15th May 1978 that:
"Company law should be amended to reflect existing practice in industry, which is that in furthering the interests of their company the board of directors should have particular regard to the interests of employees".
I ask whether that is still the Conservative Government's view and whether it will
1250
be expressed in statutory form in what they have in mind to introduce.
The Labour Government's Bill also proposed important new provisions with regard to loans to directors. The provisions of Sections 190 and 197 of the Companies Act 1948 have long been recognised as inadequate. The Jenkins Committed proposed that Section 190 should be strengthened, and again, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, investigations following the recent secondary banking crisis revealed a number of cases where abuses had occurred.
The accountancy profession has repeatedly urged the need to tighten up on loans to directors. Our Bill extended prohibition on loans to directors to cover, in the case of public companies, loans to a director's immediate family and the companies in which the director or his family have a substantial interest. Indeed, it was proposed to make a breach of those provisions a criminal offence where the company concerned is a public company.
But perhaps the most important omission from the present Bill is its failure to deal with insider dealing. We believe that this should be made a criminal offence, accompanied by realistic contemporary penalties. I meant to say a word earlier about this in relation to the prohibitions contained in the present Government's Bill. I have been unable to discover from it what are the proposed penalties for the matters prohibited under the Bill. Perhaps at some stage the noble Viscount would give us an indication as to whether they are to be the penalties which were fixed 30 years ago, or whether they have caught up with contemporary relevance and inflation. But that is a separate matter.
At any rate, we believe that insider dealing should be made a criminal offence and, if I may say so, there is nothing unique in this point of view. It was supported by an impressive report from Justice. It was supported by the Council for the Securities Industry, which represents a wide range of financial and business interests. Their chairman, Patrick Neill, Q.C., has said that it is absolutely right for insider dealing to be legislated against.

1251
The view that is now, I think, generally accepted is that dealing in securities by a person who has privileged information which he can exploit for personal benefit is wrong. We believe that insider dealing is insidious, that it threatens public confidence in directors and that it is unfair to other shareholders and investors alike. It is, indeed, forbidden under the rules of the Stock Exchange and the City Panel on Take-overs and Mergers. I believe I am also right in saying that they all agree that criminal sanctions should he introduced.
The view that the Labour Government took was that these proposals ought not to make it impossible for legitimate activities to continue. American provisions in this field go much further than what the previous Government proposed. Our proposals would, however, have underlined the fact that insider dealing is wrong, and they would have been an effective deterrent to potential wrongdoers.
I make no apology for raising these matters which are certainly within the scope of the Long Title of the Bill, even though they do not come within the limited ambit that the Government presently have in mind. I was interested in what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said about the Conservative proposals with regard to the proprietary company. Two days were spent on that in Committee. It was described as a "new animal" and we shall be interested to see what emerges from its reconsideration. Then there was another interesting Conservative proposal on which in due course perhaps the noble Viscount will enlighten us. It was moved by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams and it required large public companies to establish audit committees and to have a certain number of non-executive directors. These are both interesting proposals, and again we shall keep a watchful eye to see whether the great dawn of Conservative thinking on company law ultimately breaks and on the horizon we see daylight, and not a dark and uncertain cloud.
4.41 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to welcome this Bill. It seems to me to be wholly sensible to concentrate
1252
on the parts of the Bill of the last Administration which dealt with the Second Directive of the EEC and to put back to the next year the question of the more contentious issues that were in that Bill. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, would agree that at the Committee stage in another place they were only just coming to what might be called the difficult part, so there is no knowing how long they might have taken over it had they been allowed to do so, Therefore I should have thought it was wholly sensible for a new Government, while they were settling in, to put off these more contentious points for mature consideration, more especially because the Fourth Directive is not yet ready for discussion, nor indeed is it necessary for it to he discussed yet in view of the fact that it is not to be implemented until 1982. So altogether I think the Government are taking a sensible course, and it is of interest that my noble friend gave an undertaking that this further Bill would be introduced in 1980. This is much earlier in the Parliament than either this Administration or earlier Labour Administrations have ever set out before, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us.
Having said that, I too, think that it looks as though the alterations to the remainder of the previous Administration's Bill appear to be mainly tidying up and unobjectionable. However, we have not had the Bill long and people are studying it. There are some parts of the Bill which seem to be unnecessarily obscure and, interestingly enough—and I hope that my noble friend will not take this amiss—the very clause which he said should be easier to understand is one that I and my friends picked out as being more difficult to understand, to wit, Clause 8 and its associated Clause 9. We would ask, if it is at all possible from a legislative and drafting point of view, that it should be made much clearer to the old public company just exactly what it has to do, and ideally in a tabular form—perhaps a schedule. It is extremely important for the old public company to readily and easily understand what is required of it, and I suggest that in the present Clauses 8 and 9 that is not the case.
On another point, we rather felt that Clause 18(6), which has the toughest penalty in the Bill, so far as we can see is being unduly severe, but that is very

1253
much on a first reading and it would be helpful if the Government could give thought to that and give an answer later on.
The most important point which I wish to make relates to Clause 46(3), trading under misleading names, which my noble friend mentioned, and it concerns the very short time of six months for changing to the full new name of a company. This really seems difficult. As your Lordships will be aware, many companies will buy in stationery and packaging material a year or so in advance, saving cost to themselves and, of course, to the consumer. Whereas I suppose stationery, rather scruffily, can be modified by something being scratched out and something else being typed at the bottom, people do not like to do that. It is the packaging which is the more important item, and I was interested to hear my noble friend say—and I should be delighted if he could elaborate on it slightly—that this would not be insisted upon in relation (if I heard him aright) to EEC Directives which have yet to be implemented. I read into that remark that perhaps the labelling Directive was what he had in mind.
Be that as it may, even if there are not Directives to condition this issue, six months is a very quick time, for packaging materials particularly; and of course there are all sorts of packages. If we take a milk bottle, for example, which has the name of the company embossed upon it, that might last quite a long time—two or three years. Not all milk bottles last that long because some get broken, but some do and it would be tragic to have to destroy them just because of this relatively short period of time. I think that is a very important point for consideration. If my noble friend is suitably taken with my argument, he himself might perhaps think in terms of amendments at a later stage.
At this stage that is all the contribution that I can reasonably make and I would commend it to your Lordships. I suggest to the Opposition that they should not waste too much thunder on the parts of the old Bill that they would have loved to see in this one because it is really rather a waste of time. We have to get this Bill through quickly, and there is another Bill coming along within twelve months.
4.48 p.m.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, when I first addressed your Lordships' House I had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and as is the custom I tried to be unprovocative. I am afraid I somewhat distressed him on that occasion, and I cannot promise him any better this time because, as the noble Viscount has explained from the Government Benches, although the aim of this Bill, is to implement the Second Directive which should have been implemented in 1978 and must now be speedily implemented, and many difficulties remain in regard to the extent to which this Bill does adequately implement the Second Directive, which we shall no doubt deal with in Committee, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out the long Title is—and no doubt deliberately—in the following terms:
"An Act to amend the law relating to companies".
So we may legitimately ask the Government why those measures of the 1978 Bill, which reached an advanced stage in Committee in another place in the last Parliament, are not included. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said that they had not reached the controversial parts. With great respect they had reached Clause 57, and nothing after Clause 66 could remotely be regarded as being a controversial clause. Indeed, as I hope to show in my remarks to your Lordships' House, the most controversial measure, dealing with insider dealing, had reached a stage where some kind of agreement might well have been thought to have been reached.
The noble Viscount told us that a second Companies Bill is coming in 1980, because of the Fourth Directive on accounts. But as my noble and learned friend pointed out, parliamentary time is notoriously limited for company law reform. It is not a popular subject for any Administration. Who knows what kind of position we shall be in, in terms of parliamentary time, by 1980? Some of the proposals for company law reform which are hardly controversial, such as those made by the Jenkins Committee in 1962, have been kicking around in the dustbins for years, waiting for statutory rescue. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government have not seen fit on this occasion to include a number of the

1255
measures which were there ready for them to put in from the previous Administration's Bill.
With one exception, to which I shall come, I shall suggest four areas of law that have been fully discussed and which are reasonably agreed on both sides, subject to Committee work. I agree with the noble Viscount who has suggested that the kind of proposals made by the Dowgate Inspectors recently, in a report to which I made reference in my previous speech on 16th May, may raise some new issues. I am not asking that the Government should have given—although they are, we know, an energetic Government—such speedy consideration to those matters, but surely the matters in the 1978 Bill merited a place in a Bill to amend company law?
I wish to address your Lordships' House taking a lesson from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—namely, that when one intends to deal with something in Committee one should, as he put it, give public notice during the Second Reading debate of the matters that one intends to raise. I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention four areas on which the Government can expect to be confronted with matters in Committee, however urgent the implications of the Second Directive may be.
However, before doing so, may I make two preliminary points rather prompted by what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, had to say about wasting time. What is the context of the reform of company law? Today the giant public company which is dealt with by the Bill, as well as the important but other type of private company, deals with a vast concentration of capital. To pick two references at random, in the Green Paper of 1978— A Review of Monopolies and Merger Policy, (Cmnd. 7918)—your Lordships will find in Chapters 1 to 3 a most useful survey of modern times since the rapid concentration of capital, particularly in Britain in recent decades. So, by even 1972 the 100 largest companies accounted for 41 per cent. of net output, and of course the number today is even less. As was pointed out in Table 3of the Bullock Report in 1977, to which my noble and learned friend dared to make reference —Cmnd. 6706—these large companies are
1256
financed much less by the equity market or even by loan capital: they are financed to the extent of about 75 per cent. by their own internal funds, by retained capital. So, these are massive concentrations of wealth and social power.
Company law reform is not a mere technical matter. Company law is that part of our law which sets down the conditions upon which those personified aggregations of capital may operate in our society for the 1980s with the privileges of incorporation and limited liability-privileges which are frequently forgotten but which have been available to them since 1855. Therefore, this is a most important subject. A Bill to amend company law may properly have confronted to it the question: Why have you left this and that out, especially when it has been fully debated, as have so many matters?
Merely as a preliminary point—because I cannot think of anywhere else to put it—may I make a minor plea to the Government in regard to the form of legislation. My plea is that there is a need to consolidate company law, but can the Government help us. When we find in Schedule 2 to the Bill 40 amendments made to seven statutes, could there not be printed in the statute not only the additions, insertions, substitutions, subtractions and particular sections and subsections of those seven statutes, but also as a separate Part II to the schedule, the full text of each section or subsection as amended? There are good precedents for that. As regards the Companies Act 1967, in the schedule which amended Schedule 8 to the 1948 Act there is set out the full text as amended. The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 sets out, as amended, the Equal Pay Act 1970. It is not often that I claim to speak on behalf of businessmen, but one would have thought that if the Government do not wish to waste the time of both businessmen and legal practitioners, they would surely be led to this approach in any Bill dealing with company law where there are some dozen statutes through which practitioners and businessmen have to weave their way by reference from one clause to another. Every time something is amended surely the amended section should be set out in full.
I now come to the first part of my major four points. Here I omit some part of

1257
my argument in that I wholly support the case made by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench that the parts of Part IV of the 1978 Bill which dealt inter alia with contracts and loans to directors—hardly controversial matters except for their drafting—should surely have found a place. And, above all, surely the clauses dealing with insider dealing should have found a place in the Bill, as my noble and learned friend suggested.
Some of us have been pressing for 20 years for legislation on insider dealing, and we took heart in 1972 when the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, who was then chairman of the City Takeover Panel, swung round in favour of the view that it should be a criminal offence. There may be few directors or "Tippers" or "Tippees", as the new jargon has it, who make large profits out of dealing in the securities of their own companies or the companies in respect of which they have confidential information. We just do not know. There may be few, but some observers suggest that there are many. Whether few or many, the practice should plainly be unlawful.
The Council for the Securities Industry has called it evil. It is contrary to the Stock Exchange regulations. What more encouragement do the Government want before they legislate upon the matter in a Bill to amend company law? Indeed, the Conservative Party put forward in the Standing Committee in another place—the noble Viscount will find the reference on 20th March in column 1093 of Standing Committee "F"—three conditions which it said must be met before insider dealing legislation could be regarded as satisfactory. They were roughly: the definition of "insider" must be appropriate; the law must not stop proper provision of information, especially to employees, which I would heartily support; and thirdly, the law must not inhibit legitimate investment activities especially by institutional shareholders or investment advisers.
What is so extraordinary is that not only did they put forward those three conditions, but Mr. Renton, the honourable Member who spoke for the Conservative Party on that Standing Committee, put forward amendments which he said would meet those three requirements.
1258
So, the Government have in the bag the text which they could put on the Statute Book. It is no great effort, it seems to me, to take one's own amendments and put them forward if they are satisfactory. For what strange and esoteric reason the Government chose not to do so, I still await the noble Viscount's explanation.
Indeed it is interesting that the noble Viscount made it clear that insider dealing and the other problems of directors and their fiduciary duties, are not to be discussed in the consultative document. He said that the consultative document is to deal with the Fourth Directive on accounts—that is understandable—and the new problem of the notion of the proprietory company, which does indeed need a great deal more discussion. But there is no need for a consultative document on these matters. It seems that they are just going to be put forward in the Bill. If I am wrong the noble Viscount will correct me when he comes to reply, and we shall see why it is necessary to have another consultative document especially on insider dealing in respct of which the Conservative Party spokesman in Standing Committee "F" of another place had what he called a satisfactory text, having welcomed the Bill and having welcomed the idea of legislation on insider dealing.
Indeed, the Council for the Securities Industry in its first annual report dated 29th May 1979 stated in paragraphs 47 and 48 that the 1978 Bill not only
"afforded a useful opportunity for dealing effectively with the evil of insider dealing",
but stated that the 1978 Bill
"went some way to meet the point raised by the Council and others"
and appeared to be in support of the kind of amendments which Mr. Renton had in mind, because it said later in paragraph 49 that:
"Further discussion on the Bill has shown that one of the first tasks is to examine the basic structure of the legislative proposals.".
As it mentions there "tippers and tippees", with which some of Mr. Renton's Amendments dealt, presumably the consent of the Council for the Securities Industry for Mr. Renton's text would not be difficult to find. So the difficulty for the Government in this matter seems to me to be rather hard to find.

1259
Perhaps, at this stage, I may interject a further law reform point and, I hope, a purely non-controversial law reform point, which I give notice I shall wish to press upon the Government in Committee. I beg them to consider reintroducing what was Clause 65 of the 1978 Bill. That clause attempted to improve the rights of a minority shareholder who may petition the court for an appropriate remedy in what are now called "cases of oppression" in the conduct of a company's affairs. The right so to do was introduced by Section 210 of the Companies Act 1948 on the recommendation of the Cohen Committee. But it has proved a restricted utility, largely for two reasons. First, because as the law stands, the petitioner must prove that the facts would allow for a just and equitable winding up; and, secondly, because the interpretation of "oppression" has been somewhat narrowly interpreted by the courts, although in view of the current text of the statute, one can have some sympathy with the courts in having to make that interpretation. Section 210 is particularly important because of the difficulties which a shareholder has in bringing minority action outside Section 210, due to the arcane niceties of the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, with which I shall not detain your Lordships, and the rather arrested development in Britain of what is known in North America as the "derivative action", despite the valiant efforts of the Court of Appeal in the case of Wallersteiner v. Moir (No. 2), 1975 Queen's Bench, page 313, led at a canter by the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls but still I am afraid far behind the developments in other jurisdictions.
As far back as 1962 the Jenkins Committee proposed a reform of the law to allow a minority shareholder to petition the court for a remedy for something which was unfairly prejudicial—where the affairs of a company were being conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to some part of its members (Cmnd. 1749, paragraph 212(c)). Clause 65 would have gone a little way in that direction. It has been done elsewhere. Movements in this direction took place in Australia, in the Act of 1961; throughout the Commonwealth: in the Singapore Companies Act 1967 and in the Federal Canada Corporations Act 1975—which
1260
probably contains a better provision than Clause 65, if the Government wish to improve upon it—and only last year Section 168A of the Hong Kong Companies Ordinance introduced something equivalent. Cannot the Government do as well for British Company law as they can do for Hong Kong? It is time to introduce this measure and so far there has been no explanation whatever of the Government's failure to do so from their Front Bench. If it be said—as is sometimes said, and as, indeed, I have been at fault in saying myself—"Oh, this is just a matter of lawyers' interest and it all applies only to very small companies", then the Hong Kong case shows how untrue that is for only last month the Ordinance section was involved in a most important piece of legislation involving a takeover bid of some 450 million Hong Kong dollars.
Meanwhile the condition of English law has become worse and worse. After the decision of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House in the case of Ebrahimi v. Westbourne Galleries in 1973 (Appeal Cases, page 360) it is now easier to obtain the winding-up of a company on a just and equitable ground than it is to obtain a remedy for oppression when a company wants to keep going. It is time for that state of affairs to be put right.
I turn to my second quarrel with the Bill and, to some extent, this leads me to quarrel with my noble friends on my own Front Bench, in that it implies some criticism of the 1978 measure as well. Perhaps I may put this in the form of another question. Why was it impossible to reintroduce in this Bill Clause 70 of the old Bill and the schedule 2? That clause and schedule performed a very important task for which we have waited some 20 or 30 years; it updated very nearly every serious penalty imposed for breaches of company law. If there is one area where British company law is ludicrous, it is in the inadequacy of the penalties imposed for breach. Let us take, for example, Section 54 of the 1948 Act, which prohibits financial assistance by a company for the purchase of its own shares, which is, so it is supposed, a bedrock principle of our law. Time and again in report after report that is exposed as being broken by the manipulators and the operators of company law and those

1261
engaging in fraudulent or questionable transactions.
What is the maximum fine available to impose upon these operators? The same as it was in 1948—£100. That is a deterrent of hardly nuclear proportions to encourage them to keep their fingers out of the till after a fat killing. Why is it impossible to reintroduce Clause 70 and Schedule 2? I give the Government notice that they will be pressed to do so. Indeed, the penalties elsewhere are quite inadequate. The penalties for failure to file annual returns under the Companies Act 1976 were recognised by the 1978 Bill as already being out of date, because in Schedule 2 the 1978 Bill itself would have brought them to a higher level. It is worth noticing that, on the most recent information I was able to discover, by reason of a Written Answer in another place on 7th June 1976, 40 per cent. of all listed companies—245,000 of them—were in breach by not having filed their annual returns for 1975. I noted that in 1975 there were some 1,500 convictions for failure to file returns; in 1977 there were nearly 1,700 convictions for failure to file proper returns. Therefore, the evidence seems to be that nothing done so far has cured that kind of problem.
In looking at the penalty of the new obligation in Clause 34 of the Bill, which has been brought to the attention of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may raise a third matter. As has been pointed out, Clause 34 imposes a wholly novel obligation upon directors of a company to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders, where the net assets of a public company have plunged to half, or less than half, the amount of its called-up share capital. That is meant to be a great check upon the activities of the directors, I note that, although it is a novel introduction into our law, which I welcome, it reflects the rather naïve assumption of our law, which is shared by the EEC in its Second Directive, that the shareholders meeting is still the primary organ of control and accountability in company affairs. Indeed, the model of traditional British company law is perhaps that of the Athenian City State of shareholders being brought together to elect and control on occasion their 10, as they were then, Strategoi or, if one prefers, their generals. But in the giant or even medium-sized modern
1262
company that old model is rather inappropriate. The directors, quite properly—where we know nothing improper is being done—can normally hold enough proxies and friendly votes, especially in the day of the institutional investors, to have their way, except, of course, during a takeover battle—and that has less to do with shareholders' democracy than it has sometimes to do with efficiency, with tycoonery, and sometimes to do with worse. But the illusory nature of shareholders' democracy was pointed out as long ago as 1945, in the report of the Cohen Committee on Company Law, Cmnd. 6659, with:
"… the dispersion of capital among an increasing number of small shareholders".
Since then we have had the advance of the institutional shareholder; but the model of shareholders' democracy has not worked any the more in the actual operation of company affairs. Indeed, the classic analysis by Berle and Means in 1932 in The Modern Corporation and Private Property is the starting point. If the noble Viscount wishes to emulate one of his other Ministers in Government by providing a reading list to those who advise him, I suggest that he starts with the 1932 Berle and Means book.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord surely is not suggesting that the shareholders are not the final arbiters of what will happen to their company? He is not suggesting, is he, that the annual meeting is not ultimately able to decide the vital thing if it wants to? Is he suggesting that we should have some alternative to the shareholders speaking up for themselves at their annual meeting?
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: Not exactly, my Lords. The noble Lord is leading me into territory on which I was about to comment, but if I may use two sentences instead of the one which I was about to use, I was about to say that the day will come when those of us who, as I did in your Lordships' House on 16th May, call for a companies commission to act side by side with the shareholders meeting as an element of control and a mechanism of accountability in the public interest as well as in the investors' interest, will be heard; because the traditional concept that only the shareholders meeting is capable of

1263
being the mechanism of control is really out of accord with the actuality of the modern giant, and especially the modern giant transnational corporation and its associated and conglomerate groups.
Applying that concept to Clause 34 the traditional philosophy is followed, but there could not be a more important meeting on that philosophy than the meeting which has to take place when the assets of the company have plunged. What happens if the directors fail to call such a meeting in good time? There could hardly be a more serious breach of their duty. No doubt the noble Viscount will point out that they could be dismissed by the shareholders meeting under Section 184 of the 1948 Act, and of course he would be right, but that would be shutting the door after the assets have bolted. What sanctions should they be subjected to? A criminal sanction, says the Bill. Quite right, a criminal sanction for failing to call this crucial meeting in the life of the corporate body. And how much may they be fined? The Bill says, a fine not exceeding one-fifth of the statutory maximum, which, unless I have misunderstood the statutory maximum, means £200. The assets are gone, the company is in ruins, the directors are in Biarritz having paid their price to society of £200 apiece. It is a nonsense. Company law penalties are absurd. Even on the fifteen occasions on which penalties are imposed in this Bill, your Lordships' House must surely consider carefully whether they should not be severely increased, compared with the other penalties in our criminal law for similar offences elsewhere.
That brings me to the third major point. What about the employees— or, I was tempted to say, what about the workers? In Standing Committee F in another place the Conservative Member for Hertfordshire, South, Mr. Parkinson, who is now no doubt the Minister of State for Trade dealing with this Bill (and since it is in the last Session, as I understand your Lordships' Rules of Order, I can quote what the Honourable Member actually said), stated on Clause 34, at column 407, relating to the control of directors by the shareholders' meeting where the assets have plunged:
"In an ideal world, in an ideal Conservative world, the workers would also have shares, so the
1264
meeting of the shareholders would in fact include the employees as well".
My own studies of industrial democracy have not led me to believe that workers' shareholding is a satisfactory way to that conclusion. But at least Mr. Parkinson had the workers in mind. He knew that employees can no longer be excluded from the dramatis personae on the stage of company law. The Labour Government of 1978 knew it because in their 1978 Bill they had a clause which required directors to take account of the interests of employees as well as shareholders. The Conservative Government of 1973 knew it because they had a clause which at least enabled directors to take account of employees' interests. There is no clause in this Bill to liberate directors from the 19th century shackles of not being able to take into account—and I choose my words carefully here—directly, as opposed to indirectly, the interests of their employees.
Professor Gower's Modern Company Law, at page 522, which I was going to read to your Lordships, is perhaps not necessary to make the point, but it could be added to the noble Viscount's reading list for his advisers. Indeed the interesting thing is that the City Takeover Panel agrees, as I understand it, with this view, because General Principle 11 of the 1976 City Takeover Panel Code states, in regard to the directors' duties of an offerer or offeree company:
"It is the shareholders' interests taken as a whole together with those of employees and creditors which should be considered".
So the Government are out on a limb. They are deserted by the previous Conservative Government of 1973 and by all others who wish, in effect, to reverse the decision—I believe, on the authorities as they stood, the perfectly correct decision in law—of Mr. Justice Plowman in the case of Parke v. Daily News in 1962 Chancery, page 927, where he rejected the view, perhaps rightly on the authorities, that although the prime duty of directors was to shareholders, they must take direct account of employees in these days.
This adjustment is no minor matter. It may appear a minor legal adjustment to the Government, but the failure to make this adjustment will be noted by employees in companies, and they will note that the

1265
Government have failed to bring in their interests into company law after other Governments of both parties have successively for six years agreed that it should be done. One can only ask why the Government are so curiously slow in coming forward on this matter.
May I now turn finally to my fourth heading of complaint about what is missing from this Bill. At least on this occasion it is not a complaint against the Government for failing to do what their predecessors did in 1978, because my noble friends on the Front Bench failed too to take the opportunity. There is a special opportunity in this Bill, for the very first time in British company law, to do something appropriate in regard to the rights of shareholders. It is the first time because, as the noble Viscount said in his address to your Lordships' House—this is in Part III of the Bill—there is a long overdue reform of our law by putting into statutory form the legal principles governing the computation of profits available for dividends and other distributions, and the restrictions upon distribution of assets other than profits. I agree with him that this is a long overdue codification on which, for once, the Second Directive has been of great value in stimulating us all into what should have been activity long ago.
In regard to this matter, there is one way in which the shareholder is not protected in a way in which the worker is. A shareholder is not protected in his company in a way in which the worker is protected in his trade union. Since 1913, by virtue of the Trade Union Act of that year, a trade union which wishes to make political payments must set up a separate political fund. Into that political fund must be paid only special contributions paid by the union's members as a separate political levy. Every member of a trade union has, since 1913, had the right to contract out and become an exempt member, relieved from contributing to the political fund.
The scheme is now administered by the Certification Officer, and his report for 1978 shows that 73 trade unions have political funds, unions with some 10 million members, of whom 19 per cent. have decided to contract out of the political levy. It is the same figure as over the last two or three years, which will be
1266
a matter of great discontent to noble Lords opposite who have been trying so hard to get people to contract out of the political levy, as is their right, and as is the workers' right, but not the shareholders' right.
Although there is a penumbra of doubt in certain cases which it is not appropriate at this time to go into, by and large it is normally quite lawful for British companies to give their funds to political purposes. Indeed, Section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 requires that political purposes donations, and subscriptions to political purposes, must be set out in particulars as they are defined in the directors' report for the relevant year, if they exceed £50. So they must be disclosed. But the shareholder has no right. When Rank, Hovis McDougall in 1978 gave £30,000 to the party opposite, or when Guest Keen and Nettlefolds gave £25,000, no shareholder could say, "I want to contract out. I don't like the Conservative Party". I was going to say that I was sure noble Lords on the Liberal Benches would assure me that there were shareholders who would say, "I don't like the Conservative Party", but unhappily they are not here to say it. However, I am sure that if they were here they would support my view. that such shareholders exist, and I am sure that my noble friends will also agree.
Why should the shareholder not have a right parallel to that of a worker in his union? Also, what about the Government public interest? When Allied Breweries gave nearly £27,000 to the Conservative Party and its associated bodies in 1977, a matter to which I shall come, it received over £1 million from the Government. And what about trade union pension funds? Consider, for example, a coal miner; he can choose whether he pays towards the political amounts paid by his union to the Labour Party, but neither he nor the trustees of his pension fund can choose whether a company in which that fund has invested gives its money to the Conservative Party.
Noble Lords may say or may hear the argument that the kind of sums I have mentioned arc fairly small: what do they matter? Consider what was shown in the most recent analysis by a journal called Labour Research, which is wholly independent and whose figures on this

1267
matter have never been challenged; if they are to be, I hope we shall hear that in Committee because an amendment will be moved on this matter. That recent analysis, in September 1978, showed that, from March 1977 to March 1978, 378 companies gave £1,439,594 in political donations, of which £771,000 went direct to the Conservative Party. I was about to say, had there been any Members of the Liberal Party present, that in the previous year they got £5,000, but, unhappily for them, in the year I am gouting they got nothing at all. The only party to which industrial money was given was the Conservative Party.
Of the rest, £172,000 went to what are generally acknowledged to be closely associated organisations of the Conservative Party—the Economic League; the Centre for Policy Studies; Aims, as it is now called; and Common Cause—and £425,000 went to British United Industrialists, which is a cloak and dagger elite of Conservative industrial establishments and which called off its registration as a registered company after the 1967 Companies Act was passed, when it was made to disclose further matters on political donations, because, to quote from The Times of 11th April 1973, it wanted:
"…to stop snoopers finding out more about us than they need to".
It is generally agreed that we can add the £452,000 to British United Industrialists, which gives us a total of nearly £1,400,000 to the Conservative Party. I have looked up the report in the Financial Times for 7th October 1978, which deals with donations to the Conservative Party as a whole—which they revealed had gone up by 50 per cent. in 1978—and I have taken statistical advice on these matters. I am told by my statistical advisers that an appropriate conservative guesstimate of the amount going to the Conservative Party and its associated bodies in 1979 will be at least £2,500,000.
It so happens that, at page 51 of the Certification Officers 1978 report, it will be found that the expenditure from trade union political funds was £2,460,000, a fact I found out after receiving my statistical advice. So the problem is similar in size as well as in quality. It is comparable with one very significant difference— namely, that whereas trade unions may
1268
apply their assets to political purposes only out of their political funds, which at the moment stand at some £4 million, companies may use any funds for political purposes so long as they are reasonably incidental to the objects of their memoranda, which means hundreds of millions of pounds, if they wish to do so.
This situation led the honourable Member for Tower Hamlets, Bethnal Green and Bow, Mr. Mikardo, in another place, quite properly to say on the Committee stage of this Bill that here for the first time was an opportunity, because of the codification of dividends and the law relating to them, to move a new schedule concerning this matter. Although the Government had some sympathy with the issue, they raised 16 technical difficulties in the face of the honourable Member's new schedule. Unless the noble Lord can persuade me to the contrary, I give him notice that I and some of my noble friends will be moving a schedule to this Bill. I understand the agonised look on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the Front Bench opposite, but I must tell him that unless he can find some way out of the position we shall move a new schedule to try to deal with the matter, which we hope will not lead—
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to tell him that the reason why we on this side are looking rather fazed is that he has already taken twice as long as even very long speeches normally take and I was wondering whether it was really necessary for him to take quite so long to say not very much.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, the noble Lord might care to read my speech in the Official Report to see whether in fact it contains not so much. If one is going to move a fundamental new clause in Committee, then the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has already told us today that it is right in relation to a limitation of actions Bill, a technical law reform measure—he took 20 minutes to do so and of course he did it with much greater clarity than I could claim—
Lord TREFGARNE: Hear, hear!
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: If one is to move an important

1269
amendment to a Bill which is concerned with the very bedrock of the law relating to manufacturing organisations in Britain, my Lords, it does not seem to me unfair to explain the point to the Government—who, if one reads the Official Report of Standing Committee F, do not appear to have any conception of what is going on in this sphere—in considerable detail. I shall resume my seat in a moment when I have said, as I was about to say when interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise, I and my noble friends will move such a new schedule in Committee. He might apply himself in his reply to this simple question: is there really any reason, in principle and if a provision can be drafted, why a shareholder should not have a right to contract out of political donations made by his company equivalent to that of the member of a trade union? That will be moved in Committee. Otherwise, apart from what I have said, I welcome the Bill.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, might recall the phrase: brevity is the best feature in the art of public speaking.
5.27 p.m.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, in following the marathon effort of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, my contribution will be a more jogging exercise, to last but two minutes by way of maximum, and therefore if your Lordships will take an average between my noble friend's speech and mine, we shall reduce ourselves to the length of speech to which the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, referred.
I wish to be brief for two reasons; first, your Lordships have already been kind enough to listen to me once today and, secondly, much of what I wanted to say has already been said from these Benches and I therefore feel it no useful contribution to your Lordships' debate merely to repeat speeches that have already been made and points that have already been put.
The general point I wish to put briefly is this: there are those of us who realise the responsible part that the private sector of our economy plays in our affairs, and, in realising that, would plead with
1270
the Government to notice the very real concern there is among people in the City and elsewhere about the unacceptable face of the conduct and affairs of some of the companies that have recently come under review. That makes it essential that instead of it being a leisurely exercise to look at a revision of company law, it is an urgent exercise. And instead of the statement which the noble Viscount made— that we shall not be listening to a speech from him again moving the Second Reading of another Companies Bill until 1980—that excuse (that one has to reflect on the inspectors reports in recent cases) should bear in mind, if he will forgive me saying so, that it is the inspectors reports in recent cases that have made it even more urgent that a revised Companies Bill comes before Parliament. I therefore urge him, in relation to the expedition which I believe may be exercised in regard to a Bill to propose trade union reform, to use even more expedition in the case of this very necessary revision of the Companies Act which of course has already, as has been pointed out, been dealt with so fully in the previous Session by the Labour Government.
5.30 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I fear that a two-minute intervention has been forced upon me by the revival of the old chestnut by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, who obviously wanted, at the beginning of the Session, to let it be seen that he is a loyal and extreme supporter of his party. What he has said can be made to sound so plausible. I do not think that the House would mind the noble Lord's schedule. Indeed, it is right that each House of Parliament, if it has any feelings at all on a matter, should use the Committee stage to make a Bill what it wants it to be. If the noble Lord wants to bring in a schedule, it is a good thing that it should be aired, as it was in another place. It was his Government who refused to accept the point that he made about shareholders being able to contract out of contributions made to a political party.
There is only one point that I should like to put to him. The way that he presented that side of the political argument was unfair. A large part of his previous argument was that he did not

1271
think that shareholders ought to have the power which they have in being able ultimately to decide what a company should do. He seemed to be suggesting that the shareholders needed someone else to tell them at an annual meeting what they should and should not decide upon. There is one power that the shareholders have in relation to contributions to political parties by a company. If such action is reported to them, as it must be under the Bill, they have the power to dismiss the directors from office. They have the power to do that every three years. If the shareholders feel that the directors are using their money in a way which is not in the best interests of the company—though it is often in the best interests of the company to spend money to prevent it being nationalised—they can then dismiss the directors.
The noble Lord represented the contracting out power in relation to trade unions as being something without blemish. 1 wonder whether he would produce another schedule, on the appropriate occasion in relation to the appropriate Bill, which would allow trade union members to dismiss their trade union leaders. So many of these leaders are appointed for life, and it seems that once they are appointed the trade union members do not have ultimate control as to how the union should be conducted.
All I say to the noble Lord is by all means let him produce his schedule and let us argue it out in detail and properly. But to raise phoney differences relating to the control of a union as compared with the control of a company does no service at all during consideration of a Bill as important and as serious as the one now before us.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to ask him whether he is aware that in every trade union there is a constitution under which the general secretary and the president of the union are elected by the members and can be dismissed by them in exactly the same way as the shareholders he mentions can act? The big difference is that, whereas a member of a trade union can contract out of contributing to the funds of a political party, a shareholder cannot. He may object,
1272
but he cannot contract out of the contributing of money by the company to a political party, even if he dislikes that political party.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, this is not the Bill on which to argue that particular point. However, the noble Lord knows as well as I do that in many unions the chances of getting a form to enable one to contract out are almost impossible because they are never supplied. On a number of occasions when they have been asked for they have never been sent. The noble Lord also knows that in a number of unions the leaders are in fact appointed for life and it is very difficult—indeed almost impossible—to dismiss them. I maintain that the shareholders of a company, under the existing law, have a greater control over their company than the members of a trade union have over the conduct of their union.
5.34 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will forgive me if I do not pursue the matters that he has laid before your Lordships in connection with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn of Charlton relating to political funds. This seems to me to be a matter which we should be capable of arguing more extensively in Committee. The House will be indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for the account that he has given both of the Bill itself and of the reasons for its introduction in its truncated form.
I do not propose to enlarge upon the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, with which I entirely concur. But unless it be thought that there is some impelling urgency for complying with the second EEC Directive on this matter, I ought to inform your Lordships that the only country out of the Nine that has so far enacted any legislation in connection with this matter is the Federal Republic of Germany. So in putting the legislation before the House at any time during the next few months we should be quite certain to be in advance of the remainder of our European colleagues. Thus I believe that on that account the question of the degree of urgency does not stand up. As my noble and learned

1273
friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said, the title of the Bill permits the introduction of clauses which not only restore, or partly restore, the contents of the previous Bill introduced in another place, but also entitle us to consider the various other matters, including those that have been made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn.
I turn now to the omission of the disclosure items: that is, those relating to insider dealings. I believe that these could quite properly have been included in the existing Bill. Upon referring to the Committee proceedings in another place, one finds that the first three clauses involved (which were, I believe, Clauses 57, 58 and 59) were in fact assented to by the Committee without very much argument at all. Only Clauses 60 to 63 remain for consideration, and I am reluctant to feel that had a further day's time been given those clauses would not have been enacted.
There is a small political point involved here on which your Lordships may be sensitive. We know that when it comes to conduct relating to insider dealings there is a view that the City can somehow deal with such matters on its own by the application of a code of conduct that can be rigidly enforced by the powers that be within the City. That may well be so, my Lords, but this desire to have voluntary action when it comes to companies and insider dealings contrasts very sharply with the Conservative Party's opposition to the applicability of codes of conduct under voluntary action in regard to trade union legislation. In that case it much prefers to legislate, and no doubt we shall hear more about that in due course.
I do not intend to detain the House for long because so many of my views on the Bill have been stated by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn, whom I thought made a very adequate and penetrating survey of the position as we see it, which we on this side of the House therefore intend broadly to support. However, I should like to deal with one or two smaller points, one of which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who thought that the penalties under Clause 18(6) of the Bill were a bit stiff. Of course, the penalties under Clause 18(6) relate to Clause 17, which, in relation to the allocation of equity securities, provides that a company shall not allot any such securities
1274
"on any terms to any person unless it has made an offer to each holder of relevant shares",
and so on. Clause 18(6) merely says:
"A person who knowingly or recklessly authorises or permits the inclusion in a statement circulated under subsection (5) above of any matter which is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular shall be liable…".
The words of that clause, it seems to me, if a person falls within their ambit, in fact constitute a very serious offence. The words are
"knowingly or recklessly authorises or permits",
and I should have thought that if a director does anything of that character, anything which falls within that definition, then the penalties (which are of course the maximum) are by no means too severe.
I now pass to Clause 34 of the Bill, which I should like the noble Viscount to elucidate. Clause 34(3) relates to the convening of an extraordinary general meeting where the capital falls below a certain level, which point has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. Subsection (3) provides:
"Nothing in this section shall be taken as authorising the consideration, at a meeting convened in pursuance of subsection (1) above of any matter which could not have been considered at that meeting apart from this section".
I should like the noble Viscount to elucidate that if he can, because it rather seems to me, on the face of it, that the only thing that can be considered at such a meeting is what measures should be taken to deal with the situation, and that it would not be possible to discuss the reasons for the situation arising at all; in other words, it would not be permissible to hold an inquest. Of course, this may be a matter of legal gobbledygook, or whatever the term may be, but I must confess to some mystification in endeavouring to interpret it. I am a little worried about the provisions of Clause 34 as a whole. I know that Clause 34 has been inserted in the Bill to comply with Article 17 of the Second Directive.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be helpful, in order to save time, to mention to the noble Lord that I understand—and I have just had it onfirmed—that Clause 34 is identical to one which was in the previous Government's Bill.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount.

1275
The fact that it was in the previous Bill does not, I regret to say, make it any more comprehensible, and my views on it were offered in an entirely non-partisan spirit, without any desire to reflect upon Her Majesty's present Administration. I merely ask the question, and I should still like that subsection to be elucidated. The fact that there is a precedent for it is of no particular concern to me.
I am a little worried, though, about Clause 34 in its entirety. As I have said, I know it is in Article 17 of the Second Directive—a woolly EEC Directive if ever there was one, as indeed the noble Viscount will testify if he has examined it—but 1 sometimes wonder about the holding of an extraordinary meeting of a company, particularly where employees are not specifically represented, in th circumstances that are described in Clause 34. An extraordinary general meeting to advertise the woes of a company at a critical time may not invariably be the best way of improving the situation, and may in fact precipitate a worse circumstance than the circumstance which has to be disclosed. I am aware that in saying that I do not of necessity speak for the Opposition as a whole, but as a matter of practical and company experience over the past 25 years I can conceive of circumstances in which the application of this clause might possibly have ruined a company which would otherwise have recovered, and in which, in many cases, companies have indeed recovered. But it is in the EEC Directive, and we are loyal members of the EEC, so I would assume that this clause will go through without further amendment, apart of course from the possibility of my noble friend Lord Wedderburn introducing something into Clause 4 which enshrines the interests of employees.
I do not propose to go through the various other points upon which I have taken notes in the course of listening to the speeches which have been made this afternoon, because it would be repetitious for me so to do. From our standpoint, in spite of the limitations of the Bill we shall of course support it through its Second Reading in the House, and shall reserve to ourselves the right to introduce amendments on the lines that have been suggested by many of my noble friends
1276
this afternoon. However, we should like a little further information from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, concerning the timing of future legislation. Are we to understand that the provisions which have been omitted from the previous Bill—provisions relating to the duties of directors, and so on, and to the penalties under the old Clause 70, to which my noble friend Lord Wedderburn referred—are to be included in the next Bill to come before your Lordships following the Fourth Directive? Are we to understand that these matters are to be dealt with promptly?
Then I should like to ask a question as to what efforts are anticipated in connection with the affairs relating to winding-up and insolvency which are at present being considered by a committee under the chairmanship of the distinguished accountant Sir Kenneth Cork. This committee has been sitting a long time, and many may think that the quicker we are able to get the report of that committee the better. I was surprised to learn that this committee was set up—and it was set up by a previous Administration, so I lay no blame on the Government—without having proper research staff available to it. Consequently, the honorary efforts which have been made by distinguished accountants and lawyers in order to investigate and bring up to date the whole question of insolvency and the winding-up of companies has proceeded, not only on an honorary basis but with the benefit of only a secretary provided by the Government. Any steps, therefore, that could be taken to provide this committee with assistance in order to enable it to arrive at its conclusions more speedily would, I am sure, be welcomed by all noble Lords. We should like to know how quickly the Government propose to produce their own conclusions, their own observations and their own White Paper on this report when it comes out. With those concluding remarks, we, too, on this side of the House commend the Bill on Second Reading.
5.50 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should like to start by looking at the actual words of the Long Title of the Bill:
"… to amend the law relating to companies".
I It does not, as I understand it, say, "To

1277
amend all the law relating to companies" —and a great deal of the law relating to companies which is outside the Companies Bill has been mentioned by various speakers. Indeed, speeches have ranged widely over all subjects that affect companies. I have to start by saying that this Bill before the House is therefore one which amends an important part, but only a part, of company law. Neither do I feel that the Government should dress themselves in sackcloth and ashes, bearing in mind the length of time we have been in office and the date at which a Companies Bill has been introduced.
The last Administration thought so highly of this subject about which we have heard so much of their views on priorities today that it took them until their last year in office to introduce a Bill. I suppose it is that their feelings are slightly hurt that it is our fault—and I have to admit to it being our fault—that it is not law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, talked about the great dawn of Conservative thinking in relation to company law. He himself admitted that it was not a great dawn in any event and we had a similar experience in 1973 to his own in 1948. At least this Administration has moved with alacrity to get on to the Statute Book in their first year of office a body of company law which all noble Lords have said is a major improvement.
There is a Fourth Directive of the EEC Commission and that means that there simply must be a second Bill. I hope noble Lords will note the terms which the Government authorise me to use in relation to the introduction of a second Bill in 1980 in what we believe will be the second year of our period in office. I hope that your Lordships will before the Committe Stage read the terms that I did use because they have been very deliberately and carefully chosen. I hope therefore that we shall not spend too much time discussing the reason why this Government wish to move in two stages rather than in one, but at least are moving with greater alacrity than has been the case in the past.
The fact that noble Lords have concentrated on a number of measures not included in the Bill does show that these are the ones that they want to go into in very great depth. I am not so well
1278
versed in the Committee stage proceedings in another place on the last Administration's Bill as are noble Lords opposite or noble Lords who supported me on this side, but it is my understanding, which I have had confirmed, that many of the points which have been raised by noble Lords as points they would wish to see in this first Bill were not fully agreed before, particularly as regards the best methods of achieving them without achieving other undesirable things. It is the Government's intention, therefore, to introduce a second Bill which will give a very full opportunity for noble Lords to discuss those items which are not in this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked me whether there were other differences in relation to this Bill and that of the previous Administration, particularly in relation to the EEC Directive. The answer is, very slight ones. I did raise some of them in my opening speech, but they are very small—mainly improvements in drafting and in clarity.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Viscount permit me to intervene? Does that not take some of the gilt off the gingerbread of his claim about the speed with which the Government have brought in this measure? It is really only a recap of what we did for them away back in November.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I do not think so, bearing in mind the other problems that we have had to attend to in the first five weeks of our Administration. I think the record is fairly good.
I think it would be wrong at this stage for me to go through each of those points which some noble Lords opposite would like to see in this Bill but which are not there. I think it would be a waste of your Lordships' time if I were to go into the detail of those measures. I think that I am going to leave all those points quite simply with the defence that they are not fully agreed as to methods in the vast majority of cases. In the odd case, it could be argued that some points are not controversial. That is why at the end of my opening statement I said that we had deliberately drawn the limitation as close as we could to the EEC Directive and what flowed from it, in order that we could legislate in the shortest possible time.

1279
In relation to the penalties, I would mention—and I think it is Clause 54 which covers these—that the question of penalties is usually a subject for the Committee stage. The maximum penalties are not those which were mentioned in the debate. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, raised the question of the proposed standing advisory committee on company law and asked me particularly whether I could say something on this matter. The Government agree that the means by which they obtain advice on proposals for reform of company law and on the EEC harmonisation programme needs to he improved. We also accept that the bringing together of a number of representatives of the various professions and other bodies affected by company law would be a useful way of promoting the improvement we seek. The Department of Trade are therefore considering whether there is a way in which they can obtain the undoubted benefit of advice on company law from a representative group without setting up yet another advisory committee on a permanent basis. It is intended to make a further announcement about this before the Summer Recess. That is, I am afraid, as far as I can go at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, ranged very widely over subjects which affect companies and, indeed, all of us in this country. It would be wrong of me to chase them to any great degree; I believe that they are outside the context of what we should be discussing. He mentioned the statistics of the rapid concentration of capital and the fact of 75 per cent. of investment being found from internal funds. There are many studies and discussions on these subjects. The Administration certainly believes that in the conditions it has started to create and intends to continue to create, with some growth of new business, we may move the concentration of capital in the opposite direction.
Furthermore, on the question of internal funds, I think I am right in saying—and I say this from my industrial background knowledge—that this situation has existed for a very long time not only in this but in many other countries. The vast majority at least of new investment has to be found from company funds, which is why it is so
1280
difficult to have adequate investment when profits are so appallingly low in real terms as they are now.
The noble Lord raised four areas—or I wrote that I noted he had raised four areas and then I found I had written down about eight. Again, it would be of no service to the House for me to follow each and every one of the items he thought should be in the Bill. We do not deny the importance of loans and contracts so far as directors are concerned, nor of insider deals. The method of controlling them is still being debated in many learned journals and important places. In our view, more thought and consultation on many of these measures is necessary. It is wrong to say that the present Government are fully in agreement or even that the Opposition—as we were at the time of the last Bill—were fully in agreement with many of these proposals.
Clause 34 covers the situation where there has been a great fall in the value of a company and a special shareholders' meeting is held to hear about it: this matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. Although this is clearly required by the EEC Directive, the argument that it may in some cases do the wrong thing is one that the Select Committee itself mentioned in the Twenty-Fourth Report. But it really can be argued both ways. If that argument is taken to mean that major falls in value which will affect shareholders can be kept quiet from them, the evil of that has to be contrasted with the danger of upsetting the applecart at a moment when in some case recoverys might be about to start.
The next point I should like to raise is the employees' interest. There is again no doubt of the importance of employees' interests. But I wonder whether this can be considered as one of those vital, urgent matters which must go into the first Bill when, if I may say so as an industrialist— and as noble Lords have already said— nobody wishes to avoid taking employees' interests into account or indeed can avoid taking them fully into account in this day and age.
We move from there to the rights of shareholders and to the contrast with the political levy where trade unionists have the right to contract out of the political levy but shareholders have apparently no

1281
such right. I wonder whether the noble Lord was really worried about the rights of shareholders or whether he was more worried about the political considerations at this point. There are differences, my Lords. Not only do all company considerations have to be declared openly, so that shareholders can and do raise such matters, but the individual shareholder is in an entirely free position as to where he places his investment. The individual employee in much of the trade union world is in no such a position. One could of course say that he could change his job but, in present conditions and with the levels of unemployment we have now reached, that is not a very practical suggestion. So the average employee is tied to his job. He can contract out of the political levy. I should be interested whether all such employees actually know that they can contract out of the political levy. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has already said, in effect, a very great number just pay it automatically. In the case of shareholders, they can raise the matter. It has to be declared. They can sell their shares individually and invest in another company.
So far as the political result is concerned, we know that a very large proportion of the funds of the party opposite are provided by the trade union movement, whereas—notwithstanding the figures which I shall read in Hansard and did not fully follow or at this stage exactly accept—company contributions to the Conservative Party are in the minority.
As regards codification, the noble Lord is far more knowledgeable than I am in this area; but he has used words before which indicate his acceptance of the daunting task that codification really involves. This is perhaps another occasion for me to point out that there is going to be more companies' legislation—there must be—as a result of the EEC Fourth Directive. Codification would seem to me logically to follow behind that.
Very quickly I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that I have heard the point he mentioned in relation to the six-month period for the change of stationery and other notices. I will discuss this with my colleagues, particularly as he indicated so clearly
1282
that there is perhaps a difference between notepaper on the one hand and, on the other hand, embossed metal, durable milk bottle tops or other durable notices which are displayed in various places. I should like to take advice on that point.
I am advised that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is correct in saying that, so far as we know, only Germany has legislated at this moment. We understand that others are getting fairly close and we are overdue. We believe that the policy is to set a positive and good example in Europe so that by doing so we shall get more co-operation as regards the interests of this country. In any event, as I have said before, we believe that this enormous body of law, covering many important things which are not included in the Bill,is best dealt with in two parts. This will allow full and adequate consideration of method on the important points which are not included in this Bill.
I am advised that Clause 57, which he mentioned, was bitterly disputed in Committee in the other place: it refers to insider deals. On the question of winding-up and insolvency, we hope there will be a report from the body—whose name I have temporarily forgotten—early next year.
I would end by saying that we do not feel that any matters have been raised by noble Lords which actually bear on the legislation before your Lordships. All, or very nearly all, bore on legislation which is not before your Lordships. I hope this means that the legislation now before us is indeed, as we believe it to be, largely non-controversial and beneficial. We trust, therefore, with that in mind, that your Lordships will give the Bill a fair wind during future stages.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to deal with the question I raised: do the Government appreciate the grave concern in the City and elsewhere as the result of recent investigations into the affairs of certain companies, including those of Peachey, which lie mentioned? Do the Government therefore intend to treat the second Bill that the noble Viscount has mentioned as one of extreme urgency?—since many of us feel it is essential (and here I include people in the City) that the

1283
things which have emerged from the Inspector's report should be dealt with by legislation as soon as possible.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of that. I certainly should have included in this winding-up a statement of complete agreement with the sentiment of extreme concern over what has been revealed in the Peachey case. So, yes, and furthermore, yes, we believe it to be urgent; we also believe that getting proper legislation in this kind of area is more complicated than has been suggested by noble Lords opposite. It needs a great deal of further consultation, including consultation with the City interests which, as the noble Lord mentioned, are very much concerned about this point.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I raise one small point: being heartened by his silence on at least one matter—that is, the introduction of Clause 65—can he say whether the Government would at least consider not necessarily opposing a move in Committee to reintroduce what is in fact a non-controversial matter, namely, the protection of minority shareholders from oppression? At least I hope they will not shut the door upon that going into this Bill.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord says. I believe it is going to he extremely difficult to draw the demarcation line, even for one small, apparently innocent reason, differently from the way we have drawn it—because I do not believe, if once one starts to argue about Clause 65, that it is not possible to start arguing about a very great many more. Nevertheless, I have listened to what the noble Lord said in relation to Clause 65 and I shall discuss it, but with absolutely no commitment and without holding out much hope.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE NORTH SEA: ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES
6.16 P.m.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA Lord BUXTON of ALSA rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether
1284
they will now take the lead among our European partners in organising adequate and efficient surveillance and control over vessels in the North Sea and thereby enforce strict standards of anti-pollution for the safety and conservation of the environment and its living resources, without waiting for the resolution of international negotiations affecting the oceans beyond the North Sea. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of my Question to the Government is to ask them to recognise that the time has come for the North Sea to be treated as a separate issue from the oceans as a whole. It is now quite obvious that we cannot wait for world-wide agreement on the laws of the sea before dealing with the special problems of the North Sea. It is nearer to a shallow bay than an ocean: it is more like a backwater, and to compare it with the rest of the oceans is like comparing, say, the Wash with the Bay of Biscay.
Secondly, it is small and enclosed. It is smaller than the Hudson Bay, a bit wider than the Baltic and about the same size as the Black Sea. These are very nearly vast lakes and, in their own way, special cases. The exits to the Atlantic from the North Sea are shallow and narrow enough to prevent the interchange of pollutants with the deep oceans, and therefore there is always the prospect that spills of oil will finish up on somebody's beach.
It therefore cannot be regarded simply as part of the negotiations for the oceans as a whole. The Mediterranean is more favoured and was designated as a special case by the international convention known as MARPOL. This banned the discharge of oil altogether in the Mediterranean and so the case for special areas has already been made. If there was ever a special case for being designated a special area, it must be our own North Sea—even more so since it is now the oil scene of the century, and that aspect is going to escalate.
I am concerned primarily with the conduct of shipping in the North Sea and its approaches. There is a continuous lack of discipline and failure in standards resulting in pollution, but it is only among a minority—and this is the point I am anxious to make—of merchant ships and tankers. Of course, there is a majority of good sailors, and certainly the oil companies do their best where they own

1285
tankers, but not necessarily where they charter them. Oil companies have the prerogative to pick and choose when chartering, and they should do this conscientiously and not resort to what is called "spot" chartering; that is, simply accepting the nearest vessel to hand for reasons of cost.
Even though the majority of sea captains conform to acceptable standards and disciplines, there were nevertheless 500 recognised incidents last year of one sort or another. Only four or five were major spills, and in 50 per cent. of the cases involved there was no way of telling the source. We have no adequate surveillance for spotting and tracking the culprits. But it is not the major spills that matter; it is the continuous offences or negligence over the whole spectrum of oil activity in the North Sea which are an accumulating and compounding threat to our sea's natural resources. But the offences are confined to only a few.
The main problem, therefore, is the general background oiling all the time from all causes over and above the recognised incidents. I believe that only about 5 per cent. of the oil in the sea actually comes from accidents. In concentrating on accidents, therefore, the Government are chasing the wrong objectives. It is sometimes claimed that the position is improving on this part of the coast or that, because there are fewer accidents. But the accidents are not the right clue. The most reliable testimony is the sea birds. Where oil is concerned, biological monitoring is the most revealing of all. The fact remains that the sea bird casualties have been mounting at a dramatic rate since 1973. In 1973, there were eight incidents involving a few hundred casualties; in 1975, there were 2,000; in 1977, there were 4,000; and in 1978, there were 10,000 sea bird casualties, and up till April this year there were more than half that.
Those are just the sea birds washed ashore and spotted—perhaps a fraction of the annual total. It may be that in the last 10 years at least half a million seabirds have perished as a result of oil. But whether or not one minds about seabirds is quite immaterial. This situation is a startling reflection of the sudden impact of the oil era on our North Sea natural resources, because what affects seabirds
1286
also affects fish stocks, crustacea, shellfish, intertidal life, seaweeds, alginates, creatures of the shoreline and salt marshes and, not least and above all, the happiness and holidays of the British public. There are no signs that the general situation is improving.
It is not my intention to criticise what has been done by the Government in concert with other countries. Everything that has been done is in the right direction, and the international efforts to conclude agreements must continue. But these efforts through IMCO, the United Nations and other groups cannot avert the mounting danger to the North Sea. For a start, it takes, on average, five years for an IMCO convention to enter into force. Goodness knows how many years it is after that before there is any prospect of enforcement. One must hope that one day the plethora of laws of the sea will be universally adopted and accepted, even by the most unreliable flags of convenience. IMCO has conceived and debated a stream of conventions, amendments to conventions and definitions, has initiated conferences resulting in more conventions, has introduced 30 instruments on safety at sea and has developed 130 resolutions, recommendations, codes of practice and contingency plans, but these will not save the North Sea.
Frankly, this whole law of the sea scene is becoming a lawyer's paradise, whereas what we need is not more laws or more bureaucracy, but more leadership and determination, and a clear and aggressive attitude by the Ministers concerned, and Environment and Defence are just as concerned and involved as Trade. Freedom of the seas, especially on our continental shelf, is really now an unacceptable anachronism. Freedom to navigate there should be, but this freedom should be permitted only within strict standards and disciplines, because the North Sea is shallow and enclosed. We therefore have good, sound and logical reasons for acting differently and independently, in company with our North Sea neighbours.
The disasters of the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" were, taking the long view, probably a good thing, because they induced serious alarm at Government level and profound public

1287
concern. These isolated catastrophes do serious damage in a temporary and local sense, but they are nothing like so serious as the continuous background oiling that occurs all the time by a minority. As I said, in 1978 there were over 500 such incidents reported in the North Sea and around our coasts.
If I suggested that the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" might have been helpful, this in no way applies to Sullom Voe. Here there was absolutely no excuse for the reckless judgment in opening Sullom Voe before ballast discharging facilities were available, and they are not available yet. I am a sufficient realist not to suggest that closing Sullom Voe should be contemplated. but it was a totally irresponsible case of risk-taking which one hopes will never be repeated by this Government.
We also have to rid ourselves of the archaic law of the sea about salvage beyond territorial waters. In the case of the "Torrey Canyon", immediate decisions and vital steps were delayed by the intervention of Dutch salvage people. Precious hours and then days were lost. This is absolutely unacceptable in today's circumstances in the North Sea, and the North Sea countries must he forthright and declare that it is absolutely unacceptable and that this so-called law of the sea will not be observed here, because the North Sea is different.
If the same attitude, and the same planning and politics that apply to the seas were adopted in the case of aviation, nobody would fly at all. The analogy would be that the main action that Governments took to control air traffic would be on how to clear up the debris after a jumbo-jet had crashed. You can control what goes on in the air, because it is a 20th century phenomenon. But, apparently, because mariners have been sailing the seas for several centuries nobody can interfere with them.
Of course, we have to face reality and accept that we are entirely dependent on energy and development, and that it is no good. therefore, complaining about oil. In fact, we must be thankful for the oil, and we are apparently on the threshold of an era of further expansion of North Sea oil activity. But we must avoid wasting
1288
it and spilling it at the cost of the environment. I believe that the first step is that the EEC countries concerned, including Norway, should get together and decide on joint action for surveillance and control; not for drawing up laws. As with oil concessions or weather reporting areas, the whole of the North Sea should be allocated for the purpose of surveillance and pollution control. There should be no part of the North Sea beyond territorial limits which is not subject to surveillance.
Reporting in by all vessels approaching the North Sea and traffic separation areas should be made compulsory, in the same way as aircraft report in when approaching the country. The Government do riot at present require vessels outside territorial waters to use pilots. This is quite inadequate, and there are apparently no traffic separation schemes yet for ships approaching Sullom Voe. The relevant international convention brought in an amendment in 1978, prohibiting any discharge of oil within 50 miles of the nearest land. That may be all right in the case of the Atlantic or the Pacific, but it is absolutely not all right in the enclosed North Sea. As I have said, the Mediterranean already has better standards and objectives than our own North Sea, and whether the oil is 50,60,70 or 80 miles out in the North Sea it will finish up on somebody's beach.
There should be agreed standards and levels of police forces for surface craft, but especially for aircraft. It is particularly important that these national police forces, primarily in the air, as components of a co-ordinated North Sea strategy should follow through into each other's sector and work in the closest harmony and co-ordination, and they should not simply break off when in pursuit because they have reached their own territorial limits.
There is no need for a great new bureacratic outfit in Brussels, The Hague or anywhere else. It is more a case of leadership, declaration of intent and a determination by the new Ministers to make things work. It should be enough, after preliminary negotiations by the countries of Europe and Norway, to order their surveillance and patrol units to co-ordinate, co-operate and get on with it. Far more difficult and hazardous exercises were accomplished between allies during the war.
It may be asked what these aircraft patrols and police surveillances are supposed to achieve. The best analogy is the copper on the beat or the speed-cop on the motorway. The likelihood of being watched and spotted is the best deterrent there is. Just as everyone immediately conforms to the speed limit the moment a police car appears on a motorway, so sea captains and mariners will he equally inhibited if they know that they are likely to he observed and even photographed or recorded by sophisticated equipment from above. These tactics have already been very successful with the United States coastguard services.
On the subject of fines, this aspect is not, in my view, nearly so critical as some say. The most effective penalty for a ship is to be delayed while patrols satisfy themselves as to the conduct or record of the vessel concerned. Legal proceedings and fines become irrelevant. Once this degree of surveillance is widely known, no shipowner or its captain is likely to take any chances. In the case of the "Torrey Canyon" the captain, on the instructions of his owner, took a short-cut in order to save a tide—he obviously lived to regret that—because the financial advantages would apparently have been very significant. That proves the point one way. The other way—it is relevant to note—is that there was a bad oil spill in April of this year off the Bass Rock. However, all that happened to that Liberian tanker, because it was outside our territorial waters, was that it was reported to Liberia. The tanker company was then fined 500 dollars, the maximum under Liberian law.
On the other hand, to intercept and delay vessels while questions are being asked, and documents and records examined, is financially significant and would soon be recognised as something to be avoided, particularly if it could result in the withdrawal of insurance cover. In fact, France is already ahead of us in this respect, shameful as that may be. France has introduced effective policing and intervention in the Channel on their side, following "Amoco Cadiz". French naval vessels are now deployed to police the sea lanes off the French coast, and aircraft surveillance has been stepped up on a routine basis.
It is embarrassing that we are less purposeful, when one thinks of our record
1290
as leaders of the world on conservation matters. The French actually complained about Britain's attitude of laissez-faire at a conference in Brest last year and about our failure to be resolute and determined. We used to be the unchallenged leaders in conservation matters, and I sincerely hope that this Government will restore us to that position.
We all know that ships can he intercepted at sea, provided there is an adequate North Sea police force deployed by this Government and others. Acceptance at any North Sea port can he refused until the intercepting party gives the go-ahead and, according to the degree of suspicion or offence, the delay can be protracted, with painful financial consequences. The fine, therefore, will then, to all intents and purposes, have been paid if the approach which I am suggesting is adopted.
The North Sea situation is nothing like the problem that it is generally supposed to be. We are concerned with only a small minority of offenders. The lawyers' paradise is partly derived from the entirely mistaken approach that marine oil pollution is liable to be caused by all tankers under all ownerships and under all managements. This is manifestly not so.
We are concerned with a small minority, under two headings: first, lax or inexperienced mariners—or sea rogues, one might say—who should not be allowed into the North Sea at all; and, secondly, sub-standard vessels which should not be admitted into the North Sea, because they are old crocks which would never pass their MOT test, if they had one, which the oil companies should not charter and, further, which Lloyds (perhaps they should have their arms twisted by the Minister concerned) should not thereafter continue to cover by insurance.
To take the case of a city, it is not as though the forces of law and order have to move in in order to deal with the inhabitants because they are all criminals. The forces of law and order move in to deal with a handful of hooligans and criminals. The same situation applies in the North Sea. It is a small problem.
In taking tough action with the minority of offenders, I simply do not believe that the North Sea Governments will offend the respectable majority. They will, in

1291
fact, award them recognition and encouragement. I an convinced that stern and forthright action against sea rogues and old crocks will be welcomed by all countries, by all oil companies and by all the authorities involved. That is why the tortuous, legalistic process is the wrong way for the North Sea and why the bluff, strong arm approach to root out the handful of offenders is the right way.
Published figures show that most accidents are due to a bad class of owner-operators associated with particular flags of convenience. Charter by oil companies from those independent owner-operators resulted during the period from 1972 to 1976 in seven times as many accidents as vessels actually owned by the oil companies. It is the chartered vessels which cause risk, collisions and pollution. It is they which have caused the unnecessary burden of maritime legislation—the lawyers' paradise. In the world's tanker fleet there are, apparently, only 450 substandard vessels—which is, I understand, only 15 per cent. of the total. Of these, about 50 were Panamanian, 20 Cypriot and 175 Greek.
Every week, and probably while we are sitting here today, sea rogues, or substandard old crocks, are committing offences. There were three such reports only a few days ago. On 14th June, a Singapore flag tanker leaked 50 tons of oil near Belfast, having been in collision off Sutherland with a Polish bulk carrier. That was not in the news. On 15th June, the Liberian flag tanker "Amoco Trinidad" bound for Texas from Sullom Voe, was spotted by the Royal Air Force at the head of a 15 mile oil slick north of Saint Kilda. That may have done as much damage to natural resources as a major accident, but that was not in the news. On 16th June, a Norwegian flag tanker, "Polytrader", fully loaded, sailed dangerously close to the island of Foula, a famous bird resort, despite sailing instructions to the contrary. This could have been another major disaster like the "Torrey Canyon". And that was not in the news.
These regular incidents are clear evidence of substandard vessels, or substandard navigation and crews, and they should not be permitted in the North Sea or in British waters at all. Yet they are
1292
never in the news. Parliament and public are unaware of them, and they are not what the Government are trying to deal with. It is interesting that on 21st June a German tanker collided, when it was coming out of Esso Fawley, with an RFA logistical vessel, whatever that may be. Noble Lords probably heard in the news on radio this morning that it has now sunk.
It is interesting that this incident is going to receive a great deal of publicity. Already it has been on radio; now it will be on television, and no doubt it will be in all of tomorrow's newspapers. However, the vessel has not yet spilled any oil and it is not doing any harm. Obviously, it is a very serious matter, and it is extraordinary that this vessel should have been involved in a collison, but so far as 1 am aware it presents no danger to the natural environment or to natural resources, and there has been no spillage of oil. However, this incident has got into the news, whereas the three incidents which I have mentioned to your Lordships, and which were probably infinitely worse, were never heard about.
The slow, tortuous exercise of international maritime legislation will not solve our problems. The North Sea Governments, led by Britain, should take a sledgehammer and crack this nut.
Effective identification and control of this small minority of substandard tankers, or substandard crews, could transform the pollution situation and reduce the need for international legislation. Without insurance, substandard tankers and substandard crews could not operate. However, if they are allowed to operate, then laws and regulations become futile. Only surveillance and control are effective, yet the absence of surveillance and control leads to the demand for more and more legislation which, in its turn, does not solve the problem.
On the question of cost, both for this country and for the North Sea group, it is a question of priorities. All I would say is that a country which cannot protect and conserve its own environment for the nation, and for our descendants, cannot afford to spend millions on welfare and on causes like the arts. Of course I am not hostile to the arts—I am very much for the arts—but they provide an interesting and significant yardstick. The

1293
Government have been spending over £60 million on the arts for a minority interest. Although the grant to the arts probably benefits only a small fraction of the population, I do not grudge it, provided that the new Government, unlike the last, get their priorities right. If £60 million is a reasonable figure for the arts, policing the North Sea to ensure the survival of its natural resources and our sea shores is worth a great deal more than that.
The whole spectrum of the oil business is a very serious threat to the natural resources around our coast and in the North Sea, and £60 million, or even £200 million, would be chickenfeed to avert problems, trouble and bad publicity, particularly in the expanding years ahead. Probably, however, it is not necessary; it is a question of co-ordination and determination. North Sea oil revenue to the country is estimated by the Government to be £4 billion a year in the mid-1980s. Surely it is worth spending a reasonable percentage of that revenue to protect our environment.
There may be 1 million devotees of the arts, but there are over 5 million bird watchers and wildlife sympathisers, 5 million fishermen, millions with yachts, boats and little craft of all sorts, and many millions of people—mainly families—who spend their holidays and weekends by the sea, playing on the sand or among the rocks and the cliffs around our coastline.
The cost of living is one thing. That is a real problem. However, I object to the term, "standard of living". We all have different standards. When it comes to recreation, some people may prefer to be sitting in the opera house, but for others the idea of paradise is a tent, or a derelict cottage near the sea, or a boat. What is relevant to all is the quality of life. No Government have the right to prescribe standards and it would surely be alien to this Government to continue to give a bonus of £60 million to a small minority group, while denying the wherewithal to ensure clean seas, shores and beaches and a decent natural environment for the majority and for future generations.
May I therefore urge the Government to take this new opportunity of introducing a fresh and popular philosophy regarding North Sea conservation; first, by treating
1294
the North Sea as a special case. This will win great acclaim and respect from the country. What can be done for the arts can certainly be done for our marine environment. Some might say that the responsibility for the North Sea is confusing and that there are too many departments involved. In my view, this should be regarded as the strength of the position, in that almost every Ministry, as well as the Navy and the RAF, seems to have a common aim in North Sea surveillance and improved standards of control. While all parties must want to see North Sea pollution minimised, there are other aspects, such as security and defence, which all point in the same direction and would justify the use of all our resources for a common purpose, in order to fill the dangerous vacuum in surveillance that exists in the North Sea today. I would imagine that NATO might be just as relieved as the RSPB.
Secondly, therefore, we cannot delay on the North Sea until global international negotiations are concluded. I trust the Government will recognise that the practical course now is to get on with the job in concert with our North Sea partners and Norway and not allow prolonged Law of the Sea negotiations to inhibit forthright action.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we all remember the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, on conservation, and I am delighted—and I am sure the House is—that he is giving us the opportunity this evening of talking more about conservation, particularly so far as the North Sea is concerned and the effects of oil spillage and the importance of protecting our environment from marine pollution. One of the first trade questions I had to answer in your Lordships' House from the Dispatch Box opposite was on the tragedy of the "Amoco Cadiz", and I am deeply conscious of the amount of time and thought that this incident has provoked, even among various Government departments—trade, environment and MAFF, and now with the North Sea oil being such a major industry in Scotland, the Scottish Office are also deeply concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has referred to the need for us to try to get

1295
European co-operation, through the EEC at least, for some strong measures to combat the marine pollution and its effect upon our environment. On the face of it, this seems to be a sound suggestion, particularly since international agreements are so difficult and take so much time to negotiate. As he has reminded us, we have to remember that all the countries bordering on the North Sea are not yet members of the EEC—for instance, Norway is not—but if we can get voluntary codes of practice agreed among our immediate neighbours in regard to the surveillance and control, then for heaven's sake let us work towards it. But I believe it is an international problem and ultimately it can only be dealt with internationally.
One such step in the right direction was the Merchant Shipping Act which received Royal Assent as recently as March of this year, because that Act makes provision for the prohibition of the deliberate discharge of oil from ships as agreed in the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships. In March, too, the Department of Trade organised a national conference on combating oil pollution, and that gave an opportunity for a forum to review and discuss the improved arrangements for dealing with oil spills at sea. I understand that the organisation of that conference was the United Kingdom's contribution to World Maritime Day on 16th March. It is an annual event, sponsored by IMCO, and this year it had as its theme, "Safer Shipping and Cleaner Oceans". That, I am sure, is something that we can all support.
At that forum there were many interesting papers presented by experts. For instance, we learned that the "Amoco Cadiz" spilled 220,000 tonnes of oil, mostly light Middle East crudes, with some 4,000 tonnes of bunker fuel. In a two-week period that was spilled on to the coast of Brittany. The wind carried that oil into bays and inlets where high concentrations were measured in the shallow waters and the effects on the organisms depended upon the type of habitat, on the distance from the spill and, indeed, even on the configuration of the coastline. In general, those living on the surface of the beach or the seabed were smothered, while the burrowing organisms were affected by
1296
the toxic dissolved fraction of the oil. Brittany supports a diverse commercial fishing industry and their fishing industry, particularly for oysters and clams, suffered very severe losses.
Recently in this House we had a short debate on the problems of the oil spillage off the Shetlands at Sullom Voe, and here in one incident involving 600 tonnes of heavy fuel oil over 3,500 bird casualties were found in the following three months and are still being found as a result of that accident. Over 5,000 of our sea birds died on the stretch of the coast between Spurn Head and North Northumberland in two months early last year. These figures do not show the true level of the casualties because many of the birds perish at sea and never reach the shore.
So in the United Kingdom we must be concerned because we host populations of birds with a very low annual breeding rate, birds such as the guillemots, the razorbills and the puffins, together with species that only breed in a very few places, some of which are in the United Kingdom—all those which congregate on our shores during the winter, before migration or for moulting. Other elements in the marine and coastal environment are also at risk from oil spillages. The sand and the mudfiats are the feeding and the roosting grounds and oil stranded in the vegetation here can cause heavy mortality. The salt marshes are used for grazing sheep and cattle. They can recover from a single spillage, but they cannot survive chronic and continuous pollution. The grey seal pups can even become asphyxiated if the oil is washed over them at high tide.
The "Torrey Canyon" incident in 1967 led to the formation of contingency plans by the Government and there is some specialised pollution clearance equipment now available to local authorities. Incidents like the "Eleni V" can be dealt with by these earlier contingency plans, but more highly developed plans are needed for incidents like the "Amoco Cadiz".
Until now the Government have accepted that it is the local authorities who should direct the actual beach cleaning operations, and also that their plans dealing with beach pollution must go side by side and dovetail in to the plans of the Department of Trade for dealing with

1297
pollution at sea. Cleaning up beaches can be a very costly operation for local authorities. Can we not work internationally for Governments to accept the financial and other responsibilities for spillages from their registered vessels and thus enable the Government to make all the necessary financial help available to local authorities without any delay, and let the final and ultimate settlement be between Governments? Certainly with cuts in public expenditure as massive as those foretold in the Budget, coastal local authorities will be extremely hard-pressed to find the resources to deal with marine pollution and pollution on their beaches.
I know that there is an agreement—the Bonn Agreement—which has been operative since 1969 between the United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden to arrange for their ships and aircraft to report all oil slicks, to inform one another of oil slicks which are likely to pose a serious threat to another's coast and to seek, where possible, to give assistance one to another. That is a good beginning, but now we have to build on it and provide for better surveillance of the type envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa. There is a new Marine Pollution Control Unit within the Marine Division of the Department of Trade and various studies are being undertaken to deal with pollution at sea; what salvage arrangements are necessary; reviewing the liability and compensation provisions and considering beach cleaning arrangements. The report already published by the Department of Trade on Command, Control and Communications is excellent, so far as it goes. What we now need is a sound and reasonable system of monitoring the movements of tankers and that should be one of the priorities of the Government at this time.
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which many noble Lords support, as I do, and of which body my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge is president, is understandably very deeply concerned about the effects of oil pollution. The RSPB was the first organised body to campaign against oil pollution through parliamentary means way back in 1922. Yet, the problem is still with us and is as bad as ever. The RSPB claims that some of the worst hit areas—those on the
1298
English Channel coasts—now have relatively few sea birds left to kill. Such has been the unnecessary slaughter because of oil spillages.
From studies made it would seem that deliberate discharges appear to kill many more birds overall than do tanker disasters. But, if half a ton of fuel oil from a bilge discharge is spilled in the wrong place, then disproportionately large numbers of birds will be killed. The real problem seems to be that the United Kingdom anti-pollution laws, since the first Act in 1922, have not been actively enforced outside ports and harbours. Indeed, in recent years one, two or three offences at sea have been successfully prosecuted each year. I quote from a Department of Trade report of 1st August 1978 on the exercise and performance of the Department of Trade under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971, for the year ending 31st December 1977, where it says:
"Fifty-eight prosecutions for unlawful discharges of oil were undertaken during the year by harbour authorities for offences committed in ports and two by the Department of Trade for offences at sea. Fifty-six of the harbour authority prosecutions as well as the Department of Trade prosecutions resulted in convictions. Nineteen convictions related to offences by United Kingdom registered ships and thirty-two to offences by ships of foreign flags. The remaining seven convictions concerned discharges from installations on land".

So, no realistic deterrent exists at present. That same Department of Trade report ended by saying that 59 countries had accepted the international convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil as agreed in 1954–25 years ago—and as amended in 1962, which was 17 years ago. Yet, we are still saying in this House that international action is needed to deter offences outside territorial seas which threaten bird life and marine environment in our care.
The RSPB and others feel that the IMCO rules are being widely flouted and the RSPB also believes that active surveillance over the United Kingdom Continental Shelf waters must be stepped up. We must have a new initiative to protect our vital marine resources, our wildlife and our environment.
I referred earlier to the problems off the Shetlands. A measured count of sea birds killed since 1975 has latterly shown a rise with a strong bias towards the

1299
vulnerable North. A recent report of the RSPB indicated
"… a perceptible change in the geographical distribution of incidents affecting birds. Of 55 cases, each killing more than 50 birds during the period 1971–1976, only live or (9 per cent.) were north of Aberdeen. In the 28 months, January 1977-April 1979, the comparative totals were 9 our of 35 (26 per cent.). Whilst these figures are admittedly based on small samples, there are fears that the expected surge of incidents off North Scotland, threatening the main seat of Europe's seabird population, is now in train".
The United Kingdom has an international obligation to conserve the sea bird heritage of the North-East Atlantic, centred in North Scotland, Orkney and Shetland. That duty is now being put to a very severe test by the advent of North Sea oil tanker traffic. It is difficult to discharge that obligation unless real preventive methods are provided. That brings me back to where I started. This is not solely a European problem; it is an international one which needs international agreements, international cooperation, and an international willingness to accept the obligations to preserve our marine resources.
It is the safety of people at sea that must always be paramount, but we owe it to the generations that are still to come not to let up in the fight against pollution and in the fight to preserve our environment and our heritage. The noble Lord has given us an opportunity to raise the matter again in the House. I must conclude, I am sorry to say, with an apology which I have already made to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. I have an inescapable commitment which means that I must leave the House just before 7.30. 1 apologise to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, if I am not present for the reply, but I assure your Lordships that no discourtesy is intended on my part.
6.57 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we too on these Benches are very pleased to be able to join with the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, and share his concern for the problems that oil pollution has caused to the environment and to conservationists. This is an international problem and one as regards which this country has had a fine record to date. If I interpreted correctly what the noble Lord, Lord
1300
Buxton, said, he wishes to keep that position.
However, I hesitate to suggest that any form of unilateral action taken by any one nation—even this country—could in practice make it harder for pollution to take place than a recognition of internationally adopted regulations. That view is emphasised by the General Council of British Shipping which believes that unilateral action by any one maritime nation would merely encourage outbreaks of similar action in other parts of the world which would be to the detriment of shipping in general, and in my view it would also add to the confusion that exists in maritime law in the area which we are discussing this evening.
As I see it, the nature of the problem is two-fold: first, there is the prevention of spillages in port which is one particular problem for which there is a set of regulations clearly defined and which can be controlled and monitored by our shore-based administration. However, the spillages that take place at sea are the ones which we seem to have more difficulty in finding an answer to, and they are pollutions by accident or by wilful dumping of ballast.
The proper use of port facilities and the implementation of local regulations have, to a large extent, been covered in an earlier debate in this House. Therefore I should like to concentrate now mainly on the problems that arise at sea and especially in the approaches to oil terminal ports. I believe that action could and should be taken in laying down accepted routes for tankers on the approaches to terminals such as Sullom Voe. My right honourable friend in another place, the right honourable Member for Orkney and Shetland, has expressed concern that tankers are taking a short cut—one of which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton—between the mainland and Foula which is a notoriously dangerous channel, and he anticipates the possibility of a major accident occurring in that area. My right honourable friend has anticipated, tragically, the kind of sequence of events of accidents that have occurred to date in the area of oil pollution. I believe that great attention should be paid to his words. He has pressed that tankers should be asked to keep well West of Foula and requests have also

1301
been sent to oil companies and others to execute that as a standing order for masters. Unfortunately—and this was again indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa—international law is obscure as to whether or not this can be made legal. Perhaps the Minister will be able to guide me on this when he replies at the end of the debate.
Only a matter of weeks ago the tanker referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, was observed passing between Papa Stour and Foula. This gave rise to much local concern. It may be worth mentioning that the Shetland Islanders are better qualified to recognise the dangers that exist in navigating the treacherous waters which surround our shores than are some of the masters who sail those waters. Therefore, these warnings should not go unheeded.
Perhaps there is a partial solution; it is a practical solution and does not encroach into the area of international law. I do not see why any vessels observed from the shore by shore-based surveillance, such as the coastguard, should not be reported to the oil terminal and given some form of time penalty. Masters would soon realise that by taking a shortcut—and those short-cuts mean that the vessels come close to the coast—they can be observed either by the coastguard or by a member of the county council, and be reported to the terminal. Thus, far from saving time, the vessel will lose time. I do not believe that this is necessarily a satisfactory answer, but it is a practical one until some regulations can be made to clarify the route approaches to Sullom Voe.
Briefly, there are two types of spillages. One is the premeditated, wilful act of the dumping of ballast at sea, which we have covered in a number of debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has also mentioned it and I believe it is something for which we can legislate. I believe that the accidental spillage that creates the background pollution referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, is much more difficult, because I suspect that a great deal of this pollution takes place without the knowledge of the master of the vessel. I suspect that it takes place through misuse of equipment, through ignorance of the equipment, and through the wrong kind of crew personnel operating equipment
1302
which they should not operate—in which case they would not tell the master of the vessel that they have made a mistake; they would just hope that no one notices. It is almost impossible to legislate for that, except perhaps by the terminal ports or some form of regulatory body supervising the standard of crews that operate the machinery on these very large vessels.
Finally, I want to return to the problem of obtaining international agreement on regulations to combat oil pollution. I suspect that oil pollution is one of the few subjects that so clearly divides the world between the developed and the less developed countries. Oil pollution of the high seas is mainly a problem for industrial nations whose appetites for fuel still remain insatiable. Less developed countries may never have the opportunity to pollute their territorial waters with oil because the oil will have run out long before their economies have reached the stage of industrial development which we have in the West. For instance, we should not forget that those countries bordering the South China Sea may not be keen to give oil pollution such a high priority as we, in the West, give it, because their shores are not being polluted by oil; they have the debris of broken boats and bodies from a persecuted people on their beaches.
I am trying to say that we in this country have reached a stage of industrial development that has created the problems of oil pollution. It has also given us a sense of education that we must protect our beaches, and, as has been said, protect our wildlife and create a nice environment for tourism and pleasure. However, there are other countries which, as yet, may not have the opportunity to regard the problem of oil pollution in the same way as we do. Therefore, we must be sympathetic towards some of their hesitancy in reaching international agreements of the kind sought by us today. So let us show understanding when we ask for their help in making regulations to solve the problems on our shoreline, and at the same time show sympathy towards the very different problems which rest on their shoulders.
Lord BUXTON of ALSA: My Lords, for the record, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that I did not suggest

1303
unilateral action by this country; only joint international action with our European neighbours, including Norway.
7.7 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am delighted to take part again in this discussion and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, in bringing this Question to the attention of your Lordships. I should like to deal first with the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, which is that we must wait for the slowest in the convoy in international affairs. That is basically true. Most of the developing countries, which are now properly arguing their case in the Law of the Sea Conference—in which I am pretty heavily involved—are, in fact, not fully aware of the risks which we are now discussing. On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has pointed out, events are taking place very near home, in the North Sea.
As a professor of international relations, I have always maintained that we should proceed through international law, even with delays of international law. However, there is one aspect of this matter which does not tolerate delay. It is the fact that one can saturate a whole area, as we arc now doing in the North Sea, with this type of pollution even before the global answers are reached. Most of the things that we are now discussing in terms of what could be done as regards protection in the North Sea have already been basically accepted in international law, either in IMCO or in the Law of the Sea Conference. The fact that these conventions have taken a long time either in being ratified or in being applied is another serious question. But the fact is that we accept them as desirable, as meaningful and as practical.
I want to take up the argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, that we should and must make the North Sea a special case. As he pointed out, we have made the Mediterranean a special case. I take a good deal of satisfaction from that, because I was involved in preparing the first report on the pollution of the Mediterranean which alerted the 17 countries which, in the end, came together in the Barcelona Pact. Therefore, we can make progress by making
1304
people aware of their immediate, close-in interests, and we have certainly done it in the Mediterranean—even by creating an adversary situation between the countries bordering the North African Mediterranean coasts and the industrial nations bordering the European coasts. Speaking now from my experience as the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution in the Sea, this is something which we could do on our own initiative—not unilaterally and not simply in blunt defiance of international regulations, but by reaching an understanding with all our neighbours bordering the North Sea and persuading them to take part in what I and the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, believe is the necessary act of surveillance.
The North Sea, and even more so the Western and now the Northern approaches are densely packed with ships and the hazards are increasing every day. If you look at a radar map of the traffic, you begin to think that it is an insoluble problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, pointed out, it is not that kind of thing. As he said, there are the rogues. They are the people who go to the extent of getting in behind an oil disaster like the "Eleni V and the "Amoco Cadiz" and getting rid of their ballast oil. This goes on continuously.
We ought to try also to get this into proportion. The Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea pointed out in its report in March that 50 per cent. of the incidents which we were able to establish and discriminate were in fact not from accidents but were from fuel and bunker oil. The principal sources were cargo supply vessels, platforms—we keep on forgetting about the amount of incidental spillage from platforms—and tankers, in that order.
It is the tankers, the vessels which are going to make the most spectacular contribution if they have an accident, which in fact, in the totality, are contributing less than the other sources of pollution. If we are to have proper surveillance it is important that we have a proper system of determining the nature of the spillages. If I may put in a commericial for my own organisation, we are now doing a remarkable job in this. In our last report we have in fact produced the very careful—and I repeat "careful"—picture of the

1305
incidents and identified them in various ways.
We are now co-operating with the Norwegians and the Swedes, and are hoping to work also with the EEC countries in the collection and assembly of information. We can now begin to get a proper picture out of this confusion of sources, and to identify the sources. As I think your Lordships will know, it is important that you know where the oil came from. When you come to the question of insurance, you have ultimately to go back to the source even to recover the insurance.
The most important thing we want to do—and I want to press upon the Government that they can at least make this contribution—is to make sure that in the North Sea surveillance systems (the Nimrods, the protection systems, and so on) in fact carry infra-red detection systems so that no ship will ever feel secure at night. If that was well enough known, if it was generally believed that it was so, you could cut down a great deal of the mischief because they would not know they were being watched. That would be almost as effective as intercepting them.
The other thing which thé noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, pointed out is that there is a way in which you can deal with the problem. We have, in ACOPS—the Advisory Commission on Oil Pollution of the Sea—been advocating that we must get some port stage jurisdiction; we must be able at the port stage to deal with the people who make the mischief at sea. We have not got that. It is a significant fact that in 1978 the Department of Trade was able to report only one successful prosecution of a ship which had polluted at sea. We can deal with it in the ports. The port authorities are rather good.
I have just been to Sullom Voe, where they are having some difficulty because the Shetland Islands Council are carrying out what is called a secret inquiry into what happened at Sullom Voe—much to the indignation of the 17,000 people of Shetland who think that they should he sitting in on that. Here is an authority which is taking its responsibility extremely seriously, because this incident was, from the point of view of the Shetlands, as
1306
my noble friend Lady Stedman pointed out, serious in terms of the effect on wild life, and so on. But in a case such as this the Government ought to have stepped in and conducted that public inquiry with the rights of privileged hearings, because the Islands Council is not covered by privilege, and therefore can be exposed to all kinds of outcomes from this. So they shut the doors as thoroughly as you can ever shut the doors in Shetland. They know exactly what is happening every hour of the day.
Here you have a population of 17,000 and a council which is standing up to the whole effects of this, and the whole of the impact of the oil. Along with the Sollum Voe Association, they have established these lanes, and so forth. and insisted on ships using them coming in. They have also made it clear that any ship which has obviously got rid of its oil ballast on the way in will be at the end of the queue when it comes to refuelling, which is the time sanction which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was asking for. Please, my Lords, do not force me into pointing out that this might be called industrial action.
That is one way short of proper jurisdiction, without powers, and so forth, that you can begin to operate. The most important thing is that we have to have in the North Sea a new understanding between ourselves and other North Sea States, and we have to have the supervision and the powers of intervention. This has now become so serious that we shall not be able to offer any promises to posterity unless we do something now.
7.17 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords. we are indeed indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, for raising once more the question of oil pollution of the sea by ships, which is undoubtedly a matter of continuing public interest and concern. We have all been sickened, have we not, by the pathetic sight of seabirds so smothered by oil as to he barely recognisable as once living creatures; we have all seen photographs of the beaches of Brittany as they were last year covered by a thick carpet of oil; and many of us—or our children—have come across the tar and the like to our cost on our own beaches.

1307
As I have said, all this is undoubtedly a matter of continuing public interest and concern, but I should like to begin by considering the extent and nature of the problem. Perhaps the most widely quoted global assessment of the scale of the problem is that made under the auspices of the American National Academy of Sciences. This suggested that, in 1973, shipping accounted for 2·1 million tons, or slightly over one-third, of the oil entering the oceans of the world. Land-based sources were, quantitively, rather larger, accounting for some 2·5 million tons, or about 40 per cent. of the total. A recent updating of these figures indicates that, in 1977, shipping accounted for about 1·4 million tons, or a little over a quarter of the total.
Breaking these figures down a little further, the National Academy of Science assessment indicated that shipping accidents, mainly tanker accidents, which of course attract worldwide attention, account for around 0·3 million tons, or only 5 per cent. of the total. The other calculations to which I referred earlier show broadly the same picture. By far the greater part of oil entering the sea from ships is discharged as a result of their day-to-day operations. The major element is undoubtedly the small minority of tankers that pump overboard oil contaminated ballast water or tank washings; but we should not forget the role of those ships of all types, not only tankers, which discharge their engine room bilges.
I recognise that oil discharged from ships represents a particularly worrying aspect of the overall problem of oil pollution, notably when a large spill has a devastating local impact. None the less, we should bear in mind that these discharges do not represent the total problem, and that there are grounds for believing that international action over the years has succeeded in reducing the scale of these discharges.
I turn to the nature of the impact on the environment of oil discharged from ships. First, there is the impact on fisheries. There is no doubt that oil on the sea surface disrupts fishing, since fishermen are naturally reluctant to haul their gear through an oil slick which may contaminate their nets and taint the catch. Oil on the surface of the open sea does, however,
1308
have space to disperse and be diluted and time to degrade by chemical and biological means. In these circumstances, it has not been found to cause adverse effects on fisheries or marine food chains. In coastal regions, on the other hand, where oil can make contact with the bottom and become stranded on the shore, it may damage organisms by smothering or by toxic impact, and where oil becomes incorporated in the sediments these effects can remain for years.
Secondly, there is the impact on amenity beaches. The effect of the exceptional major oil spill close to the shore is there for all to see; such gross pollution can be removed at great cost, but oily residues that become buried can persist for years. Then there is the continuing problem of tar balls and the like associated with the so-called "operational" discharges from ships. This undoubtedly represents a nuisance, but how much of a nuisance? Such information as we have suggests that local authorities choose to spend perhaps £100,000 a year on cleaning up this form of pollution.
Thirdly, there is the impact on other parts of our coast. Oil pollution generally does little harm to life on exposed shores, but in sheltered bays and estuaries where fine sediments occur, and in salt marshes, it can have far-reaching and long-lasting effects on the components of the food chain and on the large variety of birds which may feed and roost there.
Fourthly, there is the impact on birds. The sea birds and wildfowl in and around the British Isles are of international importance. Our knowledge of their movements offshore is at present limited. To help remedy this gap in our knowledge, the Nature Conservancy Council are hoping to undertake an investigation of the distribution of sea birds at sea, which would help us to assess the threat posed by particular spills. What is of particular concern here is that an individual spill—which need not be very large—will decimate a species with only a handful of breeding colonies around our coasts and with a low annual breeding rate. The "Esso Bernicia" incident at Sullom Voe is an example that comes readily to mind.
I now draw your Lordships' attention to an absentee from this catalogue—the

1309
loss of human life. Oil spills in themselves do not kill people. I would therefore pose the question: where should oil pollution rank in our priorities? Oil pollution clearly has harmful consequences, but how does it rank, for example, compared with trying to prevent accidents involving ships? A particularly serious and striking example was the explosion at the beginning of this year on the "Betelgeuse" in Bantry Bay, which killed 50 people; or trying to prevent accidents involving aircraft? We all remember the recent tragedy at Chicago airport; or trying to reduce the annual carnage on our roads? The chances are that someone has been killed even during the course of this short debate.
But that does not mean that we should simply accept the situation and do nothing. A great deal can be done, has been done, is being done and will continue to be done. And I might remark in passing that our concern must extend to the whole of our coastline. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, I am sure we would be unwise to restrict our attention to those parts of our shores which happen to border on the North Sea.

I turn to the question of how one should tackle the problem and the issue of "unilateralism". It is no accident that for many years we have sought to establish an internationally agreed world-wide framework for the shipping industry. The reason is quite simple; shipping is by its nature an international industry. A ship begins its voyage in one country and very often ends its voyage in another, perhaps having called at a third, fourth and fifth country on the way. A single, well understood set of rules that have been agreed and are accepted world-wide is an important factor contributing to shipping safety. If I might suggest an analogy, what would happen if each of our major cities introduced and sought to enforce its own set of road signs and its own version of the Highway Code?
Added to that, a single set of rules makes it possible for shipping to operate flexibly on a world-wide basis. This flexibility is greatly to our advantage both as a major shipping nation and as a major user of shipping services for our imports and our exports. If one accepts that we have an important national interest at
1310
stake in promoting an international approach to shipping matters, it necessarily follows that we must exercise extreme caution before we indulge in national, or unilateral, initiatives. And that applies equally to regional initiative with our European partners; the North Sea is not an inland water of exclusively regional concern but a major sea used by the ships of the nations of the world.
A somewhat related matter is the question of enforcement which has traditionally been regarded as the responsibility of the flag State. This approach has many advantages; the flag State is more likely to have access to the owner and is better placed to supervise safety standards on a sustained basis. But there is a complementary and increasing role for the port State—that is, the country at whose port the vessel calls—to enforce agreed international standards. Discussions at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference have reached consensus on an important extension of port State jurisdiction on pollution matters.
There are those who envisage a wider role for the coastal State—that is, the country whose shores the ship is passing—but what does coast State enforcement involve in practice? It means being prepared to induce a perhaps reluctant master to bring his ship into our ports. Are we ready to contemplate the use of gunboats, or putting a shot across the bows of an oil tanker or sending boarding parties to sea, except under the most extreme circumstances? Questions of practicality also arise if one contemplates regulating traffic from the shore, drawing parallels with civil aviation.
I am advised, first, that "sea clutter", as it is called, tends to distort radar displays, making it difficult to track small craft at sea. But perhaps more important is the basic, indeed obvious, difference between the environment in which aircraft are controlled and that in which ships operate. The difference is that one aircraft can fly at a higher altitude than another. This has two consequences. First, one can set aside air lanes for the exclusive use of civil airliners—and when we speak of air traffic control, we generally have in mind the system applied to these aircraft—and the second consequence is that crossing traffic can be kept vertically separate.

1311
It does not seem to be realistic to envisage the physical separation of the different types of user of the seas, and it is plainly impossible to envisage the vertical separation of crossing traffic. This means that, for the most part, the master must remain responsible for the safe navigation of his ship. He is increasingly being aided by modern technology and we should not forget that ships move relatively slowly and generally in relatively empty seas. Ship movements will no doubt continue to be more closely controlled in and around major ports and there will be areas, such as the Channel, where a degree of traffic management is necessary. Indeed, a whole range of measures over the past decade have succeeded in greatly improving safety standards in that relatively busy waterway. The number of collisions has been more than halved.
Your Lordships will be aware of the voluntary ship movement reporting scheme, which we introduced at the start of this year with our French colleagues and with the full knowledge of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation—IMCO. After the current trial period, we hope that IMCO will recommend full participation in this scheme. Discussions are also under way towards developing an integrated traffic scheme for the Channel as a whole. We hope that these developments will in due course lead to a further improvement in safety.
While again on the subject of aircraft, perhaps I might say a few words about aerial surveillance. The pilots of all British aircraft, and the masters of all British ships for that matter, are already asked to report any oil spills that they see. This applies equally to military aircraft and ships, including the so-called "North Sea Tapestry" flights. When added to the assistance provided by the Services in dealing with oil spills, this represents a most valuable contribution by the Ministry of Defence to tackling the problem of oil pollution.
It is sometimes suggested that this so-called "casual" surveillance should be supplemented by aircraft dedicated to this task. This could undoubtedly be done. Indeed, in due course, by developing work already under way at the Warren Spring Laboratory and elsewhere on side looking
1312
radar and infra-red sensing devices, we could develop something approaching a 24-hour a day, all-weather surveillance capability. The knowledge that such a systematic surveillance was being carried out might well deter some masters from discharging oily ballast water or oily bilge water. Such flights might provide some of the evidence needed for successful prosecutions in other cases, and such flights might identify some oil spills that merited taking action to disperse. But the annual cost could easily amount to several million pounds. The question that we have to ask ourselves, my Lords, is whether that additional expenditure is justified, given our other priorities and our determination to reduce the demands that the public sector makes on the available resources.
I said earlier that a great deal is being done to mitigate the problem of oil pollution. I have already spoken briefly of developments that are in train further to improve safety in the Channel. A number of international conventions and agreements have been concluded in recent years that are directed at improved standards of shipping safety, pollution prevention, and training for seafarers. The necessary number of ratifications of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea has now been achieved, and that convention will come into force next May. We now need to bring the other agreements into force. For our part the Merchant Shipping Act 1979, which received the Royal Assent in the closing days of the last Parliament, will enable us progressively to do just that.
We need to enforce those internationally agreed enhanced standards both in relation to our own ships and for all ships in our ports, so far as skilled manpower is available. We also need to continue to develop our arrangements for dealing with serious oil spills. So far as the situation at sea is concerned, that is now the particular responsibility of the Marine Pollution Control Unit that has been established within the Department of Trade. I see that the noble Baroness's coach has turned into a pumpkin; but she mentioned the new Marine Pollution Control Unit, and it is certainly doing a great job.
Many noble Lords will have read of the exercise held last week—Manchex—to

1313
test the arrangements known as Manche-plan that we have developed with our French colleagues for responding to maritime emergencies in the Channel. Similar exercises are regularly held to test our national arrangements along other parts of our coastline, and they represent one important way in which we seek to improve our contingency plans still further. Your Lordships may also have read that we are investing in two caches of salvage equipment in order to ensure the availability of the pumps and associated equipment needed to transfer oil from a stricken tanker to a receiving vessel. This will involve expenditure of several hundreds of thousands of pounds.
As I said when opening, oil discharged from ships is only part of the problem. We therefore look forward to receiving in due course advice on this and the wider perspective from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, on which the noble Lord, Lord Buxton of Alsa, once served with such distinction. We shall continue our efforts in all these ways to promote safety at sea and to limit the damage to the marine environment that is associated with the undoubted benefits we enjoy as a result of the activities of the shipping industry, and, in particular, from our use of oil.
There is no doubt in the Government's mind that oil pollution is a problem that merits, and will continue to receive, serious attention. Our first aim of course remains to prevent oil being spilled into the sea, although we must recognise that a catastrophe is an ever present danger. It is part of the price of personal mobility, industrial production, warmth and light. Let he who enjoys none of these cast the first stone. But recognising the inevitability of at least some accidents, we shall continue to deal with those spills in a way which seeks to minimise the pollution damage done to sea birds, fisheries, ecologically sensitive areas, and amenity beaches.
Before I sit down I wish briefly to deal with some of the points raised by various noble Lords in the course of the short, but interesting, debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, who raised a number of matters, asked about making the North Sea a special case, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, also mentioned this point. The Mediterranean
1314
is of course already a special case under the MARPOL convention, but I know of no evidence that the North Sea is incapable of absorbing the very limited discharges permitted under that convention. But should evidence to the contrary be produced, then MARPOL embodies a procedure for creating further special areas. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, also referred to the 500 or so oil spills reported in 1978. I might mention that according to the ACOPS annual report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred, about three-quarters of them resulted in no damage being perceived or reported.
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, also asked me about the powers to detain ships pending investigation. I regret that I do not think that we have such powers at present, but it seems to me that we should continue to exercise considerable care before detaining ships and delaying them simply on suspicion. This practice could lead to confusion and a degree of chaos in the shipping industry. Moreover, the approach smacks of a presumption of guilt, rather than one of innocence, and that I believe is not an approach we should adopt without the most careful consideration.
Several noble Lords raised the question of Sullom Voe and the serious problems that have been occurring there recently. At the beginning of this year there was a considerable public outcry because of pollution from oily balast water discharged by tankers using Sullom Voe. This was associated in the public mind with the fact that the ballast water reception facilities at Sullom Voe had not been commissioned, although tankers can be operated so as not to cause pollution even in the absence of such facilities. The terminal operators took action which put a stop to this practice close to the Shetlands, although, I fear, it has been alleged that the tankers are simply discharging their ballast water further south. The latest situation on the construction of the ballast water reception facility is that construction work and installation of equipment is now being finalised, and BP anticipate that they will he able to take over the entire plant by the end of June. They further anticipate that they will be able to treat all ballast water by September, when the new facility will be fully operational.

1315
The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, asked me about intervention on the high seas following a shipping accident. The international convention relating to intervention on the high sea in cases of oil pollution casualties, which I believe was signed in 1969 and came into force in 1975, affirms the right of a coastal State to take such measures on the high seas as may be necessary to prevent, mitigate, or eliminate the danger to its coastline or related interests from pollution by oil, or the threat of it, following a maritime casualty. I hope that that information is helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked me about routing of tankers to and from oil terminals. This is a matter which, for the moment at least, we think is best tackled on a voluntary basis in co-operation with the oil industry, and that is what we have in hand for the waters to the North of Scotland.
This has been an interesting and helpful debate. Again, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for introducing this topic to us this evening, and I hope that at least some of the answers that I have been able to give have been of some value.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to restrict reports of committal proceedings in magistrates' courts in cases where there is more than one defendant. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Wigoder.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

DEALINGS WITH WITNESSES BILL [H.L.]
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to prohibit certain dealings with witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Wigoder.)
On Question, Bill read la; and to be printed.

IPSWICH PORT AUTHORITY BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendments.
  NEW STATESMAN ARTICLE: "PENSIONS, PERKS AND THE PRINTERS"
  NEW STATESMAN ARTICLE: "PENSIONS, PERKS AND THE PRINTERS"
  WAR PENSIONERS: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE CHRISTMAS BONUS
  WAR PENSIONERS: ELIGIBILITY FOR THE CHRISTMAS BONUS
  TRADE UNIONS: IMMUNITY FROM COURT PROCEEDINGS
  TRADE UNIONS: IMMUNITY FROM COURT PROCEEDINGS
  THE HELSINKI CONFERENCE FINAL ACT: MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION
  THE HELSINKI CONFERENCE FINAL ACT: MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION
  EX-DETAINEES AND CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  EX-DETAINEES AND CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
  THE RHODESIAN ELECTION: CAMPAIGN FOR ABSTENTION
  THE RHODESIAN ELECTION: CAMPAIGN FOR ABSTENTION
  THE DISABLED: VEHICLE PARKING BADGES
  THE DISABLED: VEHICLE PARKING BADGES
  PLANNING INQUIRY DECISIONS AND SECRETARIES OF STATE
  PLANNING INQUIRY DECISIONS AND SECRETARIES OF STATE
  LAND RECLAMATION FUNDS
  LAND RECLAMATION FUNDS