My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, we believe that the likely extra costs of the new arrangements will be minimal, and this view is endorsed by the report of the working party which was set up to advise on the practicability of our proposals. The basis for this conclusion is the fact that only a tiny proportion (less than½ per cent.) of patients will be asked more than one extra question.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware—he has referred to the working party scheme —that it will require a special interview with an administrative grade officer and not just a clerical grade officer, and whether he expects no extra cost to arise from that? Furthermore, is he not aware that the working party stated, in paragraph 39, that in their opinion those hospitals where a large number of patients were liable to proceed to Stage 2 interviews would be likely to have to take on additional staff whom the working party were unable to quantify; and is this a satisfactory basis for a comprehensive scheme?

My Lords, the second interview to which the noble Lord referred in the first part of his supplementary question I would say only applies to a tiny percentage of the patients, and in our view the additional staff that may be required is minimal. I said this in my original Answer. I stand by what I have said: that the number of extra staff and hence the cost of the new scheme will be very tiny.

My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate to the House what would be the position of overseas students in this particular matter?

My Lords, in general, overseas students will be regarded as visitors, and therefore liable to pay the cost under this scheme; but certain transitional arrangements are being agreed and these will be published in regulations which will appear very shortly.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, whatever the cost, far too many people have clear examples of this service being abused for us to allow it to continue without being dealt with in some way?

My Lords, when the health service was set up in 1948—I think that was the time of the first legislation and there was subsequent legislation in 1949—it was clearly intended for the people of the United Kingdom, and not visitors.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister if he could explain to the House what is the position of those visitors to our country where their nations have reciprocal arrangements to tie in with our National Health Service, so that they receive certain benefits freely in this country and Britons visiting their countries equally may have free service?

My Lords, I can confirm that those visitors from countries with whom we have reciprocal arrangements—there are a number of them—will be exempt from charges.

My Lords, what is the position of students here on scholarships, particularly British Council scholarships, whose grants at the moment cover fees payable to the universities and the bare cost of their living expenses, but which do not take into account the burden of any additional medical expenses that may arise from this scheme?

My Lords, students from overseas will be regarded as visitors for the purpose of this scheme, but we hope that they will see fit to take out appropriate insurance to cover their medical costs.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the National Health Service was brought in it was not just a question of covering British people; the principle was that anybody taken ill within our shores would receive adequate medical attention irrespective of his or her means or colour? Are not the Government going contrary to the general spirit of the original health service? I would ask the noble Lord why the Government will not drop this scheme, which will cause a great deal of difficulty for the hospital administrative staff, while there is a danger of racialism creeping in, however unintended it may be.

My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord is mistaken. The 1949 Act which amended the 1948 Act took powers to make these charges by virtue of regulations which were authorised under the 1949 Act. Those regulations have not yet been implemented but we are now doing so.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will give the number of people who are likely to be affected by this scheme, in view of the widespread belief that a great deal of abuse is going on? May the House have the department's figure?

My Lords, I am not quite sure what figure it is that the noble Lord is seeking, but there are very many millions of visitors each year—I think in excess of 10 million—and it is thought that these regulations would apply to the bulk of them.

My Lords, can the Minister say how students can take out the insurance that he recommends if their grants from the British Council or other sources are not increased to enable them to do so?

My Lords, I imagine that the cost of insuring for a year, say, will be of the order of £100. I would not wish to minimise that amount for students who are here on grants from the British Council or elsewhere, but it is the case that most of those people would have to bear medical costs if they were at home, anyway.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether those people who are not covered by insurance and who come from overseas and have emergency problems will be covered free of charge?

My Lords, there will be no question of assessing the patient's ability to pay before offering treatment.

My Lords, is it not a fact that the bulk of the health service is paid for not out of insurance but out of taxation? Therefore a foreign visitor starts to pay for it every time he has a drink or buys a cigarette or anything which is subject to VAT?

My Lords, the noble Lord is partially correct. It is true to say that the health service is, generally speaking, funded from the main body of taxation, although there is an element from the national insurance contributions as well.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the principle of reciprocity which originated in the Council of Europe was agreed among nearly 18 European nations and was looked on as a remarkable, civilised advance? Is the noble Lord now saying with regard to those arrangements that they will be dishonoured by this Government?

No, my Lords; quite the contrary. All the reciprocal arrangements—and there are, so far as my memory serves me, about 20—will be honoured in full, including the special arrangement with countries of the European Community.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State said in another place that it is unlikely that the amount we shall receive back from hospital services will be less than £6 million? What weight is to be attached to the word "back"? Who is to get the money? Can the noble Lord assure the House that this is not simply a backdoor cut in National Health Service funding?

My Lords, indeed I can. The purpose of this scheme is essentially to recover the costs from patients who are not eligible for the free health service. That is why it has been brought forward at this time.

My Lords, will the noble Lord not rejoice with me that it is now possible to charge overseas visitors for this service, wheras under previous Administrations it was always stated that the cost of collecting this money was far more than the sum collected? Is he able to tell the House what has changed which makes it now possible to collect this sum? That would be extremely interesting.

My Lords, the noble Viscount will recall that there was a working party set up to look into this matter, and the new element, I suppose, is the report of that working party, which indicates, as I have said, that, whatever was thought previously, the costs of collection are now thought to be minimal.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

Yes, my Lords. The Government did consider such an arrangement, but it was ruled out on a number of grounds; not least the lack of the necessary statutory powers. It would furthermore have required the processing of all arriving passengers at the port of entry and the issue of 4 or 5 million documents per annum. The effects of such a scheme at Heathrow in mid-summer, for example, I leave to your Lordships' imagination.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that the past Secretary of State, Mr. Jenkin, and the present Secretary of State, Mr. Fowler, suggested at various times in speeches in another place that foreign visitors should simply take out insurance in their own countries against health risks? While this might seem to be a reasonable proposal, may I ask whether the Government have thought about the difficulty of recovering charges from people who may be running out of money and will want to refer the matter to their insurers before paying? Has the Minister thought of the likelihood of bad debts and the considerable administrative costs that could arise from these?

My Lords, it is the case that the bulk of the visitors to this country come not from the third world, a s is sometimes imagined, but from developed countries where insurance arrangements are in many cases well advanced and highly sophisticated. It is for that reason that we think that insurance is the best policy. As for bad debts, I suppose that it is true to say that anyone who actually sets out to cheat the health service, even when he has insurance, may occasionally find a way of doing so. But, in general, those who have insurance will, I am certain, be willing to meet the costs imposed upon them.

My Lords, have the British Council accepted the advice that the noble Lord gave that insurance should be taken out in respect of overseas students? If they have not done so, how is the extra £100 cost, which he said would fall on the average student for medical fees, going to be met? Is there going to be an increase in the amount of the grant to the British Council or has this £100 somehow to be found out of the sum already allocated to it for fees and maintenance? How can the sum of £100 be found out of such a vestigial amount that is already available?

My Lords, I do not accept the view that visitors to this country, be they students or any other, have to be fed with a spoon at every step of their existence from the moment that they step ashore to the moment that they leave again. The costs that would normally be incurred for the insurance that we have been discussing are comparatively small in connection with the total annual costs of staying in this country, including the fees, and I hope will not cause any significant difficulty.

My Lords, have the British Council taken the advice?

My Lords, this is not a matter for the British Council; it is a matter for the students themselves to decide how best to meet the costs that may fall upon them.

My Lords, regarding the idea of insurance, has the noble Lord taken into consideration the fact that health stamps, for example, might be sold over Post Office counters for variable periods of time? If he is not attracted to that idea, would it not be something that our own insurance market could take up for the benefit of the insurers in this country rather than overseas?

My Lords, I hope that British insurance companies will want to take this matter up. I would not rule out the possibility of insurance being available at ports of entry. The Question that I was answering was on the possibility of compulsory insurance being sold at ports of entry, and that presents the administrative difficulties to which I have referred. I see no objection to slot machines at points of arrival where people could purchase appropriate insurance. Indeed, I recall that when one is travelling abroad these days one can purchase insurance on departure for various purposes, in any event.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we received this morning a lecture on democracy and therefore on this basis every person coming to this country must face up to the fact that they must reach a decision on their own to meet a situation created by this very reactionary Government?

My Lords. I would put it round the other way. The fact is, of course, that when the health service was established in this country we were the forerunners of a scheme of that kind, and we had hoped that it would attract a wider following in the world at large than it in fact has. If every country had a scheme such as ours then we could doubtless have a reciprocal arrangement with every country and this difficulty would not arise.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that it is already getting more and more difficult for those of us who have to advise students over the country in they should take their degrees, to advise them to come to this country? Is he further aware that what he has said this afternoon makes it even more difficult to advise them, in comparison with the cost in other countries? Would he at least give us an assurance that he and his Ministry will consider whether students in this country should not be given exemption from this penalty?

My Lords, I would not describe it as a "penalty". We have certainly given very careful consideration to the position of students and the arrangements are to be as I have described. The fact is that students or others who come to this country seeking a totally free health service are seeking access to a service which is essentially designed and paid for by the resident population.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if it is the quality of the health service that brings students, there is no other country in the world, even when a scheme is in operation, which is superior to the one we offer to students when they come here?

My Lords, certainly our health service is something of which we can be rightly proud.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the widow of a serviceman is allowed to remain in married quarters for a minimum of six months.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him two questions? If hardship could be proved, would that rule be allowed to be waived? Also, is it possible for my noble friend to elaborate on whether there are any further benefits which the unhappy widow would be unable to obtain?

My Lords, my noble friend will have noticed the use of the words "minimum of six months". The services do extend that period if there is a need for it to be extended. If in the end a married quarter was very much needed and the widow still had not found a place to go to, I should point out that the local authority could be required to find a place. So far as other benefits are concerned, it may interest the House to know—and my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye asked me a question following a statement last week—that the widow of a serviceman gets full pay for 91 days if there are no children, and for 182 days where there are children. At the end of that period she receives two pensions: one from the Ministry of Defence and the other a war widow's pension from the Department of Health and Social Security. The latter is tax free. Both pensions are index linked. In addition, she is paid a substantial lump sum by the Ministry of 'Defence. Perhaps I could give an illustration of this because I think it would interest the House, especially in relation to the tragic situation of some families concerned with the South Atlantic. A widow of a petty officer would receive pensions totalling over £8,000 per annum and a lump sum of over £10,000.

My Lords, when my noble friend says that the local authority can be required to provide accommodation for the widow, does he mean only the local authority in the area where the widow was being housed by the services, or does he mean the local authority in an area where the widow wishes to go and live with her children?

My Lords, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord on that question; but I would point out that we do not envisage this situation arising to any great degree, bearing in mind the totality of the benefits and the fact that the six months period is a minimum. Indeed, it is perhaps doubtful whether it would ever arise, but I will let the noble Lord know about that.

My Lords, could the noble Viscount say at what point the local authority would be required to find alternative accommodation? Would he inquire into that as well when he is investigating his noble friend's point?

My Lords, I understand that this situation would only arise after the minimum period of six months, extended if the married quarters are not urgently required—which it would be. Only at that stage does the situation arise where, under our normal requirements on local authorities, they would be required to find accommodation. I want to assure the House that there really is not a chance of the widow of a serviceman being evicted in any cir- cumstances which can be foreseen as far as I can see at the present time.

My Lords, is there not some misunderstanding about the Question? The Minister referred to widows with children. On the other hand, the Question refers only to widows. Surely in the case of widows with children there can be no hard and fast rule'? It is not only a matter of how many children there may be, but the condition of the children has to be taken into account and whether they need health care or not. Moreover, there are a variety of other circumstances which might be involved.

My Lords, I did not in fact mention children in relation to the accommodation question. I mentioned children in relation to the length of period for which the widow receives full pay after her husband is killed. Only in that context is there a difference. There is no difference in relation to accommodation. The full pay continues for 91 days if she has no children, and for 182 days if there are children.

My Lords, we have already spent 20 minutes on three Questions and I think really we ought not to take more than three further supplementary questions. I suggest that we take supplementaries from the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, from my noble friend Lord Balfour and my noble friend Lady Macleod. Then I suggest that we should move on to the next Question.

My Lords, would the noble Viscount be kind enough to explain further the mechanism whereby a local authority could be required to provide a place, bearing in mind that some local authorities do not have any places to provide?

My Lords, I realise that this is not an instantaneous solution, but neither is the question of requiring the widow's accommodation an instantaneous one.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will accept grateful thanks for all the information he has given arising from my previous reply? May I ask him this: would he possibly consider summarising, perhaps in an official report, all the concessions and benefits which a widow gets, coupl ed with those which would go to her in respect of her children? In that way the House would get a wide view not only of the residential benefit but of other forms of benefit which we try to give to those who are deprived of their husbands.

My Lords, perhaps we might look at the official record. I think I have covered the vast majority of it, but if I find on consulting my officers that I have not, I will certainly find a way of doing what my noble friend suggests.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether the £1 0,000 lump sum is taxable?

My Lords, I will have to look at that and let my noble friend have the answer later. I believe it to be tax free, but I will confirm that.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I regret that information in the form requested is not available centrally and would be disproportionately costly to collect. Capital expenditure on existing staff accommodation of all kinds amounted to £13 million in 1979–80 and £17 million in 1980–81. The importance of adequate residential accommodation for nursing staff is always recognised in any scheme to build a new hospital or to upgrade existing hospitals.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his helpful reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that there are many overseas nurses working in our National Health Service whose home, literally, is a nurses' home? Will he bear that in mind in the context of this Question? May I further ask him whether, in the case of nurses who live out, there can be some arrangement for rent allowance or some other allowance, bearing in mind the quite proper severance on nurses' pay at the present time, to give them at least some help in the present very difficult conditions in which nurses live?

My Lords, if I may deal first with the second part of my noble friend's supplementary question, this is a matter which the Nurses' and Midwives' Whitley Council are at present considering. As my noble friend will recall, it was decided as far back as 1980 that we should progressively increase lodging charges for nurses, and we are about halfway through that process now. Thus, when the charges are fully implemented, which will be in 1984, I think that the question of a rent allowance will not then arise.

My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, thanked him for his helpful reply when, in point of fact, he did not get a reply to his Question? Secondly, can the Minister state whether this information is actually in the Department of Health and Social Security? It must be. Local health authorities have the information and they must be aware of it. I do not see how cost comes into it, when the information is there.

My Lords, the fact is that schemes of this nature which are expected to cost less than £5 million do not require specific approval by the department, provided, of course, that they are contained within the general budget of the region or the district. That is the reason why we do not keep detailed statistics in the way that my noble friend has asked. There are, of course, 15 regional health authorities and, I think, approaching 200 district health authorities under the regions, and it is for that further reason that we do not have the details which are asked for.

My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance to the House that, when the report of the joint committee is presented to the Government, they will accept it?

My Lords, I am sorry that I am not quite certain to which joint committee the noble Lord is referring.

My Lords, the noble Lord referred to joint negotiations going on, from which there will be a recommendation. May I ask whether the Government will accept it?

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstands the purpose and the nature of the Whitley Councils, which are negotiating bodies, with both workers' and management representatives on them. The Government are not concerned in the Whitley Councils.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the context——

My Lords, I should like to come back to the noble Lord and to his reply to me about the difficulty of getting the required information. He said that there were 200 district health authorities and 15 regional health authorities, so that makes 215 circulars that could go out asking people to give the requisite information, which should be quite simple.

My Lords, as I think I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, on an earlier occasion, the National Health Service is not a marionette controlled on strings by my right honourable friend from the Elephant and Castle. We are determined to give the regions and the districts autonomy in running their own affairs, and that is why we do not seek to dig up the plant and look at the roots as often as has been done on previous occasions.

My Lords, are not these mixed metaphors getting a little dangerous? We are digging up plants, we are marionettes and we are Elephants and Castles. What are we?

My Lords, I will choose my metaphors more carefully in future.

My Lords, is the noble Lord, the Minister, aware that, irrespective of where they live, whether privately or in homes provided by the hospital, the real burden that is afflicting British nurses at the moment is the grave difficulty which they are experiencing in trying to make ends meet? Will he do his best to resolve that problem as early as possible?

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says, but that is a different question.

My Lords, may I ask one very quick question? May I ask the Minister whether, in the planning of nurses' homes, any accommodation is being planned for married couples, because many nurses marry very young now and many more men have come into the profession?

My Lords, I think I am right in saying that accommodation attached to hospitals, nursing homes and the like, is for single people. I will write to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. In fact, the detailed guidance for these purposes is contained in Hospital Building Note No. 24, of which I can perhaps send a copy to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Versailles Summit. It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Report stage of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for a short period.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manu-script amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 3, at end insert—

(" ( ) The Secretary of State shall not give consent to any disposal of shares in an equity oil subsidiary unless a participation agreement has been signed between the Oil Corporation and the relevant subsidiary which secures that there is no reduction in the participation oil rights given to the Oil Corporation under licences granted in the 5th and 6th rounds.").

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. We have been told from time to time by the Government that they will protect participation rights, but I am still not clear how such rights are to be protected in relation to the fifth and sixth round licences. I have studied very carefully the papers, both at Second Reading and during the Committee stage. It may be my fault, but I have been unable to discover the means by which the Government propose to protect those rights. I submit that the House is entitled to more information than has already been given.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has said, the protection of these licences, which is the substantive object of the amendment, arises from the equity holding. These licences appear to be underpinned by the ownership by BNOC of 51 per cent. of the equity holding. If, therefore, there is to be a sale of the shares, it is not clear to us on these Benches what the position is. May I therefore ask the Government one question: can they at this stage say whether any arrangements, formal or informal, have already been made in respect of these licences when it is intended to sell the shares? As my noble friend Lord Tanlaw indicated during the Committee stage—he is sorry that for other reasons he is quite unable to be here today—we on these Benches are interested in the mechanism which the Government are to use in relation to these participation agreements under the fifth and the sixth rounds if the shares are to be sold.

My Lords, I suppose that the amendment has two objectives: first, to ensure that there are proper participation arrangements covering BNOC's present equity interests in the fifth and sixth round licences. There are no participation agreements as such in these rounds because BNOC has equivalent equity interests. So the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, an aim which we share, is to ensure that participation policy does not suffer as a result of the transfer of those equity interests to Britoil—because that is what we are talking about. Secondly, the amendment seeks to ensure that these participation arrangements are in place before the sale of shares in Britoil.

In the view of the Government, this amendment is unnecessary. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that he hoped it was one which the Government could accept, and he gave—I think for the third time during the consideration of the Bill—his definition of the word "privatise". We had a reasonably full debate on amendments which were very similar in effect, if not in drafting, during the Committee stage, but I think I made plain on that occasion that BNOC will be concluding participation arrangements with Britoil which in respect of the fifth and the sixth rounds will leave the public sector, in terms of access to oil, no worse off than it would have been had participation operated for these rounds as it has been operating for earlier rounds.

For the fifth and sixth round licences, depending on the specific provisions applying to each licence, the agreement will secure, in general, access to 51 per cent. of the total output from each licence. This may require BNOC to have the option to take a higher percentage than 51 per cent. of Britoil's oil. This will put BNOC's participation arrangements for the fifth and sixth rounds on the same footing as those for the first to fourth round licences. And all existing participation agreements will of course remain undisturbed with BNOC.

Turning to the second objective, we have considered carefully the need to have participation agreement in place before the flotation of Britoil. This has always been our intention, but to ensure that this is the case we are proposing to amend Clause 2. In fact, Amendment No. 9, to which we shall come, will establish beyond doubt that participation arrangements between Britoil and BNOC can be put in place as part of the scheme transferring the assets and liabilities to Britoil. I can assure noble Lords opposite that the amendment which I shall be moving in relation to Clause 2 will enable participation to be included in the statutory scheme. I can, of course, explain that amendment with rather greater detail when we come to it. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will see that there is not very much between the two sides of the House so far as the objectives are concerned, and I hope he will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would he be good enough to tell me which amendment he is going to propose which will cover the matter we have raised with this amendment?

Amendment No. 9, my Lords.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having gone into such detail. He will appreciate that we shall have to examine the full impact of Amendment No. 9, which he will be good enough to explain at a later stage, with a view to seeing whether it does in fact cover the point that we have in mind. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why the noble Earl will not accept the amendment, since he has informed us that he intends to do precisely what we want him to do. I gather that that was the purpose of his reply to me this afternoon. The amendment would throughly underpin and clarify the situation—and Acts of Parliament are not always self-explanatory to people outside the legal profession, let alone those within it.

The noble Earl has been most co-operative in his reply. What 1 therefore propose to advise my colleagues is that we should wait to see exactly how the noble Earl explains the operation of Amendment No. 9 in relation to the particular problems that have been posed by our Amendment No. 1, and see whether in our view his explanation measures up or does not. These things are sometimes a matter of detailed technical and legal argument. Legal opinion is by no means unanimous on quite a number of problems. There are legal views for one construction, legal views for another construction, and on accasions, I regret to say, there are legal views for no construction. So, if we are not thoroughly satisfied, we shall have to look at it again and reserve our position for raising the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, with the leave of the House, I wish to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 10, at end insert (" and after the laying of an order before Parliament together with an accompanying memorandum setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made.").

My Lords, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, indicated, what his amendment seeks to do is to introduce another layer of parliamentary procedure before the Secretary of State could give his consent to BNOC disposing of shares in Britoil. I am as anxious as any noble Lord to see a proper level of parliamentary accountability established for the disposal of Britoil, but I really cannot accept that the proposed additional order is necessary, and I think that in the terms expressed in the amendment in fact it would be wrong to accede to such an order.

We debated in Committee an amendment which was pretty similar to this one—Amendment No. 7. I waited with interest, if not with bated breath, to see whether the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would produce some new arguments which had not been deployed by his noble friend Lord Bishopston or his noble friend Lord Underhill on the last occasion, and I even waited to see whether he would try to demolish the arguments which I produced when answering that debate. But I fear that I waited in vain. Therefore, what I intend to do is to try to say, a little differently and quite shortly, how the Government view this matter and then to hope that in fact the noble Lord in his usual logical way will come round to the Government's point of view.

We have made it abundantly clear now for a very long time that we intend to transfer BNOC's oil-producing business to Britoil and that our initial aim is to sell 51 per cent. of the shares in the new company. On the matter of the timing, we have said that Britoil will be sold this year unless market conditions in the autumn are such that there is a convincing case for delaying until next year. I made this policy quite clear in my speech on Second Reading, but of course it has been very well known for several months, having been announced I think as far back as October last year. So if Parliament gives approval to the Bill, it will be fully aware of how we intend to implement our policy towards BNOC.

When one has a flotation of this nature there will be a number of decisions as to the exact timing, for instance, of the sale of Britoil, which can only be taken nearer the time. I submit that, against the background of policy approval, it is perfectly reasonable for such decisions to be left to the discretion of the Government. It cannot be right, speaking commercially, to accept this amendment. It is of the nature of any commercial transaction of this kind that much detailed and careful work, particularly of a legal and accounting nature, has to be carried out. A detailed report will be prepared on the oil assets of Britoil by independent petroleum engineers. There will be a prospectus which will have to he published at the time of the offer and that will include an appraisal of the principal assets of the company. This will be carefully considered in the light of the legal responsibilities which all those involved in the offer, not least the Secretary of State and the directors of Britoil, will bear for it.

What happens if this amendment were accepted? I suggest that such a course would be quite wrong because we would be anticipating the prospectus by publishing a memorandum proposed in this amendment which would include the terms on which the disposal has to be made. Indeed, for this information to become available before the shares are sold would be harmful to our objective of obtaining a fair price for the nation—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, emphasised—at the time when the shares are sold. It could also have the effect of misleading prospective shareholders and prejudicing the prospects of a successful sale.

I said on the last occasion, and it remains the fact, that the Government's handling of the sale of shares will be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in common with any other exercise such as this. I made that plain in Committee. We have made our policy abundantly clear and there is but one final point. I wondered whether, in fact, we were setting some precedent which might be undesirable. In 1977 the last Labour Administration sold off some of the Government's stake in BP. The 67 million shares attracted applications for 315 million shares. They opened at an initial premium of 68p rising to 85p on the second day. The difference between the sum realised and the value put on the shares by the market was therefore around £50 million in 1977 money, and the difference is really no indication of proceeds foregone by the taxpayer as a result of the action of the past Government, as is the differential in the case of Amersham International, which the noble Lord quoted. I think that I can sum up the case as regards Amersham International by saying that it is very easy to be wise after the event, and in any flotation such as that, that is the fate that can overcome those who organise the flotation.

My Lords, I do not want to delay the House because we want to get the business going quickly, but I do not think that the point has been met at all. With all due respect, the noble Earl is dealing with the attitude towards private enterprise. My point is that we are dealing with oil, which is a completely different commodity, essential to the nation's strength, essential to the nation's defence, and we should know where the sources, the shares, and association go. Transnational firms could take part in these shares and once again break sanctions imposed on a country such as Argentina if there is a long period of activity or hostility against it. None of that has been taken into account. So far the debate has been long. We are taking such an opposite view to that of Canada, to that of West Germany and to that of democratic countries throughout Europe which are interested in oil. I have said enough, but what I say stands and I believe it to he true.

My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord was asking me something before I sat down. If I may disregard the Second Reading part of his remarks, this amendment deals with a flotation of shares and whether or not there is to be an extra layer of parliamentary scrutiny before the shares arc eventually floated off. With respect, that is the question to which the House must address itself.

What I have sought to say on two occasions now is that everything that is being done will receive the proper scrutiny, but there comes a time when a Government have made it perfectly plain on matters upon which they intend to act, that one must seek to end scrutiny and the executive must be allowed to get on with the things which it has said it will do.

My Lords, unless someone else says something, I have to put the Question.

My Lords, I do not want to delay the Statement, which is about to he made, and I thought that after discussions through the usual channels I should be speaking after the Statement. Therefore, I apologise if I am now delaying this Statement, but it is not due to my own wishes. From time to time I have listened to the observations made by the noble Earl the Minister about his objections to this amendment. We on these Benches believe this to be a reasonable amendment. It gives Parliament a chance to consider and, if necessary, introduce some checking and balances. I should have thought that when one is disposing of valuable assets of this kind an amendment of this order should be in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has referred to the Amersham flotation. I shall not take up the time of this House at this stage by referring to the very critical statements made of the action of the Government in the report of the PAC and in other places as to the Government's procedures in this matter. Looking at it from the commercial background to which the Minister referred, I can see no real harm arising, no lengthy delays, and no commercial loss arising if the procedures proposed in this amendment are adopted. It is surely accepted, when dealing with disposal of shares of this kind, that what is needed is greater accountability, and I should have thought that the Government would like to support the adoption of at least the basic theme of this amendment.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and I bow to his knowledge on these matters, does he think that the submission of the Amersham issue to parliamentary debate would have helped the procedure at all? The decision on the value of the shares at issue is a highly sophisticated process. It involves some judgment of the market and is hardly the kind of subject that lends itself to parliamentary debate. Under these circumstances, I, at least, and I suspect those on these Benches, would not support the amendment.

My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is asking me a question and whether I have the leave of the House to make some observation in reply, but at this stage I shall not be led into the trap of discussing the position in relation to the Amersham matter. I spoke at considerable length when powers were given to the Government to dispose of the Amersham shares, and it would be quite wrong of me to detain the House on an interesting discussion of the sort precipitated by the noble Lord.

My Lords, I would not wish to detain the House from dealing with the next business, which I assume will be the Statement to which reference has already been made this afternoon. However, this is a matter which we regard as being of some importance. We do not take the view of the noble Earl. that the publication of an order, with the memorandum to which we have referred in the amendment, would in any way prejudice the issue of the correct prospectus in due course. Obviously, the prospectus itself goes into a whole series of legal and contractual matters as well as highly sophisticated accounting matters which are required under those particular circumstances. However, I doubt whether any memorandum issued by a Government could be misleading in its effect or have any extreme impact upon the prospectus itself, unless the Government were capable of issuing frivolous memoranda which bore no relation to the matters that were ultimately dealt with in the prospectus or in the accountant's report.

Therefore, I do not see the logic of the noble Earl's argument. But I am anxious not to delay the House. I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. We shall find it necessary to return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, with the leave of the House, I bet., leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the economic summit at Versailles which she and my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended from 4th to 6th June. The Statement is as follows:

" The Heads of State or Government of the seven principal industrial countries were present, and the European Community was represented by the Prime Minister of Belgium, which at present holds the Presidency in the Community, and by the President of the Commission.

" The conference was agreed on what was needed for sound economic management and for achieving a well-based recovery from world recession. This solidarity extended to the political field also and in particular to the Falklands dispute. Our discussions placed emphasis on the value of medium and longer term policies and were notable for their continuity with the economic policies advocated at earlier summits.

" I have placed in the Library of the House the declaration issued at the end of the summit setting out lines of action which we shall follow. We agreed that growth and employment would be increased on a lasting basis only if we were successful in our continuing fight against inflation, which would then help to bring down interest rates and lead to more stable exchange rates. To that end we all agreed to pursue prudent monetary policies and to reduce budgetary deficits. Recognising a joint responsibility to work for greater stability in the world monetary system, we issued a statement of international monetary undertakings.

" Believing in the need to expand world trade, we reaffirmed our commitment to strengthen the open trading system as embodied in GATT and to work towards the further opening of markets.

" With regard to trade with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we agreed to work for improved arrangements for the control of exports of strategic goods; to exchange information on all aspects of economic, commercial and financial relations with these countries; and to exercise commercial prudence in limiting export credits for them.

" The statement of monetary undertakings to which I have referred was one example of a medium term policy supported by the summit. Another medium term theme was the necessity to exploit the immense opportunities presented by the new technologies if we are to create the jobs of tomorrow. It is significant that those countries represented at Versailles which have the lowest inflation and the latest technology are those which have the lowest unemployment rates. We agreed to set up a working group to pursue these technological matters and to submit a report by the end of the year, which could be considered at the next economic summit to be held in 1983 in the United States.

" The Heads of State and Government spent some time discussing relations with the developing world. The growth of the developing countries and the deepening of a constructive relationship with them are vital for the political and economic wellbeing of the whole world. The launching of gobal negotiations in the United Nations is a major political objective approved by all the participants in the summit. At the same time we recognised that although the United Nations can make requests to the specialised agencies, like the IMF and the World Bank, it cannot give them instructions.

" The Heads of State and Government also agreed to give special encouragement to programmes or arrangements designed to increase food and energy production in developing countries which have to import these essentials and to programmes to address the implications of population growth.

" Mr. Speaker, we naturally discussed the situation in the South Atlantic. I set out the British position in detail. As the House knows, British forces in the Falklands are preparing to repossess Port Stanley. The Secretary General of the United Nations and certain members of the Security Council have proposed various formulations for a cease-fire. None provides the unequivocal link between an immediate Argentine withdrawal and a cease-fire which is the only basis on which we could agree to a cease-fire. The Government have made it clear publicly that if the Argentines tell us that they are prepared to withdraw, we shall enable them to do so with safety, dignity and despatch. So far, we have had no positive response.

" I am glad to say that there was agreement among the Heads of State and Government at Versailles on all the essential points of the British position. This was underlined unequivocally by President Mitterand in his Press Conference at the end of the meeting.

" We also spent some time on East/West relations. A number of us will be attending the NATO summit starting tomorrow and speaking later this month at the Second United Nations Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament.

" Finally, we discussed the very serious situation in the Middle East. Following a personal request from the Secretary General of the United Nations, the conference issued a declaration of support for the resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council on 5th June. This is being followed up by intense diplomatic activity by all participants, in particular the United States, designed to reestablish the cease-fire and restore the territorial integrity of Lebanon. I have placed a copy of the summit's declaration in the Library.

" Mr. Speaker, all the Heads of State and Government who took part in this conference were grateful to President Mitterand for giving us an invaluable opportunity to discuss the economic and political problems facing us today. Our talks were notable for two characteristics: a strong sense of continuity and an encouraging measure of solidarity about our approach to the major issues of the future. We shall be successful in dealing with those issues only if we pursue sustained and co-operative policies. The meeting at Versailles made a significant contribution to that goal."

My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. Rather than making a general comment, may I put some questions to her straight away. On the economic and industrial front, can the noble Baroness state rather more specifically what steps were proposed to deal with unemployment in the Community, which stands at the appalling figure of over 30 million? For many of us this should have been a central point of discussion. Can the noble Baroness say what measures will be taken to reduce the figure?

We note what the noble Baroness has said about reductions in interest rates. Can she indicate what impact this may have on industrial activity within the Community? Can she further say how a stable relationship between the world's major currency groups is to be achieved following the summit? On the important question of East/West trade, about which the United States is clearly concerned, can the noble Baroness explain more fully what the communiquê means when it refers to the financial relations with the USSR and the East European countries being handled "cautiously"?

About the Falklands, can the noble Baroness say whether the Prime Minister's European colleagues urged her to table a further resolution at the Security Council setting out the British conditions for negotiations? Can she say whether there were any offers of a wider international involvement for the future administration of the islands, and whether she was urged to provide an alternative to unconditional surrender for the Argentines?

We on these Benches find this a rather discouraging Statement, but we should like particularly to pay a tribute, as the noble Baroness has done, to President Mitterrand for his constructive approach, particularly to the problems of the third world. May I say that on the Middle East crisis we of course support the Security Council resolution calling for an immediate end to the fighting by all the parties involved. We support the maintenance of the Lebanon as an independent, sovereign and united state.

My Lords, we also would like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important statement. On the general economic side, I must say one sometimes has the rather despairing impression that these now fairly frequent and very high level meetings are of questionable utility. They always seem to result in expressions of admirable intention but the world economic situation never seems to get any better as a result. Inflation may have been halted to some extent in some countries but, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has just said, unemployment goes roaring on. The recession, in other words, shows hardly any signs of clearing up.

Everything in practice—I do not know whether the Government agree; I hope they do—seems to depend not on general statements by the leaders but on the monetary policy pursued by the United States, which has an immense effect, of course, on the whole industrialised world. Some people have very little confidence in that policy. Piling up immense and apparently uncontrollable deficits resulting from a considerable relaxation of taxation and vastly increased expenditure on nuclear weapons, all seem inevitably to result in increased and very high interest rates, which can hardly be said, taken as a whole, to be a cure for the world's economic ills. I do not know whether the Government agree with that in any way, but I suspect that they do.

On East/West relations I think we can all welcome the improved arrangements for the control and export of strategic goods, and more especially prudence in limiting export credits. This is something which my party here has been urging for years and years. But I note that in a statement outside the meeting President Mitterrand said that all would depend on everybody agreeing to apply the suggested rules. In the past they never have.

On the third world, I think we can all certainly welcome the programmes designed to increase food and energy production generally. But what pro- grammes are these? Could the noble Baroness tell us exactly what programmes are meant? Can we read them? Are they going to be published? It is an important matter.

On the Falklands, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that President Mitterrand's statement was very helpful, and he deserves all our thanks; and I think the House will agree that a ceasefire must coincide with the withdrawal of Argentine troops, or at any rate a declared intention to withdraw. But again I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that that is only the first stage. Much more important after that is how we are going to end the war; and on that we really would like some expression of Governmental intention. Finally, on the Middle East, yes, but apart from the intense diplomatic activities going on—and I quite agree with that—what is going to happen? What are the seven nations going to do? What are their representatives in the United Nations going to do? How will the Security Council give effect to its demand—and we understand it will be a demand—for Israeli withdrawal? The United Nations should not, if a valid resolution is passed to that effect, be in the position of having to declare its impotence. At least as regards the Falklands it passed an admirable resolution but, as we all know, it allowed one of its members to carry it out.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords, Lord Peart and Lord Gladwyn, for their comments on the Statement. They asked a number of questions dealing with a wide range of subjects and I shall do my best to answer them. The first question, to which they both referred, was the whole sphere of unemployment, which we all recognise as being a serious matter; there are now approximately 10 million unemployed in the European Economic Community, but the number of course is higher for the seven summit nations. We have accepted that today's unemployment, deeply regrettable though it is, is the price we have to pay for allowing inflation to continue for so long in the past. We are glad to note that most forecasters expect resumed growth in activity in summit countries later this year and next, and that at least should help to halt the rise in unemployment. We therefore regard attempts to bring down inflation as most important and it is therefore good news that inflation has been reduced to single figures on average in the summit countries, that there has been realism, which is growing, in wage settlements, that the United States, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom all have settlements in single figures and that our inflation rate is now down to single figures.

Regarding high interest rates, concern has been expressed about that, and at the summit conference the fact that the United States was making progress in reducing its inflation was applauded and it was recognised that the interests of everyone would be met if the United States could achieve a decisive break in inflation. Nevertheless, the continued high United States interest rates were a legitimate international concern in view of the dollar's weight in world financial markets. President Reagan is well aware of the concern and shares it on domestic grounds, and he is continuing to seek early agreement by Congress on the budget, putting the deficit on a downward path. That, we believe, would have an important effect on confidence and help to bring down interest rates, which we hope would lead to lower rates of inflation and so to an improvement in the economies of the countries.

There is in the Library the Statement on the international monetary undertakings, a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who asked what it would mean. It is not a major change of policy by anyone but, depending in effect on what we can make of it, it could be the start of a gradual move to greater stability. What is new is that the major countries should accept so explicit a responsibility for the international monetary system.

Both noble Lords asked about East-West trade and in particular about financial relations with Russia and Eastern Europe. As the communiqué—which has also been placed in the Library—indicates, we have agreed with our partners on the need for caution in our financial relations with those countries, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, remarked on the need for commercial prudence in limiting export credits.

On the Falkland Islands, we were all very grateful indeed for the statement by M. Mitterand at the end of the conference giving us such staunch support for our policies on the Falkland Islands and summing up the support of the countries present. Regarding the present position, it would be right to say that our first concern must be the repossession of the Falkland Islands, and we must concentrate on that end. We have been very grateful for the strong co-operation we have also had from the United States, and that support continues. I think it would be wrong for me to comment at this stage on any further policies which may emerge after the Falklands have been repossessed.

Finally, on the Middle East, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked a series of questions, and I would say first that we were associated with the Statement which was put out from Versailles on 6th June. We voted for Security Council Resolutions Nos. 508 and 509. The latter demands Israeli withdrawal from the Lebanon and that all parties should observe the cease-fire called for in No. 508. We regard it as a matter of great regret that Israel has failed to comply with that. It is obviously a most serious situation.

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on answering so many of the great mass of questions asked by the previous two speakers. I have only two, one of which is rhetorical and I will put that first. Is it not clearer every day that the only wise course in this world at the moment is to obey the relevant United Nations resolutions, and that Argentina must withdraw from the Falklands and Israel must withdraw from the Lebanon? Secondly, may I ask the Leader of the House to comment on the distinction between unconditional surrender—which it seemed to me the Leader of the Labour Opposition was accusing the Government of demanding—and simple departure? Is there not a great distinction between, on the one hand, putting up a white flag, seeing your soldiers rounded up, having them processed, put into different clothes and taken away in the enemy's ships, which is surrender, and, in the case of the simple departure, sailing away in your own ships, in your own uniform, in your own time and in a dignified manner?

My Lords, the answer to the first part of that supplementary is Yes. The answer to the second part is that I should prefer not to comment. I would only say that it is our intention to repossess the Falkland Islands.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for the Statement, may I ask one question directed towards the economic front? The world is still suffering, despite fluctuations from time to time, from the scourge of inflation; and we have no viable international monetary system. So long as that continues, it will be impossible, in the long run, to stop world inflation continuing. The only way out is to give money, as such, some value; so long as it remains worthless, the problem will remain insoluble, and my complaint is that the summit conference did nothing to resolve that problem. The easiest way out would be for the United States to lead us all back to a gold exchange standard, with flexible exchange rates and a price for bullion fixed from time to time, in accordance with reality, by the IMF, though there are other possibilities of giving value to money. Can the Leader of the House say whether the Governments concerned will give further consideration to this vital problem? So long as the international monetary system remains in a state of chaos, we cannot really bring inflation under control.

My Lords, to answer the first point raised in what I think the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, intended to be a question, we are all agreed that the rate of inflation should be brought down. To answer his second point—his view that we should return, if I understood him correctly, either to the dollar being a major currency or go back on to some form of the gold standard—I do not think we could put the clock back. What the economic summit did in the last few days was set out in the Statement on the international monetary undertakings.

As I have already said in answer to a question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, although there is not a major change of policies, we think that there will be a gradual move to some form of greater stability. The important part of the Statement is that which relates to the agreement on future co-operation by the IMF, by us and the four other countries responsible for currencies in the special drawing rights, and that this will develop the IMF's role further for surveillance of economic policies in the way first proposed by the Chancellor at the IMF annual meeting last September. It is something which aims to achieve a greater stability, but it is of course a long, slow, process.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the summit confined itself on the Middle East to diplomatic activities and to endorsing the United Nations resolution? Did no one, for example, suggest to President Reagan that the Americans might make their lavish provision of money and arms to Israel conditional on the observance by the Begin régime of civilised international conduct?

My Lords, the summit was primarily an economic conference, but of course political issues were raised as well. Clearly one of these was the situation in the Middle East, and I would not wish to go beyond the point that. I have made—that what we should like to see, as I think other noble Lords have already indicated, is the United Nations' resolution fulfilled. That would mean that there would be a cease-fire in what is clearly a dangerous situation.

My Lords, subject to later scrutiny, is it not clear that the Statement really affirms the continuation of policies which have caused an amount of havoc in creating unemployment, cutting down the growth of the national economies?

My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite hear the end of Lord Balogh's question. However, I hope that I understood him correctly and that he was asking whether the economic summit endorsed a continuation of policies that had given rise to unemployment. We believe—and I think that this was recognised by all other countries—that the very regrettable level of unemployment has been the price that we have had to pay for a long period of inflation in the past, and it is the getting down of inflation which should be our first concern.

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister questions on two matters on which there appeared to be some disagreement. I should like to say that I am delighted that there was so much agreement among the parties concerned, and we very much welcome these kind of regular meetings of Heads of State, which can do only good, though they may not produce dramatic and revolutionary changes overnight. The two issues on which there appeared to be some divergence of view occur in relation to East-West trade, in which it appears that the European countries take a less rigid view of trading relationships with the Soviet Union than does the United States. The words quoted in the Statement arc that in future ECGD arrangements commercial prudence would be observed. It might be interesting to get a clearer definition of what is "commercial prudence". I mention this because if we take a specific issue on this—the Soviet-European gas pipe-line, on which John Brown Engineering is sitting on an order of £100 million, at Clydebank, incidentally—it might be interesting to know whether the gas pipe-line was specifically referred to and whether that is within the terms of "commercial prudence ", since it is obviously very important in terms of employment.

The other issue was referred to by President Mitterrand in his opening Statement in regard to high technology and the welcome of exchanges of research and ideas on high technology. He said that investment in high technology requires some stable financial system and a general reduction in interest rates. There appeared to be a divergence of view as to whether reduction in interest rates would be arranged by some Government intervention, which is the Mitterrand view, or through market forces making an effect, which is the United States' view. I wonder what is the view of the Government in relation to achieving financial stability and some reasonable interest rates, and I also wonder whether they take the Mitterrand view that Government intervention may be necessary in this field.

My Lords, if I may, I should like to reply to the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in the reverse order to that in which he asked them. On the question of new technology, it is true that President Mitterrand stressed the important role of new technology and said that a working group will prepare a report for consideration at the next economic summit. We have welcomed the initiatives taken by President Mitterrand in this field, which we believe is a very important one in generating both growth and new employment. However, we believe that the industrial structures of our country must in the last resort be those which will be determined by industrialists and by the demands of the market. They cannot, in fact, be determined by a committee. On the question of export credit to the USSR, inevitably there are some differences of emphasis between the different countries, but there has now been broad agreement, and there is to be further discussion with the United States on the whole question of credit to Eastern Europe and to Russia.

My Lords, may I point out to the noble Baroness that unless my hearing is deficient, she has not answered the two questions that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, put to her about the plans for food and aid in the third world? May I add a third question to those questions? In the Statement there are the usual bromides, such as we had last year from Venice and from Cancun, about the necessity for growth in the third world, and the im-portance of growth and so on. If that is not hypocrisy, can the noble Baroness tell the House what the British Government are specifically proposing and what they proposed at Versailles in order to get the third world out of the deep slough of depression, which is so much greater than, and is causing so much more suffering than, it is in the industrial world? The proposals—and I should like her opinion of this—may very well be the key to the end of the depression in the industrialised world, if the third world is given the purchasing power to lower unemployment rates.

The third question that I would add to those questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is whether at Versailles the British Government promised to maintain their percentage contribution to the IDA (the International Development Agency) which is the organisation for "soft" loans? I ask that question because it is now apparent that although the United States has this year tragically, drastically reduced its subscription to the IDA, that no longer necessitates the other donors reducing their proportion by the same amount. Are the British Government going to maintain their percentage contribution to the IDA during this year in order to give some reality to the phrase used in the Statement about the necessity for growth in third world countries?

My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, if I did not answer his question about the third world, and I will try to answer it in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. On the question of third world countries, yes, of course, this was a matter which was discussed, and it is in fact important to see what the seven countries can do to help them. I have already drawn attention to what is said in the Statement about the declaration as to the launching of global negotiations. I hope there will soon he consultations with the Group of 77, leading at last to the opening of global negotiations; and we have made the proviso that the independence of the specialised bodies—that is, the IMF, the World Bank and GATT—is guaranteed.

The two priority subjects are food and energy, but the mechanisms in this respect are still under discussion. As to the third point about which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked, which was about IDA, I should like to confirm that we want to ensure that adequate funds are available for IDA, which is an important form of finance for the poorest countries. I can confirm to the noble Lord that we were the first of the major donors to waive the pro rata provision for the second annual contribution to the sixth replenishment of IDA, and we are encouraging others to do the same.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 10, at end insert—

("( ) The Secretary of State shall not give consent pursuant to subsection (2) above unless he has submitted to Parliament the Articles of Association of any equity oil subsidiary to which his consent shall apply.").

My Lords, we had an interesting debate on the articles of Britoil at some of the earlier sessions on the Bill. It was a well-informed debate. Noble Lords obviously had looked at the articles, as had the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The articles have been available since early March. Therefore, I must say that I was slightly surprised to see this particular amendment put down in the way that it was, in effect to make it a condition of the Secretary of State's consent to a disposal of shares by BNOC that the articles should be submitted to Parliament. I should have said that we had already fulfilled that condition. If it is the submission of the noble Lord, (as I think it is) that when he used the words "submit to Parliament" he means that Parliament should nit-pick over all the articles in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe—who I am sorry to see is not in his place—would deprecate, then I adopt the same view as Lord Taylor.

We have the articles as they stand and any changes which Britoil wish to make to them are likely to be technical. We have set out the objectives that the articles, particularly those concerned with control, are to achieve and we believe that they provide effective safeguards. I do not believe, bearing in mind the complexity and length of the document, that the final version will be substantially different from the one we have already debated. Once the articles are adopted they will be subject to public inspection just like the articles of any other limited company, and, for the reasons I have given, I do not believe it is at all suitable for articles to be submitted to the Parliamentary process, and still less for a second time.

In order to estimate what worth there is in the noble Lord's submission, one must try to look at the dangers that it is sought to provide for. What happens if there are attempts to obtain control of Britoil, although there would be a sharing of 50 per cent. or less? First, there would have to be control of the board or its composition, and that will be fundamental to any attempt to take effective control of the company. A predator, if I may so describe such a person or organisation, if he were seeking to obtain control of the company through a shareholding as I have described, would be caught under Article 71(b) as soon as he made any attempt to control the board or its composition. Article 71(c) adds a further deterrent for anyone who might think he could override the other safeguards by obtaining a majority of the voting shares of the company. Artilce 93 includes unwarranted interference in the management of the company. If, and I do not think it likely, one or more of the existing directors were already under the influence of the party attempting to control the company, they would have to retire with other non-Government directors at the next annual general meeting and the Government would veto their re-appointment.

I do not think, although a certain amount has been said about the City in the debates about the Bill, that we can disregard the City takeover code, although it does not have legal force. We thought it right to assume that the code would be obeyed, but we have not relied on it. The code could usefully reinforce the safeguard provisions. For instance, any shareholder or shareholders acting together who obtain more than 30 per cent. of the voting shares in Britoil would almost certainly be obliged to make an offer for more than 50 per cent., and that would trigger the power at Article 71(c) unless consent was obtained from the City takeover panel not to do so; and that would be a valuable adjunct to the provisions of Article 71(c).

To sum up, we want Britoil to be like any other Companies Act company, without any special statutory provisions or restrictions or encumbrances—and by that I mean we want its articles to be the same as any other companies' articles; but in the particular circumstances we sought to put in safeguards such as those I have described, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has referred to some of them.

The last point I want to make is this. Supposing that Parliament—and I again use the somewhat inelegant word—nit-picks over these articles in the way in which the noble Lord suggests, it would cease to have any practical effect once the company had been floated off because it would be open to the shareholders at general meetings to amend the articles long after the parliamentary procedure had died away and had been forgotten, although I concede that there would be safeguards attached to the special shares, and any attempt to reduce the effect that they have on the management of the company. For all these reasons, I think that what the noble Lord has suggested is undesirable and perhaps he will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, if I were a person who habitually indulged in dramatic language, I would say that I was broken-hearted and disillusioned by the noble Earl's reply. But, being a man using moderate words, I shall merely say that I am deeply disappointed because the Minister has not answered my points at all. I took the trouble not to indulge in some hypothetical case as to how these articles might be altered in the future. I dealt with their deficiencies at the moment; I said that there was supposed to be director protection. The articles provide where there will not be any directors at all, and in one case, a 20 per cent. to 35 per cent. shareholding, only one director, and no provision for alternate directors, and so on. I then dealt with the power to redeem the special shares, so that the special share does not exist. I asked what protection there could be against successive Governments asking for that share to be redeemed and, therefore all the protection removed.

The noble Earl the Minister did not reply and has to admit therefore that this is what a successor Government could do. This is only operative when the transfer of shares takes place and the Secretary of State consents. It is an insult, if I may say so, without using dramatic language, to Parliament to say that Members of this House or of another place would indulge in a nit-picking exercise in order to say that consent should not be given because Article 5 ought to be altered by the deletion of the word "the" and the insertion of the word "a". Obviously, this House is too serious for that, and I make no comment on another place because my noble friend's friends are in power there and I would therefore wish to compliment them by saying that they would see that such a situation of nit-picking was not allowed to take place.

Unless the noble Earl can say that he has second thoughts about this or will look at it before the Third Reading stage—he knows perfectly well that I have no alternative but to withdraw this amendment because I do not want to take the time of the House by voting upon it—then I ask the noble Earl, with the leave of the House, to address us once more very shortly and say he will at least consider the points that I endeavoured humbly to make, none of which has been answered.

As before, the noble Earl is silent. He was silent before even though he spoke words. In the circumstances, I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment and to consider what steps ought to be taken at a later stage of the Bill.

moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 8:

Page 2, line 38, at end insert (" to secure increases in the capital of subsidiaries ").

Page 3, line 5, leave out (" specified ") and insert (" prescribed ").

Page 3, line 5, leave out second (" or ").

Page 3, line 7, leave out (" specified ") and insert (" prescribed ").

My Lords, this particular clause as a whole deals with the ability to manoeuvre and transfer assets and liabilities from one subsidiary to another as a part or as a whole of some projected disposal. It is a kind of juggling clause. I should like to know why it has been found necessary at this stage to insert Amendment No. 5. I should like to know why it has been necessary at line 38 to insert the words:

" to secure increases in the capital of subsidiaries ".

I should like to know the circumstances in which it is envisaged that the capital of a subsidiary ought to be increased prior to a disposal.

My Lords, Amendment No. 5 ensures that the corporation has for the purpose of facilitating a disposal the power to increase the capital of subsidiaries in addition to the power it already has to establish subsidiaries. This will enable BNOC, which has already established Britoil as a £100 company to increase Britoil's share capital prior to its transfer to the Secretary of State.

My Lords, I am much obliged.

moved Amendment No. 9:

Page 3, leave out lines 9 to 32 and insert—

(" (a) provide that any prescribed rights or liabilities of the transferor shall be enforceable either by or against either party or by or against both;

(b) for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to the transfer, confer or impose on either party rights or liabilities which are to be enforceable against or by the other;

(c) provide that for the purposes of section 6 of the 1975 Act (borrowing limits) any aggregate amount there mentioned shall be determined as if any money borrowed or debt assumed by the transferor the liability to repay which is transferred were (in either case) money borrowed by the transferee; ").

My Lords, the noble Earl has been kind enough to range fairly widely over Amendments 9 and 10. I note in particular his reference to paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 9 which has been inserted, he informs me, among other things, to ensure that the participating rights of the nation can in fact be protected within the provisions of that clause. Of course, the clause merely enables it to be done, so that the things we requested to be done in Amendment No. 1 can be carried out. Unhappily, they do not constitute any kind of confirmation that they will in fact be done. That is why it was necessary for us to move the first amendment.

I am afraid that in connection with that aspect we shall have to return once again to this matter on Third Reading, and it may well be that if this particular clause is inserted into the Bill at this stage we may have to come back to subsection (3)(b), as it will then be, in order to see whether some further amendment could be inserted there, making it obligatory for the participating rights to which I have referred to be taken into account. Nevertheless we are grateful for progress. The Government will he enabled to do what they say they will do. That is a very considerable step and my noble friends and I are deeply grateful for it.

When we come to the remainder of the amendments, and particularly No. 10, I must confess I shall have to study these proposed subsections in conjunction with the Bill and with the speech the noble Earl has been kind enough to make in this connection, before recommending to my noble friends that we come to any firm decision upon it. Naturally, we are always very grateful when matters of account come to be cleared up, because normally the House does not very much like dealing with those matters. Equally, the fact that some endeavour has been made here makes it all the more necessary that one should exmaine it very closely.

Am I to understand from the noble Earl that the sole purpose of this is to enable, as is done in current takeover positions and particularly after the passing of the 1980 and 1981 Companies Acts, the profits that would have been distributable by the transferor company to be distributed by the transferee company —in other words, they would avoid capitalisation and would not be available for dividends? If I have interpreted correctly what the noble Earl said, that would appear to be the intention.

In this connection it has not been the policy of BNOC to make any distributions by way of dividends. It has been building up its reserves and has discharged its taxation. I should like an assurance from the noble Earl, particularly in view of Amendment No. 11, that the profits which have been built up by BNOC, either in itself or in its subsidiaries, and which have been earned up to the date on which disposal will take place will be retained for further development pruposes and will not become available for dividend—otherwise, of course, an asset-stripping position would arise. Here is BNOC, having built up its own position and its subsidiaries, having refrained from making any dividend distributions and building up its reserves, being told by the Government to flog parts of it off as a private enterprise so that it finds itself in possession of distributable reserves and proceed to make dividends on them. Maybe that is the purpose of the exercise. On the other hand, it may well be that I have got it wrong, but the noble Earl must agree with me that the amendments are somewhat complex. They have not been debated in any great detail in Committee and we have had no documentation upon them.

The noble Earl has, however, referred to the taxation aspects of the matter and I should like some explanation from him. As he knows, when assets are disposed of under the arrangements that are so far contemplated, all that BNOC gets back—and exactly the same considerations apply to British Gas—is the cost of the disposal. The sale of the assets does not get back into the pockets of the corporation the actual money which passes on their transfer. In other words. BNOC loses an asset and an asset completely disappears from its balance sheet. I have already spoken to that in Committee.

On the assumption that that is so and that the Government do not accept Amendment No. 25, which deals with this aspect of the matter, will the noble Earl give an assurance that, in the event of such an arrangement coming within the functions of Clause 2, the loss that is incurred by BNOC or by any one of its subsidiaries as a result of what amounts to Government confiscation will be available for carry-forward as a loss for corporation tax purposes against any future profits that might conceivably be made by the truncated BNOC, and the subsidiaries that remain, and that such a loss will be available for group loss relief under the provisions of the Act on corporation tax? These are matters which ought to be cleared up.

I do not ask the noble Earl to answer those questions now, because they are somewhat complex and he may wish to take advice upon them. But they are matters that arise whenever there is a massive redistribution of function, of assets and of liabilities, as well as the various other manoeuvres that are covered in these clauses. As I said, I am not prepared to resist these amendments at this stage, but we should like to have a further opportunity of looking at them when we have seen a report of the Minister's speech, and have had the opportunity of studying it further.

My Lords, while I thank the noble Earl, the Minister, for his careful explanation of the scope of Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, may I say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, I should like to reserve my position as to whether paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 9 covers adequately the position which was raised on Amendment No. 1—namely, does it preserve the position in regard to participation oil rights given to the corporation under licences granted in the fifth and sixth rounds? As to Amendment No. 10, I, also, have not had an opportunity of making a fully study of it and therefore, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I reserve my position on that.

But I should like to raise a point in regard to the scope of the words "rights" and "liabilities" in both amendments. I do that for two reasons. First, Clause 2 states in subsection (1) that it is for the purpose of facilitating the eventual disposal under Section 1(1) that the rest of Clause 2 is to follow. It seems to me on glancing through these amendments that certain difficulties arise in the field of intellectual property—patents, trade marks and know-how agreements.

The second reason why I raise this point at this stage—and let me say at once that I make no complaint at all on the matter—is that I raised the question of intellectual property rights on 11th April at the Committee stage. At column 157 in the Official Report, the Minister said that he would write to me about this matter, but I have so far not had that letter. Also, if I may support my plea for further information, on 18th May at the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also said at column 638, on a different matter, but one involving intellectual property rights, that he would be adding a postscript to the letter from his colleague the noble Earl, the Minister.

I make no complaint, but I should therefore like to ask one broad question. I could, of course, have put up to the Government certain examples of difficulties that might arise in the intellectual property field. I could have put forward scenarios, but I do not want to take up the time of this House in that way. I am going to ask a comprehensive question and, of course, I do not want to have an answer tonight. Can the Government give an assurance that the scope of these clauses has been considered in the context of any intellectual property rights and liabilities, which could quite easily arise in dealing with these transfers?

My Lords, if I may deal first with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, I am very surprised that—

My Lords, the noble Earl is having difficulty about my name. May I announce publicly in this House that my name is the Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran? It is a little Welsh village, not far from Cardigan town.

My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that jolly good Peers have come out of Hampstead before now. So I was not intending in any way to insult him. It was only my confusion, because I remember approving—

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Earl again. But I did not feel insulted in any way, as a Welshman, by being called the wrong name. I was merely trying to assist the noble Earl, the Minister, in getting the matter right at this stage.

Yes, my Lords. I do not think we need worry about the nomenclature of Peers any longer. I was confused, because I approved a letter, and my noble and learned friend confirmed that he had a hand in it from his eyrie where he dispenses legal advice. The letter went to the noble Lord addressed to the House of Lords and I, for one, do not know why he has not got it. That is why I was covered with confusion and I am very sorry.

I welcome the guarded way in which these amendments have been greeted. I think it is probably better for us all to read the Official Report and then take stock of the position. I will certainly write to noble Lords as soon as maybe and, hopefully, we shall not have to come back to this at Third Reading, because I anticipate that it will be one of those days when the House will be rather anxious to get away.

moved Amendment No.10:

Page 3, line 36, at end insert—

(" ( ) A scheme under subsection (2) above may also provide that—

(a) prescribed securities of the transferee shall be issued to the transferor in consideration of the transfer and shall be credited as fully paid up;

(b) for the purposes of section 56 of the Companies Act 1948 (share premium account) and of any statutory accounts of the transferee, the value of any asset and the amount of any liability transferred shall be taken to be the value or (as the case may be) the amount which would have been assigned to that asset or liability for the purposes of the statutory accounts prepared by the transferor in respect of its last accounting period ending before the transfer date if that period had ended immediately before that date;

(c) a prescribed amount not exceeding the accumulated realised profits of the transferor at the transfer date shall be treated by the transferee as a reserve which represents its profits available for distribution (within the meaning of Part III of the Companies Act 1930);

(d) in ascertaining for the purposes of the said section 56 what amount (if any) falls to be treated as a premium received on the issue of any shares in pursuance of any provision made by virtue of paragraph (a) above, the amount of the net assets transferred shall be taken to be reduced by an amount corresponding to the amount of any reserve for which provision is made by virtue of paragraph (c) above;

(e) subject to any provision made by virtue of the preceding provisions of this subsection, for the purposes of any statutory accounts of the transferee the amount to be included in respect of any item shall be determined as if any relevant thing done by the transferor (whether by way of acquiring, revaluing or disposing of any asset or incurring, revaluing or discharging any liability, or by carrying any amount to any provision or reserve, or otherwise) had been done by the transferee.").

moved Amendment No.11:

Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ").

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. who has given a very modest explanation of Amendment No. 11. When I see at the end of any clause or subsection of proposed legislation the phrase,

" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ",

immediately I become a little alert. It seems to me that in putting down the amendment the noble Earl must have had it in mind that there is a possibility that the particular parts of Clause 2 to which he referred were in conflict with some enactment, or were in conflict at some point with the law, whether it be case law, statute law, or whatever else.

This will not do. If the noble Earl feels that the provisions of the particular subsections of Clause 2 are likely to be in conflict with the law or with any enactment, he should research it out and find out exactly where there is this conflict, or where there is likely to be this conflict. Then the matter can be dealt with specifically in the Bill by the words "notwithstanding the provisions of such-and-such an Act" or, alternatively, by the words "the provisions of so-and-so shall be amended in accordance with this, that or the other".

But, no. The noble Earl is worried about it, otherwise he would not have put in this phrase. The words: "notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment", are not frivolous. So the fear is real. If the fear is real—I speak as a non-lawyer and in the presence of my noble and learned friend who was on the Woolsack for a long time, so I am subject to his correction—I feel that this is not the correct way to deal with the matter. But I may be naive. If the noble Earl can give me something a little more specific which stands up to the battery of legal talent that I still have available behind me, then I shall be very happy to accept his explanation. At the moment, however, I remain profoundly sceptical.

My Lords, on the face of it, the words of the amendment look very startling, do they not? They shut out the courts. The noble Earl is a distinguished lawyer and I should have thought that he would have resiled against that. It is a lazy way, is it not, of getting around the difficulty in the previous provisions of the clause? One hopes that one can get through the schemes without difficulty. However, to safeguard the position one puts in these remarkable words, "notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ". It is not a good way to legislate. It is a fall-back position of a somewhat barbarous character, so perhaps the noble Earl will think about it again.

My Lords, my better judgment told me that I should not have tried to shorten our labours. My less good judgment told me that in his practice the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would know what I was talking about and that I would not have to do it. But now I am going to have to do so.

Let me take the first limb first—that is, the reference to "any rule of law ". There is a well-known principle, which the noble and learned Lord will know, which was established in the case of Head v. Ropner Holdings Ltd., and recently confirmed in the case of Shearer v. Bercain Ltd., that wherever shares are issued in acquisition of an asset (I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is nodding, but it is too late) the true value of the asset determines the value of the shares issued, and consequently the full amount of that true value must be brought into the books of the company issuing the shares—in the present case, Britoil—whether by way of nominal value or share premium account. So if, for the reasons I have already given, Britoil issues shares or other securities to BNOC in consideration of the transfer of the upstream business of BNOC, and there is nothing else bearing on the point, what happens? Britoil will have to have that business valued as at the date of transfer and carry the difference between that value and the nominal value of the shares or securities issued as consideration to a share premium account.

Given that it is possible that certain of the transferred assets may well have a true or market value exceeding their written-down value in the books of BNOC at the transfer date, application of this principle could lead to Britoil having a type of reserve—the share premium account does not form part of the distributable reserves—which might not facilitate the sale of its shares to the public. So the Government have included paragraph (e) in Clause 2(4) of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable Britoil to take over the transferred assets at book value.

But Britoil would then be in a dilemma. On the one hand, there would be the provision in the scheme, pursuant to paragraph (e)—and I am advised that there will be such a provision—enabling it to use the BNOC book values, and that provision is in accordance with paragraph (b) of Clause 2(6), to have effect as a matter of law. On the other hand, there is the principle which I have described, which is a rule of law and which would require them to do something quite different. So the amendment resolves the dilemma in a manner consistent with the principles underlying all these amendments by providing that what is said in the scheme shall have effect, notwithstanding any rule of law.

I turn now to the second limb of the amendment—to the reference to "the provisions of any enactment ". The obvious example here is Section 56 of the Companies Act 1948 which requires that where a company issues shares at a premium, whether for cash or otherwise, a sum equal to the amount or value of the premium is to be transferred to a share premium account. There are substantial restrictions on what may be done with the moneys in a share premium account. In particular, they may not be utilised for the payment of dividends. I have already indicated why the Government do not wish the common law rules to apply to the valuation of the assets transferred to Britoil.

I should now explain that even when those assets are transferred at book value there will still be a substantial difference between that value and the nominal value of the shares or securities issued to BNOC. That difference, in the language of Section 56, is a premium, and Section 56 would require the whole of it to be transferred to a share premium account. But it is necessary, in establishing Britoil for flotation, to give it a fairly conventional capital structure, including both distributable and undistributable reserves.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 2(4) enable the scheme to make provision to this effect, consistent with good accounting and financial practice. But again, unless there is something further in the Bill, there is a conflict between what the scheme requires to be done and what Section 56 requires. The amendment removes the conflict by providing that the provisions of the scheme shall have effect, notwithstanding the provisions of any enactment. I am afraid that this has been an exhaustive explanation but I hope that it will reassure both the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord.

My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very comprehensive statement concerning the reasons for Amendment No. 11, may I ask him whether his advisers have considered the position as to rules of law or enactments arising from our membership of the EEC and the effect of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome? There are problems in industry relating to the competition laws. I have the privilege of having been made a member of a working party of the EEC sub-committee which has been asked to consider the scope of obstacles to trade arising from Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome. Obviously I am not asking for an answer tonight, hut so far the noble Earl has made no reference to enactments which arise under Rome Treaty provisions; I am sure he has that in mind and may be able to say to me that his comprehensive statement includes any enactment or any provision of law arising under the Rome Treaty.

My Lords, I am beginning to wonder whether in the past I have not been wasting a good deal of my time in these legislative assemblies. I thought that when we had gone through Committee stage and Report stage, carefully considering the provisions of a Bill clause by clause and line by line, when we had finally got it settled, and had carefully chiselled out the terminology to leave no doubt what was intended, then that was that. But now I find that it is possible to come alone later with another Bill and say that, notwithstanding any enactment or any rule of law, the Secretary of State can override it. I must say that I find this a very funny way of building up our law-making cathedral. This morning, at the other end of the Palace, I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that the rule of law was a protection against tyrants. I was greatly moved by the words of the noble and learned Lord. The law may protect us against tyrants, but apparently not against the Secretary of State. I really do feel that there is something wrong; something "lazy", as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said, about trying to conduct our affairs with this sort of phraseology. The noble and learned Lord may tell me that we can trust the Secretary of State not to use his powers, except in exceptional cases. If we are going to depend upon the common sense and the good faith of Ministers, again I must ask, why do we bother going through all this procedure of carving out legislation?

The other thing that disappoints me is that, when I turn round to see on the Cross-Benches the number of noble and learned Lords to whom we turn in these cases, there are not an awful lot of them here. I would have thought they would he interested in this development in our legal system.

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has just said, many of us have read the previous Bill to which he referred and, although we know what is the fundamental aim behind this Bill, I find it very disturbing, not to say distressing, because from my long experience, both in another place and in this House, I have never seen wording of the kind which appears in the amendment proposed by the noble Earl. As my noble friend also said, this morning we heard a warm eulogy from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was talking about law and order, democracy, and the fact that the rule of law must prevail. All of us would agree with those words, and yet we return to this Chamber and find ourselves confronting wording which appears to be a professional lawbreaker's charter:

" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ".

In these particular circumstances, it may well be an official thieving—in this case, it seems so to many of us—of something that is publicly owned. When one reads the words,

" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ",

this could come from any burglar, any thief, or anyone who is going to steal anything from anybody. Here we have that same excuse being taken by this Government to steal publicly-owned property. I believe that the best thing the Government can do now, before this gets round and is really understood, is to drop this Bill when I sit down, and then take it back and start again with a more civilised approach, so that these words will not be quoted in any court. I can imagine some very astute lawyer saying that, when it comes to the Government, they just slip in some words about "notwithstanding any rule of law ". He might appeal to a noble and learned Lord who sits in this House, on the basis that if it is good enough for your Lordships, it is good enough for his client. We have to look very closely at the words proposed, and if they cannot be changed then I believe the Government ought to drop them altogether.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for having gone into some detail in explaining the whole purpose of Amendment No. 11. As he said, its application is limited to the operation of subsection (2) of Clause 2 and in particular to the new subsections (3) and (4). I would have thought that this would prevent any wild excesses that might have been apprehended by the inclusion of words of this kind.

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, he appears to forget that we are now in the process of Report stage. I think I am correct in saying that the noble Lord has spoken before to this amendment, and so if he can phrase his remarks as questions, I am sure that the House will he extremely grateful.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I was endeavouring to assist his noble friend Lord Mansfield by indicating that we on this side of the House appreciate the explanation he has given. We were congratulating him in part on the fact that the effect of the amendment was not quite as wide as one initially apprehended. However, we on this side of the House would like to have an opportunity of studying in the Official Report what the noble Earl has said. He will appreciate that it is a matter of a little more technical significance than Shearer v. Bercain Limited. We would like to take a look at it again, because we are still not very satisfied. We do not like the inclusion of words of this kind in any Act of Parliament.

My Lords, I believe that I have the right to speak again because it is my Motion. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is concerned, I can save myself writing a letter; the drafting has been carried out with the European Community in mind and we have not identified any problems so far as the drafting of this provision of the Bill is concerned.

Now I come to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. When I first saw this amendment I thought the same as he did, but I must tell the noble Lord—and this may also come as some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy—that the amendment does not strike at our civil rights or liberties. It is not an aid to tyrants. It is not a concealed way of repealing Magna Carta. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has exaggerated the significance of the words. The use of the scheme-making power in Clause 2 is not a normal occurrence in company law and it is not surprising, therefore, that it gives rise to problems which are not normally encountered. Therefore, these words are a technical provision to deal with the special circumstances surrounding Britoil's balance sheet.

The reason why Amendment No. 11 is drafted in general terms—I want to allay the fears that have been expressed—is that it has to support the different propositions in various paragraphs in Clause 2(4). Each of these propositions addresses a specific subject and I have indicated how Amendment No. 11 resolves any conflict between these propositions as expressed in the scheme and other provisions of law.

The amendment has to be written in general language to give it the ability to support each of the propositions in Clause 2(4). The only alternative would have been to write suitable overriding provisions into each of the paragraphs of Clause 2(4). That would have been a cumbrous way of proceeding, and instead we have put in this short provision, which looks very sweeping at first blush but is in fact very specific, because it is tied to the specific provisions in subsection (4) of Clause 2. That, I think, perhaps puts the matter more into perspective.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would be willing to refer this matter to the draftsmen again. We feel very unhappy about this. We feel it can be remedied in the concrete way which the noble Earl has mentioned. If he would be willing to refer it again for consideration, that would affect the view that we take of the amendment.

My Lords, of course when the noble and learned Lord asks me to look at this I will undertake to do so, but he will appreciate that I do so without any firm commitment.

moved Amendment No.12:

Page 4, line 10, at end insert—

(" (8) In this section "statutory accounts" means—

(a) in relation to the Oil Corporation, a statement of accounts prepared by the Corporation in accordance with section 10 of the 1975 Act;

(b) in relation to any other party, accounts prepared by that party for the purposes of any provision of the Companies Acts 1948 to 1981 (including group accounts); and in this section and in Schedule 1 to this Act "prescribed", in relation to a scheme under subsection (2) above, means specified or described in or determined in accordance with the scheme.").

moved Amendment No.l5:

Page 9, leave out lines 42 to 44.

My Lords, I want to thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I must say at the beginning that I am not going along with his point of view. I say this quite candidly to the noble Earl. When we moved the amendment in Committee, and all shades of opinion supported it, the Minister, after the result was declared, said that perhaps we would be able to explain what this amendment meant and what its effect would be in the totality of the Bill. I was listening with great interest to see whether he had worked out with his advisers what we thought it meant. We were quite clear what we had put down in our amendment, and it was the noble Earl who quite clearly asked my noble friend the Chief Whip what it meant.

I want to remind the House that our drafting of the amendment might perhaps not have been as imprecise as people thought; perhaps it was sweeping, but it was perfectly clear, and I think the Committee understood this when we voted for the amendment. We wanted to make quite sure that the disposal of any assets could not be carried out unless we were completely satisfied that standards of safety and service to consumers would be maintained. I think the Committee was quite clear that their concern was that individual consumers could have complete faith in the deliberation.

I want to draw the attention of the noble Earl to correspondence which has been sent to me by the Consumers' Association. They say quite clearly in their letter to me:

" However, we felt that the Minister gave a misleading impression of the consumers' organisations' opinions on the proposal to close gas showrooms ".

They go on to specify that what they were clearly trying to bring out was the safety element that arose from the gas showrooms and they were a little disturbed that the Minister misintepreted their deliberations. When we went into this matter in great detail in Committee the noble Earl said that a great need for competition would arise and there would be safety in that regard. However, that does not appear to be the findings of the National Gas Consumers' Council, who, again in a letter to me, said:

We are concerned "——

My Lords, I hesitate to pry into the correspondence of the noble Baroness, but I wonder whether we are looking at the same letter?

My Lords, I would not know about the noble Earl's letter. If he tells me what his letter is, I shall tell him what my letter is. It is as simple as that.

My Lords, I have no secret: it is dated 4th June.

My Lords, mine happens to be dated 7th June, so we do not have the same letter.

My Lords, ours is more up to date.

If the noble Earl wants the date of the National Gas Consumers' Council letter it is 25th May. I do not know whether that coincides with his correspondence. The letter says:

" We are concerned that an incomplete impression was given of the views expressed by consumer organisations on the future of gas showrooms ".

I want to point out to the House tonight that we were not trying to mislead the House. The findings that we had about the service and safety aspects of gas showrooms were, to our mind, of great importance to the majority of gas consumers in this country. So many people have mentioned today the comments made by the President of the United States when he was addressing both Houses. He spoke about liberty and freedom especially in regard to ordinary people. Perhaps what we are talking about here is the protection that is so necessary to what we call the ordinary people. What we are asking for in our amendment concerns the complete safety angle.

The noble Earl mentioned as regards the Amendment to Clause 11 that at a later time we shall come back to the question of safety. In the Amendment to Clause 11 we have exactly the same wording as appears in Clause 14 of the Bill dealing with safety regulations. The only difference is that in the amendment to Clause 11 we have "shall", but as regards safety regulations we have "may". Otherwise the words are exactly the same. No doubt the noble Minister would feel that perhaps even that was in the wrong place as well.

However, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have had observations and that the safety aspect is most important. What we are concerned about is that with the removal of the gas showrooms the safety aspect as regards the individual is concentrated more on finding information from some other source. This causes us a great deal of concern. I wish that there were present in the Chamber this evening those who have a main interest in the handicapped because, through the National Gas Consumers' Council working alongside British Gas, a tremendous amount of work has been done to help the handicapped and the aged. Consumers over 65 living alone and registered handicapped people have a free service to check any problems that they might have regarding the safety of the appliances in their own homes. Adaptors are made for people who are blind. Braille symbols are placed on gas cookers. Special adaptations are made for the handicapped, Are we going to say that if we get rid of the retail sales in the gas showrooms the needs of the handicapped the elderly and these special places will be taken over by the discount warehouses? Will they be as concerned about the safety aspect of gas appliances, as the Gas Board itself has been, working alongside the National Gas Consumer's Council?

It is for those reasons that we are not satisfied that the safety element is recognised by the Government. We have heard observations on safety made by the noble Earl. He has not said that he will press for BSI standards. We understand that all the appliances—I think that this point was made by one of the noble Lords who spoke in the debate last time—sold in gas showrooms have to have the BSI standard. Although the noble Earl in reply said then that as soon as it was possible the Government intend to make regulations under the Act on energy conservation, he has not said tonight that he will specify BSI standards. What my noble friends and I are concerned about is that even if at a later stage we discuss the amendment to Clause 11, we feel that our amendment which we moved on the last occasion is a very wide safeguard for all gas consumers in this country. We feel quite concerned that the Government have completely disregarded that aspect of our case—namely, that gas consumers should have the right to use British Gas retail service outlets for their special needs regarding safety, installation and the purchase of articles.

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend. So far the remarks that have been made have emphasised the safety aspect. In fact, the noble Earl's comments were mainly on the safety aspect. Therefore, perhaps for a moment I can keep to that. However, there are two other points to which I want to return. We added at the Committee stage the words:

" disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ".

The "safety of consumers" was only one of the three points dealt with in the words which were inserted at the Committee stage.

In Committee, when we were debating the previous amendment, I stressed that the Government had not been told by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission that they should dispose of the gas showrooms and discontinue the retailing of appliances. There were three alternatives given by the commission, and the commission said, "Please look at only two". The two they were asked to look at were the ending of all retailing by British Gas and that they should overhaul and monitor their finances so that they would be able to keep the financing of the retail appliances completely separate from the services and installations.

It was the Government who decided to take the first course, and this was a point which I made in Committee. I have looked very carefully at the noble Earl's remarks, which seemed to imply, although he may not have intended them to, that the two bodies to which my noble friend has referred made no comments. My noble friend has referred to correspondence from the two bodies. I should like to quote one or two lines from the response of the National Gas Consumers' Council to the actual report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. They say:

The Council consider that the first option "—

that is, the one of discontinuing retailing—

"would lead to disruption in the retailing market and would operate against consumer interests ".

They are not just talking about safety, but are talking about consumer interests. That is one of the points dealt with in the words which we inserted last time.

In a communication to which my noble friend has referred, the Consumers' Association says:

" The Consumers Association in its comments to the Monopolies Commission report on domestic gas appliances is clearly opposed to the proposal to close gas showrooms. The Consumers Association made clear that it supported instead the close monitoring of the gas corporation's retailing activities ".

So both those important bodies criticised the final decision which the Government took, which was only one of the alternatives given by the Monopolies Commission.

Incidentally, I echoed the points which the National Gas Consumers' Council made when I drew attention in Committee to the vast spare parts organisation of the gas corporation, which cannot be equalled in any other way. It would mean that we have to ask the gas corporation to retain a huge spare parts department for the vast number of appliances which are out of production, for which there have to be safety provisions and maintenance.

The noble Earl referred to the amendment to Clause 11. When we come to that we shall debate it. I readily appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, is very concerned with the safety aspects—she has made that quite clear. But when we come to that we shall have to point out that the amendment to Clause 11 in no way deals with the three points which were included in the amendment carried by this House in Committee. It deals only with the safety aspect; it does not deal with any imperilling of supplies; it does not deal with any imperilling of services. We are talking about disposal of the whole or part of any subsidiary; we are not just talking about disposal of any part which could affect safety provisions.

Although the Government say that there is no intention now, the noble Earl the Minister agreed that there is no limitation on the powers and that a future Secretary of State—if not this one—could decide to dispose of any part of the transmission and distribution system of gas in any area. That brings up the whole question of the integrity of supplies. The Bill brings up the question of integrity of supplies because there will be competition for gas supplies between the gas corporation and the private suppliers. Therefore, the question as to whether or not the gas corporation can keep to its statutory responsibilities is also brought up. So we are not just dealing with safety; we are dealing with the question of the possible imperilling of the services, the possible imperilling of safety and the possible imperilling of supplies.

They were the three points dealt with in the last amendment. Therefore, we should not just deal with the points raised on safety; we should deal with all three. The amendment to Clause 11 in no way deals with all three, and we shall deal with that when we come to it. For that reason I hope that the House will not agree to the amendment put forward by the noble Earl on behalf of the Government.

My Lords, if I might briefly address your Lordships, 1 must confess at once that I am in something of a dilemma for three reasons. First, I spoke strongly in favour of inserting the words into the Bill which the Government now want to strike out. Secondly, I agree almost completely with the content of the speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, and by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. Thirdly, I have some correspondence from the National Gas Consumers' Council; in fact, I have a letter dated 4th June from the gas council. I do not know whether it is the same letter as the letter of 4th June which the noble Earl the Minister has in his hands. That letter refers to an earlier letter.

I think that my dilemma could be resolved if the Minister would be good enough to amplify one of the reasons that he put forward for advising the House to reject these lines. He said that the presence of these three lines inserted by the House in Committee would embarrass or cause trouble to the corporation. Would he be good enough to resolve my dilemma by explaining a little more fully how the presence of these three lines will embarrass or give trouble to the corporation?

My Lords, at this stage, having listened to everything that has been said, I am slightly surprised that so many noble Lords seem to have encompassed in one speech many of the amendments which we are debating this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, very ably moved Amendment No. 18A in Committee and on that occasion the House agreed with her. She very ably put forward the primary problem which we were all facing about consumers and safety. Very soon after this amendment was carried the parliamentary draftsman told me—and perhaps he told the noble Baroness—that this amendment was in the wrong place.

This is the only thing that we are querying tonight. Perhaps the noble Baroness is a lawyer, but I am not, so I have to accept what I am told.

My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene for one moment? This is quite an important matter of parliamentary procedure. Is the noble Baroness saying that the parliamentary draftsman approached her spontaneously?

My Lords, I was about to say that I have seen the Secretary of State and it was he who told me that this amendment was in the wrong place. Apparently he must have been told this by the parliamentary draftsman, which is perfectly in order and perfectly correct. No, I do not have knowledge of who these people are. But apparently noble Lords and noble Baronesses on all sides of the House were trying to put the provision in the wrong place. I accepted that—I think, quite rightly—because I am no lawyer. This is why the same words as have already been put forward this evening are to be included in an amendment which I shall move to Clause 11.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill. has drawn our attention to the fact that in his opinion the amendment to Clause 11 only concerns safety. It concerns the safety of everybody who uses gas because it mentions specifically all gas that goes through any pipe of any sort: that is, any pipe connecting any appliance. It does not quite specifically mention services and supplies, which were mentioned during the Committee stage. I believe that it is correct not to mention them,because my noble friend has already said that the vague concept that this proposes to incorporate in the Bill would serve to promote uncertainty rather than to give any useful protection. In fact, the Bill itself contains in Clause 17(2) a specific safeguard for the conveyance of supplies of gas which the Gas Corporation requires, to perform—

" its statutory duties and contractual obligations".

The Secretary of State not only told me himself but wrote to me saying,and it is accepted all round this Chamber, that safety is of the utmost importance. "Paramount" is a word that has been hackneyed around the place, and I do not think it really means very much now, but safety is of the utmost importance and the Government recognise that. But to make it absolutely doubly sure we ought to put it in the Bill in the right place. There does not not seem to be any point in having it in the Bill in the wrong place. Therefore, I would certainly thank my noble friends for all that they have done to help all sides of the House to put this in the right place. If we delete these few lines, and if we, as I hope, accept the amendment under Clause 11, then we shall have done what we originally set out to do.

I hope that the House will accept what my noble friend is proposing.

My Lords, before my noble friend replies, could he clarify one point? We have rather been led this afternoon to believe that all the safety provisions and the unrest regarding gas appliances rest on the showroom. It is my experience that it you want to buy a geyser you can buy 12 or 20 different varieties through the gas showroom, but they are made by different manufacturers. If anything goes wrong and you take them back you are referred to the manufacturer. The gas hoard does not take responsibility for the making of that appliance. They do take responsibility for their supply, their connections, the gas pipes and the like; but where appliances are concerned, that is, in exactly the same way as with electrical appliances, the responsibility of the manufacturer.

I feel that there are times when the Consumers' Association is rather like a dog biting its own tail. It rejoices in the competition in the electricty industry which supplies handicapped people, which supplies homes, and council after council building new estates insist on having all electric homes. Why should it be that an entirely different system can apply to the electricity industry, and is quite impossible of application for the gas industry?

I would agree on the need for safety, and I would heartily support my noble friend Lady Macleod that the safety issue should be enshrined in the Bill, but in the right position in relation to the appliances which, in their main manufacture, are not the responsibility of the gas board at all.

My Lords, I think that we could save some time if the Minister would give straight answers to two questions. First, is he accepting Amendment No. 24? Secondly, is he accepting Amendment No. 24A?

My Lords, with due regard to the noble Lord, I think I shall make my speech and answer his points in that way because it probably will be shorter in the end. The Government have been accused of being totally obdurate so far as this Bill is concerned and unwilling to compromise in any way, shape or form, but it is obvious that there has been a genuine and sustained attempt at compromise, and that there is a successful measure of compromise put together not least through the efforts of my noble friend Lady Macleod. Before condemning those efforts noble Lords opposite might have given them a little consideration. However, that is not to be.

I want to answer these points because it seems to me that it is still maintained, on the part of some noble Lords opposite at any rate, that we have paid no attention to safety and have had no regard in effect for the public and their worries which have been brought out in some of the debates on this Bill, and are evidenced by some of the letters which I have seen, at any rate on behalf of consumer organisations. May I deal first with the proposals for showroom disposal. The disposal provisions in the Bill, together with the revised Gas Act power to give directions to the corporation to cease activities, would permit the Government to take action, following criticisms in the Monopolies and Mergers' Commission Report to encourage competition in the domestic gas appliance market and to break the gas corporation's dominance of that market.

I have made it clear before that we consider it essential that any such action should be accompanied by measures to maintain existing standards of safety, and I start from that base. This will require legislative measures, which means that there must be a delay before the Government can proceed with measures to meet the Monopolies and Mergers Commission criticism. But of course that delay allows us time for further considerstion about how to proceed. I assure the House that the Government will examine seriously and carefully any constructive proposals that may be offered, provided that they will meet the objective of breaking the Gas Council's monopoly in this area and ensuring effective competition.

Then we have had talk about the showrooms and how useful they are to the public, and for one, would not attempt to deny that in the past they have been so. It is in the showrooms that the gas corporation conducts its retailing of appliances. But of course noble Lords, particularly in Committee, pointed out that other activities occur there. It is in recognition of this that we are encouraging the Gas Corporation to maintain consumer contact points where consumers can go to get advice, where they can pay their bills, and inquire about servicing and that sort of thing. I suggest to the House that it would be difficult to justify on economic grounds the retention of the larger sites needed to display appliances simply for those purposes.

Then the point was properly taken about servicing and installation. It is no part of the Government's decision that the gas corporation should cease customer services such as the installation and servicing of appliances. The report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which looked into the corporation's activities in retailing appliances and made criticisms which have to be met, did not criticise installation and servicing activities. The ending of the Gas Corporation's dominance in appliance retailing will bring about a reduction in their share of the appliance servicing market. Consumers will have a greater degree of choice as to whether to deal with the gas corporation or with private installers. It is important to recognise that the safety record of the reputable private sector is on a par now with the gas corporation. In order to ensure satisfactory safety standards where work may be undertaken by the less reputable private sector, the Government are looking urgently into what legislative action on safety may be required.

Then the point has been made about spare parts. We are well aware of the gas corporation's outstandingly good service on spare parts. There is no reason why private sector installers should not be able to obtain and fit spare parts for their customers, provided that manufacturers will supply them. One result of the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is that manufacturers have been caused to broaden their horizons in terms of home markets, and I have no reason to doubt that they are as keen to sell accessories and so on to the private sector as to the British Gas Corporation.

The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to the difference in wording between the two amendments and he made reference to essential services and supplies. Having considered the matter carefully, we found that the references to services and supplies were undesirable. Looking first at the word "services", I have mentioned that the phrase, "essential services" raises difficult questions of what is and what is not essential. It may be that what was in mind were services essential to safety, although I rather doubt that. However, to that extent, the specific mention of safety which my noble friend's amendment makes appears to meet the point.

I repeat that it is no part of our plans, in response to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that the gas corporation should cease providing its present servicing, installation and services, and I have already said how we shall encourage contact points as part of the disposal of showrooms to encourage the gas corporation to maintain its advisory service and provide facilities for the public to pay their bills and obtain any advice they may want.

The question of supplies is to a large extent a matter arising more in the context of Clause 12. We have made clear our belief that the BGC will be able to obtain the supplies it needs by bidding at the right price in the market, and Clause 17(2) contains a specific protection for gas which the BGC requires to convey to perform its statutory duties and contractual obligations. However, to the extent that Clauses 9 to 11 are relevant, the Government have already given an assurance, and I gladly repeat, that before issuing any direction under Clause 11, the Secretary of State will satisfy himself that that will not prevent the gas corporation from carrying out its obligation to supply gas to consumers within 25 yards of a BGC main whose requirements do not exceed 25,000 therms a year. The Government have also made it plain that they have no present intention of privatising the gas corporation's transmission system, distribution system or customer services, and therefore I hope it will be agreed that the mention of supplies is unnecessary.

To answer the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, while I do not think I used the word "embarrass", I take his point. He will have observed that Clause 9 gives power to the gas corporation for it to exercise, not only on the direction of the Secretary of State but also on the corporation's own initiative; and therefore lines 42 to 44—that is, the subject of the amendment—which at first blush appear reasonable, in fact put at risk all sorts of disposals of which the BGC might be taking upon itself to dispose and which could not have the consequences feared, so it could be constrained in carrying out its powers not at the Secretary of State's direction but under its own initiative.

I said at the beginning, and I repeat, that I do not believe there is very much, if anything, between the two sides of the House or between the Government and other noble Lords; we are all concerned with safety. However, the Government must be concerned that the amendment makes sense and appears in the right clause of the Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, took against a jocular answer which I gave to what I took to be a jocular question posed by her noble friend the Chief Whip, who had not previously taken part in our debates on the Bill. I assure her that although my reply was perhaps jocular, it was meant to be friendly under the circumstances of the heat of the Division. However, that does not detract from the seriousness of the matter; that is, the safety of consumers, which I agree is paramount. We all want them to make the very best possible arrangements they can, but I submit to the House that the agreement. if I may so call it, to which we have come so far as my noble friend's amendments are concerned, is the best that can be devised in the circumstances, and it is in that spirit that I have moved the amendment; and it is in that spirit, when the Question comes to be put, that I ask the House to accept it.

My Lords, the House will agree that, taking into account the discussion that we had in Committee on 11th May, we have had a good debate on this subject. Some would say that on 11th May the Government were defeated on this matter by 15 votes. We are not concerned with defeats.

We are concerned with safety, and the House is still concerned with that, and tribute is due to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for the further consideration she has given to the matter since the debate on that occassion.

I remind your Lordships that in Committee on 11th May we were told that we were not discussing another nationalised industry. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Miles, came in, I think, especially, to say that, while he was not necessarily a great exponent of nationalisation,

" British Gas, in its nationalised form, has already shown all the marks of individual enterprise and market efficiency; the very foundation stones upon which wide areas of Government policy rest ".

He added:

" It cannot, surely, be made more successful than it has been ".

Shortly after that, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, having reminded us with rightful pride that she had been the first ever Gas Consumer Council chairman in 1971, said:

" I agree with every single word that has been said from the other side of the Committee this afternoon ".—[Official Report, 11/5/82; col. 129.]

That is the sort of all-party concern which was expressed on that occasion, and in the Lobby—I am talking not about defeat but about concern—noble Lords on both sides expressed that concern.

While the Minister says there is not a great deal between, us, it was clear on that occasion that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee voted for an amendment which the Government now recommend we delete, and we should be clear what that amendment was about. Clause 9 was amended; that clause refers to the Gas Corporation's powers of disposal. Whether or not we agree that the assets should be disposed of is not the point. The Government, the House, have taken a decision on that and now we have a common concern about safety, about the interests of the consumer. The amendment which was inserted in Committee:

" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ".

The Committee on that occasion voted, in effect, to say, "If you are going to sell the enterprise (and we are not concerned with the merits) the consumer and the public will need these safeguards", and noble Lords voted freely to insert that amendment. It was not revolutionary. Millions of people throughout the country have come to appreciate what the BGC has done, not as a nationalised body but as a British institution, and those millions of people would say that those words should be in the Bill. The Minister says, "Ah! but they are not in the right place". His noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, helps him out, quite rightly, of course, and says, "I will put down an amendment to Clause 11, where the change should be".

If your Lordships will turn from Clause 9, which has been amended, to Clause 11, you will see that in subsection (3) the words in paragraphs (a"),(b) and (c) are very similar, if not identical, to the words in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 9(1). The words do not mean exactly the same reference so far as the clause is concerned, but I am sure that the clause could be amended so that the lines which the Minister says he would like taken out of Clause 9 could be inserted into Clause 11, in order to do the same thing. What is the objection to that?

Why have a special amendment such as the noble Baroness has tabled in Amendment No. 24 in order to insert a new subsection? As my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal has already pointed out, the words in the amendment of the noble Baroness are already in the Bill, in Clause 14(1), which states:

" The Secretary of State may make such regulations as he thinks fit ",

and so forth. That is the same as the wording of the noble Baroness's amendment, and so the Minister might well have said today that there was no need for his noble friend's amendment, since what it proposes is already in the Bill. The noble Baroness goes a little farther—and I think that the Government have given way a little—in that Clause 14 states that:

" The Secretary of State may make ",

whereas the amendment states that he "shall have regard" to the factors. So there is an advance there. However it does not really do the job that your Lordships wanted the Government to do in the amendment of 11th May.

Without any further discussion I would say that the question is whether we are going home tonight to say of our day's work that, on the matter of the gas corporation's powers of disposal, the House of Lords voted that the words,

" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ",

should be taken out of Clause 9—that we did not need them. Do we want "Today in Parliament" to be stating tonight or tomorrow that your Lordships' House did not want any assurances about how a disposal shall be made so that there shall not be any resulting impairment of essential services? Are we going to hear that we did not want any assurance about there being no impairment of supplies, or that in the clause we were not concerned about the safety of consumers? I ask that question because it is the one that we are going to vote on. I can see no reason at all why words which only a week or two ago were voted for on an all-party basis should tonight be the subject of a debate and a vote in circumstances in which at the end of the day some noble Lords will have to admit that they voted that they did not want the assurances.

Since the earlier occasion, your Lordships have debated the question of safety, and we still have some amendments on it. When in another place last year the Minister made her pronouncement about the sale of gas showrooms and so on, I think she promised that some legislative action would be taken by the Government at a later stage to deal with safety. I believe that the House is right in saying that, if we are now to deal with the disposal of assets, we also want to ensure that private pipe-lines, as well as public pipe-lines, will be safe, and that there will be compatibility of gas and so on. In other words, we want to make sure that after the vote there remains the meaning of the words,

" Provided that such disposal shall not result in the impairment of essential services nor imperil supplies to or safety of consumers ".

One cannot say that too often, especially in a Bill where, to be fair to the Ministers, one would say that they have done their best to try to explain decisions which have not yet really been made by the Government.

The House would be well advised to leave the decision made a couple of weeks ago. If the Government are anxious about getting the matter right and about the clause in which the words should be included, should they want to give us an assurance, there is no reason why the sentiments of Amendment No. 18A, which was debated last time and passed by your Lordships, should not be included with equal merit in Clause 11. Until we get that assurance, I recommend that Members of all parties here tonight do the same thing as we did last time, and so assure not only the Government but also the country that we are concerned about the consumer interest and public safety in terms of the words as they are at present in the Bill.

moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 21:

moved Amendment No.22:

Page 11, line 43, at end insert (" notwithstanding any rule of law and the provisions of any enactment ").

My Lords, I believe it will be for the convenience of the House merely to say on this occasion that on a previous amendment, Amendment No. 11, to Clause 2—I think it concerns enactments and so on—my noble friends made their misgivings clear and the Minister gave some assurance about looking at the matter again. I anticipate that, as these amendments are much the same as those on the previous clause, the same assurance might apply and the matter may be looked at, so that we can return to reconsider the matter of Amendment No. 22 at a later stage.

moved Amendment No.23:

moved Amendment No. 24:

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 24A:

At end insert (", and that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained.").

My Lords, I have heard Amendment No. 24A mentioned. I have a copy of the Marshalled List which I picked up earlier this afternoon and there is no mention of Amendment No. 24A. if the noble Baroness can tell me what it is about, it would be helpful.

My Lords, I was trying to be particularly helpful to the noble Baroness. It was not any kind of trick question. I can talk on the one subject at one time. I do not want to keep the House any longer than is necessary. I understand and appreciate very much the great concern of the noble Baroness for the safety angle we have been discussing at length and the work that she has done to endeavour to overcome some of our difficulties. If she would say that she would accept this amendment, perhaps I can curtail the observations I want to make with the permission of the House.

My Lords, at Report stage I am not allowed to address the House again, as the noble Baroness will be aware.

My Lords, I presume from that that the amendment will not be accepted. The genuine concern that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has about safety, which is recognised by all Members in this House, is something we wanted extended in our amendment to make quite sure that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained. I do not want to go into the philosophy behind the Bill. That is the philosophy of the Government, and it is quite right that they should be putting forward that philosophy. But in putting it forward, I think it is important, because gas is one of the natural assets that we have, that the supply is recognised by all consumers generally. Consumers need to understand that their supplies and their services will be maintained. It depends on whether you are going to put in gas central heating, gas cooking, gas heating and spend money. You need to understand fully that the service and the supply to consumers are maintained. For that reason, I move my amendment.

My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend in her amendment for the reasons I gave previously; but I must remind the House of those reasons. I should like to pay my tribute to the keen interest and conscientious way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, looks at these important questions of safety. She has tried to deal with safety in her own amendment. As I said in the debate on Amendment No. 15, the question goes far beyond safety. We must not look only at the necessary safeguards purely from the aspect of safety. There are also other aspects. The noble Earl in his reply dealt adequately with the other points.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, relates to the powers of the Secretary of State to direct the corporation under Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill to exercise its power to dispose. The Government have said they have no intention of doing certain things, but we have been told time and again (and I cannot over-emphasise this point) that it is not what the Ministers say in this House with all their good will; it is the words in the Bill that matter. We have been told time and again by noble and learned Law Lords on the Cross-Benches that it is what the words of the Bill say; and they would repeat this if they were here.

The noble Earl has said previously that the powers are in the Bill. The Government have intention at present to do only certain things. Therefore, there are powers in the Bill, if not for this Government, if not for this Secretary of State, for disposal of any part of the transmission system or distribution system of gas. They are in the Bill, even though the Government have no intention, they say, of acting under them at present. The words "at present" were made clear by the Secretary of State in a debate in the other place and on Second Reading by the noble Earl in this House.

Therefore, we must consider what will be the effect if any part of the transmission or distribution system was disposed of. There is the important question of ensuring that there will be the maintenance of the necessary supplies. There will also be the question of the maintenance of essential standards. Therefore, we cannot leave this solely to the question of safety. We must take in the other two points, and these are the two points which are concerned with my noble friend Lady Fisher's amendment to add, taking the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, dealing with safety provisions, also:

" and that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained ".

I am not saying that they will be imperilled but they could be imperilled if further disposals of the type I mentioned were carried out by this Government or a future Government.

It would be wrong for this House not to make provision in the Bill to ensure that these two questions of standards are looked at as well as that of safety. I am hoping that the noble Earl will accept; but in reply to my noble friend Lord Jacques he would not give an answer whether he would accept and I am therefore disappointed that he may decide not to accept the amendment to the amendment. Why? Surely the Government believe that essential standards of service must be maintained. I am certain the Government believe that essential supplies of gas must be maintained. Why not put it in the Bill? If tile Government say certain provisions are elsewhere in the Bill then, as my noble friend Lady Fisher said, there are proposals similar to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, later in the Bill. Surely repetition does no one any harm.

I would want to ask the Government, if they are disposed not to accept the amendment to the amendment, why they will not do so. One would think that the safeguards proposed are ones which the Government believe in. Much as I support the work of the National Gas Consumers' Council, I must say, with respect to Lady Macleod, you cannot say that we will leave this question solely to the Consumer Council. The Consumer Council has a job to do. Surely we have to leave this to legislation, something written into the Act that the Secretary of State will observe, that the British Gas Corporation will observe. Therefore, this amendment should not confine itself to the safety provisions; it should also take in the two other points which are the subject of my noble friend's amendment, which I hope the House will support.

My Lords, I concur with the remarks of my noble friend that we cannot leave this just to the Consumer Council. In a two- or three-minute speech I want to spike down what I consider to be a fundamental point not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. Having had experience of telephone wires and underground methods of carrying energy from point A to point B—maybe hundreds of miles apart—I know that an essential factor in protecting the safety of the users of that energy, whether it is gas or electricity, is that the maps giving the direction and the placing of pipes must be kept and secured for generations. We know about old coal mines in various mining areas that have been found and nobody knew of their existence because of lack of keeping documents. That is the only point I want to make in this short but important addition on this amendment—that somewhere or other the Secretary of State should take the responsibility. The corporation and he himself should be responsible for authorising accurate documentation that must be at the disposal of local authorities and any people who are concerned with the safety of individuals in the usage of the corporation's gas. If I spoke longer, I would be reiterating. I have made the point.

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady Macleod. I am sure your Lordships agree that it is essential that safety is of prime importance when an item such as gas is being considered. There have over the past few years been a number of occasions throughout the country when most unfortunate accidents involving gas have occurred. My noble friend is most correct in tabling this amendment. However, I should like to say that surely Lady Fisher's comments and her amendment are covered by my noble friend's amendment. If one is going to have safety precautions taken in a gas main, that has to be conducive to an efficient service in the first place.

My Lords, it may help if I speak first of all to the amendment to the amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I said originally that the wording which has been adopted in this amendment, and which closely followed the latter part of the old Amendment No. 18A—in effect if not in actual drafting whatever the intention, was vague in concept of standard of service and supply, and the Government simply cannot accept an amendment drafted in that form.

The matter goes a great deal further than that. I spent several minutes trying to meet the points of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. So far as I can see, he does not attempt to answer; he merely repeats. I do not think that it is very profitable it I merely repeat the same things which I said on the last amendment. But if he thinks that it is as good a thing when legislating to insert desirable words and phrases, however imprecise they are, and scatter them through the Bill on a basis of a little of what you fancy does you good and a lot of what you fancy does you even more good, I must point out that that is not a good basis for a Bill of this nature.

May I say this to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Davies. If we are going to talk about safety provisions and general safety, Clause 14 replaces Section 31 of the 1972 Act, the Act which places the responsibility fairly and squarely on the Secretary of State. I suggest that that particular clause, to which we can come later on, is perfectly satisfactory so far as that is concerned.

To return to Lord Underhill's point, it we are going to try to bring this concept into the Bill, then the place to do that is Clause 17 which deals with this part of the consideration. It plays no part in this clause of the Bill.

So far as my noble friend's amendment is concerned, I have already paid tribute to her for the great efforts that she has made to put her point of view across, to get it accepted by the Government and to "hatch out"—if that is the phrase—an amendment which is legally sensible and which at the same time achieves what she wants. That she has done. I indicated earlier that the Government are prepared to accept this amendment, and I repeat that. I believe that it represents a contrasted proposal. It will meet concerns expressed in Committee and it avoids the problems to which reference has been made.

I again pay tribute to my noble friend for her efforts in pursuing this matter, and I hope that her amendment will command support from all sides of the House. Before I sit down, I should like to amplify one matter to do with the maps referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. There are provisions in Section 39 of the Gas Act and in Section 35 of the Pipe-lines Act dealing with the deposit of maps with local authorities. Both the Gas Corporation and private suppliers will be covered.

My Lords, I am grateful. That means that it is on the record that that responsibility will be carried on.

My Lords, that is so.