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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the drought and its effects in East and Central Africa and whether they have any plans to help to minimise its consequences.?

My Lords, we are aware that certain countries in the region have suffered irregular rainfall and that crop prospects this year are poor. We have responded, either bilaterally or by supporting international action, to appeals for assistance from Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer and for his sympathetic response. May I ask whether he and the Government are aware that the drought in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia is the worst for 50 years, that cattle are dying now, and unless something is done very quickly people also will be dying? Is he further aware that Mr. Mundia, the Prime Minister of Zambia, appealed to the FAO early in May to declare this area a disaster area so that United Nations organisations could go in, and are the British Government supporting this move at the FAO?

No, my Lords, I was not aware that this was the worst drought in that part of the world for 50 years. But 1 would say that this area has irregular rainfall, to say the least. For example, last year in most of the countries to which the noble Lord has referred there were bumper crops, especially in Zimbabwe which still, I understand, has an export surplus. So far as the Food and Agricultural Organisation is concerned, no, it has not—and indeed I do not know whether it will—yet declared the region a disaster area, but of course Her Majesty's Government are in full and constant touch with the FAO on the subject.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, in referring to the export surplus, that Zimbabwe has exported, I think, 500,000 tonnes of maize to Zambia, Zaire, Mozambique and Botswana, but that its own maize production has been halved by the drought, and its cotton production is down by a third, so that the impression that he may have given about the export surplus is only because Zimbabwe has done this deliberately to help other countries?

My Lords, notwithstanding that, my understanding is that there is still sufficient grain in Zimbabwe to feed its people for the next year. The problem, as I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware, is transport. The Government have indeed given bilateral aid to Zimbabwe for transport for the distribution of maize, which I underline Zimbabwe still has.

My Lords, if I heard correctly, the Minister referred to international action to deal with this situation and British co-operation in that action. Can he tell the House what that international action is, and what is to be expected from it?

Yes, my Lords, the international action includes support for the EEC action, which is principally the supply of dried skimmed milk powder and grain, and also our contribution to the world food programme and the international emergency food reserve.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that simple, low-cost water supply schemes contribute a fairly permanent improvement to the quality of life in these areas? Would he say whether, and to what extent, the overseas development administration is financing such schemes? Is he also aware that there are many non-governmental organisations, such as SOS SAHEL, in which I am involved, who contribute a lot to these schemes? Would he say how the Government co-operate with these schemes and how they support them generally?

My Lords, the problem with irrigation is that it tends to be rather high cost. I agree that there are low-cost forms, for example, surface irrigation; but, on the whole, irrigation requires water pipes, pumps, and Governments in developing countries are generally somewhat reluctant to commit funds to such schemes because the cost cannot be recouped from increased yields. I agree, however, that it would indeed mitigate the effects of drought such as we are discussing at the moment.

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the voluntary fund operated under the auspices of the United Nations to which we are the second biggest contributors, having given £600,000, operates for exactly the point that the noble Baroness raised just now and has been most helpful in these kinds of cases?

Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to my noble friend for that supplementary. I most certainly agree.

My Lords, I understood the Minister to say that one of the measures this Government were taking was to increase the supply of dried milk. Can he say what use dried milk is in a drought?

My Lords, we are talking about shortage of water for cereal production, cotton production, and indeed for the feeding of animals. There is, as yet, no problem with water consumption for humans.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this drought has undermined the hard work that has gone into the production of food in this area over the past two or three years, which succeeded, so far as Zambia is concerned, in making her self-sufficient in maize last year? Would he agree that the two major factors that can ensure against the effects of such a drought are irrigation, as my noble friend mentioned, and storage facilities, both of which are expensive? Would he draw that to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development?

Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly do that, though I would point out that very expensive storage facilities are not necessarily appropriate to the areas of the world we are currently discussing. For example, as the noble Lord knows, the traditional method of storage of maize is in bags, and Governments in that part of the world are extremely reluctant to get away from that because the capital expense does not justify the return.

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in the light of the failure of the Greater London Council to deal with the increasing congestion and delay of traffic in Central London.

My Lords, as my noble friend is aware, the primary responsibility for traffic in London is vested in the Greater London Council. The Government for their part have placed a high priority on the completion of the M.25, which will reduce through traffic in London. The fixed penalty for illegal parking has recently been increased, the recruitment of traffic wardens improved, and powers are being sought in the Transport Bill—which is at present before your Lordships' House—which include making more difficult the avoidance of penalties as well as allowing the use of wheel clamps on an experimental basis in selected areas. All of those measures are designed to reduce congestion.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask whether he is aware that most of it appeared to relate to action by Her Majesty's Government and remarkably little to the inaction of the Greater London Council? Will he in particular discuss with the GLC, with whom, as he says, the power lies, the question of following the example of, for instance, Paris and Rome and forbidding very large vehicles to traverse the centre of the city?

My Lords, the Government are not responsible for what the GLC do and we have, as my noble friend probably knows, GLC proposals to ban lorries in London. These are at present under consideration. A number of interesting and radical solutions have been proposed for achieving a relaxation of the congestion, and I am sure the GLC will bear in mind what my noble friend said.

My Lords, would the Minister consider that a measure that could play a significant part in reducing congestion would be the encouragement of cycling, so that people, instead of bringing their cars into Central London, could get about by a pollution-free method of transport instead? Will the Government take steps to encourage local authorities —not just the GLC—to provide cycle paths on major routes so that this method of transport is considerably encouraged?

There has indeed been an increase in bicycling, my Lords, and we are well aware of that. Some studies have been done on it and a number of authorities arc following the ideas which the noble Lord has suggested.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that the whole question of congestion was dealt with very effectively on a non-party discussion basis in this House in a debate on the problems of congestion in Greater London? Would he acknowledge that the transportation department of the GLC has given considerable attention to the problem? In addition to the points the Minister mentioned, is it not a fact that an important question, in addition to enforcement, is the need to ensure that the clearways are left open and there is adequate and efficient public transport?

My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for instituting a debate we had some months ago. I also endorse everything Lord Underhill said about the progress that is being made, including the fact that the GLC has the Wood Committee at present sitting on this very subject.

My Lords, the Minister having referred to the capability of the M.25 to deal with the problem of through traffic in London, may I ask whether he is aware that through traffic is only a tiny proportion of London's traffic, much less than 10 per cent.? The problem is not that of through traffic but of inner London traffic. Does he agree that a more sensible proposition would be to revive the long-abandoned idea of the motorway box, which would be much more sensible than the M.25?

My Lords, I am sure those are the sort of conditions and situations which are being discussed at the moment by the committee set up by the GLC, and I am sure they will take note of what the noble Lord has said.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to hazard a guess as to the date of completion of those sections of the M.25 which will relieve the congestion of traffic in London? In view of the supplementary asked by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, may I remind my noble friend that the Peripherique in Paris, which is the equivalent of the M.25, has made an enormous difference to the flow of traffic in the centre of Paris? However, that is a four-way motorway, and I hope the M.25 will be too, or it will be out of date before it starts.

My Lords, the date of completion of the M.25 for which we are hoping is 1986. I have —I am sure like other noble Lords—sat in a traffic jam on the Peripherique.

Not for long.

May I ask the Minister to note, my Lords, that the Peripherique, interesting though it is, is nothing like the M.25, which is an orbital road? The Peripherique is more like the motorway box, which unfortunately was abandoned a few years ago.

I take note of what the noble Lord has said, my Lords.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if my noble friend Lord Howie wanted to revive the motorway box, he would be welcome to do so in Troon but not in London?

My Lords, the noble Lord obviously speaks from Putney, where such boxes would be very unacceptable.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the River Thames is one of the least used waterways of any major city in the world? Also, will he note the fact that perhaps greater use could he made of heavy lorries?

Oh!

My Lords, may I add that what I was referring to was heavy lorries making use of barges on the River Thames?

My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. He may care to know that at present about only 6 per cent. of London's freight is carried on the river.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, mentioned the need to ban heavy vehicles from entering Central London. Turning to cars, rather than lorries, may I ask the noble Earl the Minister whether he personally has considered, or perhaps the Government have considered, the case—which seems to me a strong one—for supplementary licences for car owners entering Central London in the day time? That should both reduce congestion and raise more revenue for the improvement of public transport.

My Lords, my understanding is that the GLC has indeed considered such things, but I have a feeling that the administrative costs would be prohibitive.

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what has been the average increase in nurses' wages since 1979.

My Lords, since March 1979 the average pay increase for all nursing and midwifery grades has been 61 per cent. Earnings, which represent on average an additional 16½ per cent. on basic pay, increased by some 60 per cent. over the same period.

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for supplying the figures, may I ask that they be made better known among members of the nursing profession, who may then be more inclined to co-operate with the Government in getting pay negotiations for the nursing profession put on to a more sensible basis?

My Lords, I and my right honourable and honourable friends in the Department of Health lose no opportunity of making the figures public, not least in answer to Questions from the noble Baroness and Members of the other place. I am not sure what more there is that we could do in present circumstances, but certainly I hope that the importance of the figures that I have mentioned is not lost on those who are now contemplating industrial action of one sort or another.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in 1930 I introduced a Bill in another place for a living wage and an eight-hour day for nurses? They were treated like Florence Nightingales, needing little money. Despite the increases that have been made, is it not the case that nurses, who are fulfilling the most necessary contribution to society, have a wage that is still far less than the average in this country?

My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is wholly right on that. No doubt the Bill that he sought to introduce all those years ago was right and proper at the time, but today, for example, an enrolled nurse earns £4,000, a staff nurse, £4,500, a ward sister's pay is approaching £6,000, and a nursing officer, Grade I earns £6,500— and that is before any offer in respect of 1982 is added on. So the picture is not necessarily as black as the noble Lord paints it.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in order to get a secretary in London, he would have to pay £6,000, and the kind of work in which she would be engaged would be of a pleasant and enjoyable character? With regard to the kind of work in which a nurse is often engaged, if the noble Lord were to visit the casualty department of a hospital in London any day of the week, he would see exactly what the nursing staff have to contend with.

My Lords, I do not doubt that much of the work which nurses do is difficult, and very often they work very long hours indeed. But, on the other hand, the work is very satisfying, perhaps more so than the work done by the kind of secretary whom the noble Baroness has described.

My Lords, will my noble friend acknowledge the magnificent way in which the nursing profession has so far declined to strike, and will that be borne in mind in their favour in any thoughts that the Government may be giving to their pay and conditions of service?

Yes, my Lords, the Government certainly recognise that nurses are a special case, even within the health service. That is why the offer that we made included special provision for the nurses, and that is why we made additional funds available for the purpose.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the fact that nurses make very good wives?

My Lords, I regret that I do not speak from experience of that kind, but I am sure that the noble Lord is right.

My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that perhaps the best alternative to industrial action is arbitration, to which both sides can put their cases fairly?

My Lords, with respect, arbitration has one drawback, and that is that it does not say where any additional money is to come from. It is for the Government surely to decide how much money is available for the purpose. That is what we have done and that is what the offer incorporated.

My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that all emergency cases are receiving proper care and attention during the National Health Service industrial dispute?

My Lords, I am very sorry to have to say that during the last day of action (as it was called) emergency care was not maintained right across the country, in particular with regard to the ambulance services in some areas, and therefore special arrangements had to be made.

My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the noble Baroness's supplementary question to him should be rephrased, in that it is a matter not of the nurses co-operating with the Government, but the Government co-operating with the nurses? I ask that bearing in mind that, although the percentages look all right on paper, what is overlooked is the fact that nurses have to undergo quite a period of training. Will the noble Lord also give comparative figures for other industrial increases, in particular in the higher regions of management?

My Lords, of course I do not have in front of me the figures for every single area of British industry, but the noble Lord recently asked me about the TSRB report, and on that occasion I was able to tell him (if he recalls) that members working in the health service have I think enjoyed a 20 per cent. increase since 1980, and are now therefore paid in the order of that percentage above 1980 levels, while those to whom the TSRB award applied are still paid only about 14 per cent. above the levels of that year.

My Lords, in considering any salary increase will the noble Lord bear in mind that for the type of work that they do in saving human life nurses can never be adequately paid?

My Lords, there is a good deal of force in what the noble Lord says, but I fear the fact remains that we have to find the money from somewhere. The health service employs altogether about a million people, about half of whom are nurses, and so your Lordships will appreciate that even a modest increase costs a very great deal of money overall.

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Transport Act 1981, they expect the regulations prescribing the requirements for road humps to be ready.

My Lords, these regulations are being prepared, and we hope to have ready soon a draft for consultation with representatives of outside organisations, which is required under the Act. The rate of progress thereafter will inevitably depend on the results of the consultation, but the regulations will be made and laid before Parliament as soon as possible.

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that Answer. Can he give me any idea of what he means by "soon"? May I also ask the noble Earl whether he will agree with me that if a noble Lord puts down a non-oral Question genuinely seeking information, asking when the order is to be laid, it is not quite good enough to say, "When it is ready"?

My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's point, and in fact I looked for him towards the end of last week to see whether I could supplement the Answer that was given to me. What has happened regarding the regulations is that technical advances were made by the end of last year, and instructions were ready by the beginning of January for the legal department; but, unfortunately, we have had a little trouble with the legal department because of pressure of work. It may seem strange, but the lawyer in question was involved in the international and European Community traffic, which has been very highly pressed over the last few months for reasons which, obviously, the noble Lord will understand. However, things are progressing well now. I would have said that we might be three months behindhand, and we shall try to catch up.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a large body of opinion which will be pleased with his Answer and will take some comfort from the fact that nothing greatly is lost by the delay in bringing these orders before Parliament?

My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said, and I am sure that it has nothing to do with the term "sleeping policemen".

My Lords, if there is a delay of this kind, is it not quite wrong to say that this is not a serious matter? Is the noble Earl saying to the House that the department is short-staffed; that the legal department is unable to carry on with its work because of the lack of qualified lawyers to do it? In view of the Government's attitude toward reduction in the Civil Service, would he not say that really this discloses a most serious situation in the department and one which needs to he looked at very carefully; and would he come down to the House to make a statement fairly soon to inform noble Lords that the position is not as serious as he has now disclosed?

My Lords, I do not know that there is any necessity to come back to the House to do any such thing. There are no serious shortcomings at all. This is one particular case where one man has to do two jobs; and I am sure the noble Lord would not wish a whole series of lawyers to be sitting there ready to do anything which comes up. This gentleman has had to do the motorcycle test, which I know my noble friend Lady Macleod is very interested in; and, of course, it is impossible for one man to do everything at once. I would have thought that at the moment the Department of Transport has just about exactly the right number of people it should have.

My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister confirm that I am correct in assuming that his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, means that the Government are still in full support of the proposal for road humps, as contained in the 1981 Bill? Secondly, could he say whether any discussions at all have taken place with the organisations which the Minister is required to consult about the contents of these regulations? Have any consultations taken place yet?

Yes, indeed, my Lords. If I could repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, indeed we are just about to hold the consultations which are required by the Act. Because of unforeseen circumstances, we are about two months behind what was our own plan.

My Lords, I do not wish to appear to be in conflict with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who wishes the traffic to flow rather quicker through London. I am asking it to flow a little slower, but only in certain residential areas.

My Lords, whether you like to push a pram along a road or across a "sleeping policeman" is up to you.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Youth Training Scheme.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they having been informed of the purport of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interest so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 4, line 32, at end insert (" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee.").

My Lords, at the Report stage some complaint was made—in a very good-tempered way, but still it was made—that at the discussions at that stage the House did not have the benefit of assistance from any of those of us who have some experience in legal matters. The reason was simply this. This amendment came in at a very late stage, only at the Report stage, I am afraid it escaped the notice of myself, and I think my colleagues, and we were not alerted to it. I felt that as a matter of courtesy at any rate one of us should be here today to give what help we can—which will not be very great, I am afraid as to the merits of the amendment proposed by the Government and the new amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington.

Certainly, when one sees these words which were inserted by the original Government amendment,

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

one's hackles tend to rise. I daresay they rise more vigorously on the back of my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones on the Opposition Benches than they do at the rather cooler place from which I am speaking. Nevertheless, one does not like the look of those words and one certainly wishes to scrutinise them rather carefully. I have read with some care—and I hope with understanding—the explanation of these words given by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, at the Report stage, at columns 137 and 138 of Hansard. Speaking entirely for myself, I find his explanation in relation to the case of Shearer v. Bercain totally satisfactory. He is there explaining that that case lays down that it is the true value of an asset which determines the value of the shares at issue, and he does not wish that that principle should be continued into this Bill.

I personally think that while the explanation is a satisfactory one, it does not really render this amendment necessary because the provisions already in the previous subsection, subsection (4) (a) to (e), of this Bill make it perfectly clear what the statutory value of these assets are to be taken to be. They are not the true value; they are the value ascertained in accordance with those paragraphs. Therefore, I think the situation is quite satisfactory. There is the elaborate Clause 2, and the same goes for the later clause dealing with British Gas, which establishes a special value to be attributed to assets for the purposes of this clause. So far, so good. I must say that I am not so happy about the noble Earl's explanation regarding Section 56 of the Companies Act. That is a section, as your Lordships know, which requires establishment of a share premium account in certain circumstances. His explanation there is contained at the foot of column 138, of Hansard of 8th June. I shall not read it out.

I am left in some doubt regarding Section 56 and what it is that the Government are trying to do. Are they displacing Section 56 altogether and saying that there is to be no share premium account in relation to these assets, or are they saying, "All right, we recognise that Section 56 requires a share premium account but for the purposes of that section we wish the value to be taken into account to be the value given in the scheme"'? I am not at all clear which it is that the noble Earl is desiring in relation to that section. It would certainly benefit and help the discussions here—and certainly my approach to the amendment—if the noble Earl were able to make it clear. Just to recapitulate, is the noble Earl saying that there is not to be a share premium account at all, or is he saying that there is to be a share premium account but it is to he arrived at in relation to the scheme and not in relation to the true value of the assets?

Summing up, I do not personally regard this clause in its context as having any very dire effect. There is always the risk that if it is put in one Bill it will be taken up and put into others. We shall see it popping up in all sorts of contexts which may be much more far-reaching than the present one. I am sure that the noble Earl is now well-briefed to explain what he wishes to effect by these words, and the House will be very interested to hear his explanation.

Regarding the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it would seem, if I may respectfully say so, to be a quite innocuous amendment. It only carries out what the noble Earl explained was the purpose of the clause on moving the amendment. It does not, to my mind, dispose of the doubts which I have already tried to explain in relation to Section 56. It does no harm, but possibly not very much good. I take rather a benevolent but neutral attitude towards it. The purpose of it is of course to probe the Government into explaining more carefully what they are trying to do through the original amendment. I think that that is all the assistance that I am able to give the House on this occasion.

My Lords, I am not going to go through the Bill sentence by sentence and clause by clause. This has been done in various meetings. What I should like to do is to sketch the probable results of the Bill in a very peculiar background which is not often recognised in this country. The passage of this Bill, in my opinion, ushers us into a new era, an era of violence. Looking back on the story of the impact and influence of the completely unexpected finding of oil and gas to the tune of £200 billion has not improved the outlook. One ought to ask: Why not? How can it be improved? What kind of methods are necessary?

When we look back on the story of the impact and influence of oil and gas a regular pattern can be discerned in the Government's reaction. They made good all their pledges, and the pledges were to roll back the public sector and to increase savings by shifting taxation from direct taxes to indirect ones. The Government had, of course, a very good legal case to do whatever they liked. The Tory Governments in power between 1951 and 1964 passed a law which vested the hydrocarbons in the state and they disliked early amendments.

As this could not be done so soon by legislation—and nobody wanted it, anyhow—what happened was that a licensing system was introduced for the exploitation of oil which was more favourable and which would have the same effect as granting money freely to the corporation. The licences were for longer periods, and the state had practically no right to supervise and ascertain the working of the oil giants which could manipulate transactions in and between their single units and so regulate the distribution of profits as they accrued, making as much as possible shift into colonial areas or ex-colonial areas, of which we have only too many.

The Secretary of State for Trade greeted this arrangement with enthusiasm, as did his predecessors. If the aim of the economic policy exercise was the satisfaction of the multinationals, they might indeed have been delighted. In the end, the British Government gave away some two-thirds of the existing oil and gas reserves, at concessionary prices, without taxation being immediately and in parallel remodelled. The Government had not secured access to the books. This approach was commented on with great sharpness by the Public Accounts Committee.

From a British point of view, the outlook is at least sombre. The unexpected fortune of the oil and gas discoveries was not adequately safeguarded. Indeed, Britain could not be certain that the indirect impact of the hydrocarbon wealth would not, through the steady upward push on sterling, be upset or more than upset.

How was it possible that the British Government did not realise this gravely disturbing potentiality? The explanation of this failure, in my opinion (increasingly shared by the more knowledgeable) lies in the fallacious basic hypothesis on which their analysis and measures depended. Contrary to all evidence, conventional monetaristeconomiststrumpet their success in curbing inflation and in rolling back the public sector. That the public sector was rolled back there can be no doubt. That the end of inflation is in sight is somewhat more doubtful. The vast increase of unemployment is, in their view, the consequence, not indeed of the increasingly restrictive policy due to the over-valuation of the pound but of undue wage demands.

The neo-classical doctrines seem to be weakening in the academics, but under Mrs. Thatcher's enthusiasm, shared by Mr. Reagan, still dominate the larger number of the Government experts in defiance of all experience and reason. The economic Bourbons might, unwittingly, reproduce the catastrophe of 1931–34. Professor Hayek has suddenly re-emerged from nowhere and now, as then, still misunderstands the nature of those distant times as he does the present. Of course, the noble Lord the Minister claims that the restoration of competitive markets will solve our problems, that the signalling system based on "free" prices is the best possible way of ensuring balance in the economy, and from there expansion. At no point, however, was the expansion of the hydrocarbon industry induced by free competition. At first it was a heroic battle of Standard Oil and Shell. Subsequently, they admitted and stimulated five major and half-a-dozen minor corporations.

In no way could their behaviour be brought into any relationship with the picture of perfectly competitive markets. This has important implications for Government in their relations with industry. If the market is not able—as it palpably was not and is not—to produce a balance in the economic system, it would have to be substituted by monitoring and acting on the result. This was the reason why, during the Wilson-Callaghan era, a state company (BNOC) was organised. Without participation in actual production, no one could follow the complications of conscious adjustment which was required. The law which we are discussing, will make such effective supervision and adjustment impossible. The BNOC has been stripped of all the powers it would need for that purpose. What emerges from the ashes of an orderly adjustment is a second BP, a second private oil company, partly-owned by the state —which is not capable of acting as a monitor for, and liaison between, the Government and the industry.

The prospects are aggravated by the growing concentration—and the growing importance of the spot market—cif the retail trade. The inelasticity of demand will again be tested as a result of the recent increase in petrol prices. It was fully demonstrated by the disappointment of the widespread hopes for a collapse of the market price of oil in Rotterdam below the 34 dollars per barrel level; when the "market" weakened last year, the relatively vulnerable countries, especially Nigeria, seem to have demanded further concessions from their trading partners, on the pain of cancelling orders. Actually the success was very meagre. The Saudi Arabians threatened further cuts in their own production and discrimination against weak buyers and exhausted producers. The market is begining to tighten.

The coincidence of these peculiarities on both sides —production and consumption—of the hydrocarbon market would demand strict supervision of the price and production policies of the larger producers. Market forces cannot secure optimal distribution and use. Unfortunately, both economists and civil servants are, if not positively hostile, at least very suspicious of any intervention, let alone management of this most important segment of the economy. Yet, without it, periodic crises will prove unavoidable. Noble Lords opposite, and their friends in another place, might well regret what will prove to be an infatuation with a ridiculous fallacy.

The stripping of the gas corporation of its monopoly powers in purchasing natural gas for fuel purposes shows the shoddiness in the design of policy. The main impact will be an increase in the private sector profits without contributing at all to the equalisation of the market.

Even more intellectually contemptible was the notion that the public sector borrowing (PSBR) is of decisive importance in economic management. This notion reversed the reform of monetary statistics, which we had been able to accomplish. It took us back towards 1922. What ought to be done is obviously the separation in consumption expenditure, investment expenditure, socially-required investment and privately-admitted.

The essential basis of monetary policy ought to be reconsidered and adjusted. These considerations largely determine the choice of the use to which the growing oil surpluses should be put. It is essential to differentiate between the public and the private sectors, not through the mechanical means of the price level but much more by subsidy and extra taxes. The short-term public sector surplus ought to be used to strengthen the reserve position. Under the gold, and gold-exchange standards, this would have been done automatically. Indeed, the mystique surrounding the process prevented, on more than one occasion, the timely devaluation of sterling.

In the last decade, another dangerous mystique has grown up. This condemned any interference with the market by counteracting flows and counter flows by the Central Banks. They fallaciously argued that the purchase (or sale) of foreign currencies caused inflation —or deflation—as the case may be, because it had an impact on the domestic money supply.

The notion that it would tend to stabilise the situation could not be tolerated, as it attacked the very existence of sound monetarist vision. But if intervention in this form was condemned, stabilisation would be elusive.

At this critical juncture, the control of foreign exchange was abolished at a single stroke. The improvement of the current balance of payments was nullified by the tremendous export of capital to purchase both portfolio assets and direct investment. Inasmuch as our supply of managerial talent seems feeble, and much of the capital equipment is admittedly obsolete, the policy of freedom which has been carried through means the continuation of the policy of "too little, too late" followed by crisis, from which we have suffered so much——

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I am sure he is making a most stimulating speech but 1 cannot hear a word.

My Lords, I am opposite a microphone. You must complain to—

My Lords, the noble Lord is not near enough to it.

The Bill before your Lordships' House is another step downwards which will cause endless difficulties—is that better?

Much better.

The shrinkage of our industrial industries will continue and our international competitive power will remain enfeebled.

My Lords, I do appreciate that when we debated on Report paragraph (b) of what is now subsection (6) of Clause 2, the words,

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

gave rise to a certain amount of comment. May I start, however, on what is possibly a personal note. I am distressed that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, should think that I did not give appropriate weight to the comments he made and the way he developed his arguments. The difficulty is always that one is in some sort of dilemma because one has to reply on behalf of the Government and therefore one has to explain and justify. But there is the other side of the coin, that one does not wish to regale the House with a lot of details which it might not want to hear, and particularly when one is talking to people such as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, who are experts in their own field. If in that case my judgment was wrong, then of course I apologise to him, because he and I both know that is not the way in which this House conducts its business.

I was also asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, whose interventions I always take seriously, as indeed I did on this occasion, whether I would refer this particular passage to the draftsmen to see whether or not the effect it gives could be achieved by specific provisions in the various paragraphs of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 2. 1 have done this and, in the face of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, says, I have to inform the House, on advice from the draftsmen, that such amendments as the noble and learned Lord suggested on Report would not be possible. That is their judgment of this particular problem. Further, those who have considered this aspect advise me that they could not say with certainty that specific wording in various paragraphs would be sufficient to achieve the desired objective without being underpinned by some general words. It is, therefore, the view of the Government that we should continue with the general words which we have, which cover the ground where specific problems have been identified and which also, on the best view that can be formed, cover other areas where problems have not been identified but where they might still appear.

I should stress again to the House that although the words of paragraph (13) of Clause 2(6) appear wide, their effect would in fact be specific because those words will have effect only when allied to provisions appearing in the scheme by virtue of one or other of the paragraphs in subsections (3) and (4). I would also remind the House that the transfer of an undertaking by means of such a scheme as is envisaged in this Bill is something completely outside the normal run of company practice. Not surprisingly, specific problems have been identified and have led to Clause 2 being in the form it now is. In turn, because of the novelty of the exercise, and because problems have already been identified, Clause 2 has been further cast in a form which will enable problems which might arise to be resolved, as it enables the resolution of the problems already identified.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asked whether Sections 36 to 41 of the Companies Act did not cover the Shearer v. Bercain point. These sections were drafted to cover certain specific situations in company practice. What is now being considered is well outside the usual run of commercial transactions. The company Britoil is being set up out of a state corporation by means of a scheme in preparation for a flotation. Sections 37 and 38 describe circumstances which are not on all-fours with those which the Government now face. Section 37 deals with certain arrangements concerning a company and its holding company, and of course BNOC is not a company, so we are not within that circumstance. Section 38 deals with allocation of shares by a company to its holding company—again, not the position which faces the Government. Section 39 deals with one company allocating shares in exchange for shares in another company. In short, the 1981 Act does not fully cover the circumstances facing the Government, which the provisions of the Bill do.

Then the noble Lord asked whether there might be a case before the courts to which the attention of the draftsmen might have been directed when they were drafting this particular provision. The answer is that there was no such case in mind although, if the noble Lord knew of one, I daresay the Government would be extremely grateful to be told about it.

I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his intervention and I was relieved, I think I might say, to some extent. He asked whether or not the new provision in Clause 2 anticipated the creation of a share premium account as defined in Section 56 of the Companies Act. The answer is, yes; the scheme-making powers would enable a share premium account to be established in Britoil's opening balance sheet. The account would be the difference between the value of the shares issued in consideration and the net value of the assets transferred. Whether or not there is to be such an account has yet to be determined, but the power is there. I cited various examples on Report, and I will not repeat them now. There are, I suggest, respectable precedents for the effect of what is proposed in the Bill in this respect, and particularly Section 4 of the British Aerospace Act 1980 springs to mind.

In view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I think I should say why it is that the Government regard the noble Lord's amendment as unacceptable in the context of Clauses 2 and 10. The amendment assumes that the provisions in subsections (3) and (4) of these clauses relate solely to the preparation of accounts. While their main purpose is to provide for continuity of accounts between the transferor and the transferee, it is not their only purpose. These provisions look to actions which are to be taken as well as to the way those actions are to be reflected in the accounts.

For example, paragraph (c) of subsection (4) provides for the creation of a reserve which will be available for distribution to shareholders. The distribution to shareholders from this reserve is not a matter relating to the preparation of accounts, although the accounts would record the transaction. It is an action which would fall outside the qualification which the amendment seeks to introduce. This reinforces the difficulties which I have already described in attempting to include specific wording in the various paragraphs and the reason why we have adopted the formulation in paragraph (b) of subsection (6).

I appreciate immediately—and did so as soon as I saw the drafting of the amendment—that this kind of wording can give rise to misapprehension. I hope, however, that those misapprehensions will now have been dispelled and that the purpose and effect of par-graph (b) have been explained. Therefore. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given his explanation, which was largely in technical terms. However, he still has not particularised the problems which his original phrase was designed to cover. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, for his very objective examination of the problem that the original phrase raised. He was unable to go the whole way with me, but one sentence of his impressed me. It was a point which, in less felicitous terms, I myself had made at Report: that clauses such as this may always be quoted as a precedent. The amendment which I have ventured to lay before your Lordships severely circumvents the operation of this clause to the extent that it is not already covered by the Companies Act. It is a matter which should be circumvented and I propose to press the matter to a Division.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:

" With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on youth training. Last December I told the House of the Government's plans to introduce from September 1983 a new Youth Training Scheme which would guarantee up to a full year's foundation training for all 16-year-old school-leavers who find themselves without a job. This would remove from them the threat of unemployment during their first year on the labour market and help them to acquire the skills they need to obtain and keep jobs.

"At the same time, I announced increased expenditure for the training of young workers and said that, if the Manpower Services Commission could make other proposals to bring more young unemployed people into paid jobs with proper training, the Government would be willing to consider the transfer of resources proportionately from the new scheme to such proposals.

"In response to this invitation, the MSC published on 4th May a comprehensive scheme proposed by its Youth Task Group, on which representatives of the CBI and TUC sat. The scheme was unanimously recommended to me by the MSC, supported by the CBI and the TUC, and has generally been endorsed by the Select Committee on Employment.

"The scheme is fully in line with the Government's ultimate objective for training young people. It meets the Government's requirements on the guarantee to all unemployed 16-year-olds, on the September 1983 date of introduction, on the content and length of the training programme, on involvement of the local community in delivery and on the need to keep within the resources made available in last December's White Paper. However, the MSC scheme extends beyond last December's proposals by covering also many young people in employment, including apprentices, and it proposes a higher level of training allowance.

"In this wider scheme, employers share in the training costs, and the Government accept that in these circumstances the training allowance can be increased without more cost to the taxpayer or any loss of training standards. A training allowance of £1,300 a year seems appropriate for the launch of the scheme in 1983, though this and the question of excessive travel costs will be reviewed in the summer of 1983 when the MSC will offer their advice to me.

"The Government generally accept the revised scheme and delivery arrangements as set out in Parts IV and V of the Youth Task Group report, on the basis that its costs will be kept within resources already made available for 1983–84 and 1984–85. Although we believe the resources will be sufficient to cover all unemployed 17-year-old school-leavers when the scheme begins, it is not yet possible to give a guarantee to this group nor to say when we might extend the scheme to cover all other unemployed 17-year-olds. In deciding the resources required, we have assumed substantial assistance from the European Social Fund, and this is essential.

"We accept the need for large initial Government funding of the new scheme while youth unemployment is still high, but we intend before 1985 to review the future distribution of the training costs between employers and Government. The MSC intend to undertake, in co-operation with the Government, a study of funding of industrial training generally which should help us decide the level of public funding in the longer term.

"We already undertake that all unemployed school-leavers will be offered a place on the Youth Opportunities Programme. My precedessor as Secretary of State for Employment made clear that, when the Government was in the position to guarantee that no 16-year-old need be unemployed, it would be time to withdraw supplementary benefit from 16-year-olds in their own right. Last December we also stated our belief that it would be right for young people, whether in education, the new training scheme or unemployed, to be regarded in general as dependent on their parents for the first year after reaching the minimum school leaving age.

"We still believe that these young people should not be entitled to supplementary benefit in their own right. Nonetheless, the Government have noted the firmly held and clearly expressed views of those on whom the operation of the scheme depends, that its launch could be seriously impaired by the withdrawal of supplementary benefit from 16-year-olds. We have therefore decided that withdrawal of supplementary benefit will not take place in September 1983 and that there will be a further review after a year's operation of the scheme.

"This will, I believe, also meet the views of the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee, who were similarly concerned. Meanwhile, in line with their views, we shall provide that those who unreasonably refuse a suitable training place will, like adults, have their benefit reduced for six weeks.

"This scheme is an immense step forward towards setting, standards and systems of training for our young people as good as those anywhere overseas. Its success now depends above all on the efforts made by employers and other sponsors, supported by unions, all of whom have fashioned its shape, to provide enough good quality training places. We shall certainly expect commercial and industrial establishments in the public sector to contribute, and I hope that all in this House and outside will give this imaginative new scheme the wholehearted support needed to ensure its successful operation from September 1983 ".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement being made by the Secretary of State in another place. It is in part a welcome Statement, although not as welcome as if the Minister had openly admitted that he was climbing down on two of the cardinal points included in his Statement of December 1981. Basically, the Statement, for all its length, says that the Government will not now withdraw supplementary benefit from those 16-year-olds who will not take part, and that the training allowance will be increased to £25 per week—that is, the £1,300 a year to which the Minister referred in his Statement, instead of the £15 a week previously proposed.

It is clear that inclusion of the conscripted youngster would not have been conducive to making the scheme work, and we welcome the withdrawal of this threat to terminate supplementary benefits from those who do not wish to participate. One regrets that the atmossphere in the field of youth unemployment has been needlessly poisoned by the Statement made last December, and one is only thankful that the Secretary of State has been reluctantly converted to the views of the TUC, the CBI and the local education authorities under the aegis of the MSC's Youth Task Group, and that the scheme has been saved. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that he and his right honourable friend are now whole-heartedly behind the scheme, as amended.

There are one or two points that I should like the Minister to clarify. What proportion of the unemployed 16 year-olds does he think the scheme will affect? How right does he think it is to make such an age distinction between 16, 17, and 18-year-olds? One hopes that the new scheme will cover a broader range of work opportunities and in particular that it will cater for the problem of ethnic minorities. One hopes also that the scheme will be operated on a decentralised basis, with more local autonomy.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I would not wish in any way to minimise the importance of it. If I understood the Statement correctly, it represents a welcome retreat from the December White Paper and acceptance of a great deal of the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group report. I hope that is correct, for that is the way I read it. If so, this represents a very important and welcome shift of policy away from the present concept of finding something for the unemployed 16-year-old to do, with a little training thrown in, in favour of a two-year training scheme for 16- and 17-year-olds, to provide them with special skills and higher standards which will make it easier for them to get, and to hold, real jobs. This is a very important change of policy. This is much in line with the views expressed from these Benches in recent months. We are also pleased that the loss of supplementary benefit as a sanction has been abandoned, and I congratulate the Government on having had a change of mind.

My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their halfhearted welcome to the proposals.

Wholehearted!

My Lords, I misinterpreted the noble Lord opposite and I apologise. As for the resources available to the scheme, I think it is important to recognise that the total resources available remain unchanged. It is simply that. in general, employers will be making a greater contribution to the training programmes, and thus it has been possible to raise the allowance to individual trainees. But that is within the context—I would emphasise this—of the unchanged resources for the scheme as a whole.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me how many people would be affected by this. We believe it will have an effect of some quarter of a million, in round figures, on the unemployment figures altogether; that is a very substantial number. Both noble Lords referred to a change of heart by the Government on this matter. I would prefer to call it a change of emphasis. But I readily acknowledge that the Government have reviewed their position on some of these matters. Perhaps it is worth saying that the Government did most carefully consider all the views expressed, including in particular those represented by your Lordships in the recent debate on this matter a couple of weeks ago.

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement of the Secretary of State in another place. Although it is open to question whether this is a climb-down or a change of heart, or a change of emphasis, I do not propose to add my voice to the rather ungracious tone of the reception given to the Statement by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I frankly welcome it. The Statement does refer to the views and the advice of the Select Committee on Employment in another place and of the Social Security Advisory Committee. It does not in so many words refer to the advice which emanated from all sides of your Lordships' House when we debated this very matter on 9th June, only a few days ago. But I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, referred to this debate, and I think we can say with some confidence that it must have had some effect on the Government's thinking.

There are three specific points I would like to ask the noble Lord. He speaks of an allowance starting off at £1,300 a year in 1983. The task group recommended that this should he uprated to something in the region of £1,400 or £1,450 by September 1983. 1 wonder if the Government have taken that into account. The second point is this. Will the withdrawal of supplementary benefit for six weeks for unreasonable refusal apply only to 17-year-olds or to 16-year-olds as well? Finally, do the Government accept the priorities expressed in the task group reports final chapter, called Next Steps, on dates and the things that need to he done prior to implementation of the scheme? With those few questions I would repeat my welcome for the Government's Statement.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that response. Could I just make two points? The noble Lord asked about the rate of £1.300, which, as I said, is regarded now as appropriate for September 1983, but we have said that we are prepared to keep an open mind on this and maybe review the figure between now and then. On the withdrawal of benefit for six weeks in the event of unreasonable refusal to participate in a course, that would apply to both 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. On the final point the noble Lord made, about the conditions to be completed before the scheme comes into force, I would like to consider the implication of that question before giving the blanket assurance that the noble Lord asks for, and, if necessary, perhaps I could write to him.

My Lords, as regards the contribution from EEC funds, is the Minister in a position to indicate the sort of proportion he expects from that source, and can he say whether any similar scheme from any other member of the Community is having money from EEC funds, and on what sort of scale?

My Lords, I am not able to say off-hand what assistance the Social Fund is giving to other members of the Community for similar schemes. 1 can say, so far as we are concerned, that we are receiving some £60 million, or did receive some £60 million in 1981, in respect of our own YOP scheme, which is, of course, subsumed into this new scheme. We would hope that we could get a little more for the coming year, but it is too early to say precisely how much more that will be. It is, of course, fairly simple arithmetic to determine what percentage of the total cost that contribution is. But it is very welcome.

My Lords, is not the important aspect of all youth training schemes, including this one, the extent to which temporary training schemes lead on to permanent jobs? In that connection, will the noble Lord and his colleagues have a particular look at a scheme recently launched in Hartlepool by the Archbishop of York, and supported by the European Social Fund, the MSC, the local authority and the Church of England? Under this scheme the young people not only receive technical training but also business training, and it is linked with the formation of small co-operative businesses, which create new jobs and in which the young people can anticipate moving on to permanent employment. Has not this scheme got many constructive features, and would not the noble Lord give particular sympathetic regard to this project, with a view to its proliferation in connection with the scheme he has now announced?

My Lords, the noble Lord is, of course, a doughty champion of the Co-operative Movement. I confess that I have not always gone all the way with him on some of his ideas in that connection, but in regard to the scheme he has described —I must confess I do not have immediate knowledge of that scheme—it sounds a very imaginative one and certainly appears to deserve support. On the general point of finding jobs for those who complete their course, I can say that about half, or perhaps more than half, of the trainees who complete courses do manage to find jobs at the end of that or soon after. I am looking forward to the day when more than that number will do so.

My Lords, the noble Lord said that he preferred to describe this as a change of emphasis rather than a change of heart. May we take it that this confirms the view long held on these Benches that the Government have not got a heart?

My Lords, I think that is not correct. In this particular context, to be specific, the revisions which we have made to the training scheme were literally a change of emphasis because they were a reordering of existing resources; it was not possible to make available additional resources. With regard to the supplementary benefit question—the second part of the proposals I have announced—we are saying that, although we are not going to withdraw supplementary benefit in September 1983 as originally proposed, we are keeping an open mind on the subject, because the fact remains that one does need to consider in general whether supplementary benefit is appropriate for those who deliberately decline to undergo courses.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the people of Britain expect their Government to have both a heart and a head, and this scheme seems to encompass both?

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I believe that the Members of your Lordships' recent Select Committee on Unemployment, who issued a report last week—and I think that there is only one other Member present in the Chamber today—will be very pleased indeed with this Statement because it accepts two of the Select Committee's recommendations; namely, that the minimum wage should be £25 and that the element of compulsion should be removed?

My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the Select Committee, of which the noble Lord was, I think, a distinguished Member, recognised that the Youth Training Scheme represented, in their words:

" a big step forward in combating youth unemployment ",

and made recommendations very similar to those of the task group whose revised scheme we have, in general, accepted this afternoon.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 13, line 6, at end insert (" insofar as it relates to the preparation of the accounts of the transferor or the transferee.").

My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for the manner in which he began his remarks as regards this amendment. I have gone over my notes so that I could see exactly what I said in relation to the last amendment, including one or two matters which, for the sake of brevity, I excised. I really do not think that I can improve on what I said previously in the sense that one cannot, in fact, prove a negative. In those circumstances, I do not wish in any way to make the House, still less the noble Lord, feel that I am not anxious to assist, but I do think that I answered the debate on the first amendment as fully as I could he expected to do, and the arguments which I deployed on that occasion really do meet the case which the noble Lord has put forward with his usual charm. I am afraid that I have nothing further to say.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 13, line 34, at end insert (" and that satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers are maintained.").

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Underhill in this amendment. I think that he has quite clearly spelt out the arguments that the Minister used on the last occasion when he accused us of being vague and of inserting our amendment in the wrong place in the Bill. Be that as it may, I think that it is incumbent upon the House to record that noble Lords from all sides of the House fully understood what we are trying to achieve in that amendment. My noble friend Lord Underhill made it quite clear. If it was not quite clear, then we are underestimating the intelligence of noble Lords in that debate. Our intentions were quite clearly understood. They were solely to promote the interests of consumers.

We all understood and appreciated the very great difficulties in which the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, found herself after she had spoken to and voted on our amendment. We extend a certain amount of sympathy to the noble Baroness. This is one of the penalties that one faces in party political public life; on so many occasions when one feels strongly on a particular issue—and it is not always at the most convenient stage for your political party—one perhaps finds oneself facing great diffiulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, tried to overcome those difficulties by accepting the advice of the Minister, which during the Report stage resulted in subsection (2) of Clause 11. I accept those difficulties of the noble Baroness.

But what I find strange are the words of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on 8th June during the Report stage. At column 149 he said:

" 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 a sustained attempt at compromise…".

I should have thought that the words "genuine compromise", as used in this Chamber, would normally imply consultation with the movers of the amendment, if it is to be genuine. Neither myself nor my noble friends were consulted re the repositioning of the amendment, telling us that it was in the wrong place and asking us to reconsider and put it in Clause 11. I think that the genuine compromise to which the noble Earl referred on Report was not the genuine compromise that we would expect in this House.

Turning to today's amendment, perhaps we ought to spell it out clear and loud. The amendment is to maintain adequate standards of service and security of supply to the consumer. Service, supply and safety must be taken into account in the disposal of assets. If, as is widely believed, the withdrawal of the BGC from retailing leads to an expansion of sales only outlets, the mechanisms of service, supply and safety will need to be reconsidered. The Government have made their intentions clear in regard to gas showrooms, although I do not recall any formal debate taking place in either Chamber.

I have not been able to find written in the Tory manifesto clearly spelt out that it was their intention to deprive the consumers of a well recognised consumer sales, advisory and service centre from the high streets of this country. Where do the cries of complaint come from? I would suggest to noble Lords, not from the ordinary gas consumer. Are the services to those gas consumers to be jeopardised in the future to satisfy a very small section of certain business interests? It is hard for me to see at the present time how the special services to the elderly, the handicapped, and the disabled are likely to be maintained when all appliances are supplied by private retailers through the normal shopping facilities. I would ask the noble Minister what attention have the Government given to the problems of maintaining those services and also the existing schemes of providing low or no cost safety measures.

On a humble note I would ask noble Lords to recognise some of the services which are offered through the gas showrooms and how important they are to certain categories of gas consumer. Some of those services are of the greatest benefit to what we call the poorer consumers in the country, and particularly to the elderly. There is one service which is so welcomed by those people who have difficulty in paying their gas bills and that is the opportunity, through the gas showrooms, to buy and collect savings stamps to pay their gas bills. We all know how much more expensive all energy costs are to all of us in our individual homes. This service ought to be recognised as a valuable service to those less fortunate in the community. That service is a service which amounts to roughly £10 million worth of savings stamps sold every quarter through gas showrooms.

The Minister too readily falls into the habit of speaking of improving the standards of reliability of products and services through competition, but only through private competition and never considering that the competition should be between the BGC and the private retailer. His greatest fault is that he fails to recognise the consumers' viewpoint that they receive an effective and economic service from British Gas. It would be unfortunate if the Government encouraged the consumer to believe that by preventing the gas showrooms from selling appliances, it will mean a better service and better product at a reduced cost. I do not feel that this will be the outcome. There will be an outcome which will be detrimental in the long term to the gas consumer.

In conclusion, I should like us to remember that gas impinges on people's lives in a personal way. It does so through fuel being supplied to the home. In our amendment today we are trying to make it possible to enable individuals to take sensible decisions in their own best interests as to what appliances to install. Also we want to give to the consumer the opportunity to assert his rights and obtain proper redress if he has a genuine complaint or grievance regarding supply or service. That is why I and my noble friends are asking noble Lords once again to support our amendment and add to Clause 11(2) the words:

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

My Lords, I should like to speak in support of the amendment, which certainly makes a contribution to the Bill rather than taking anything away. If anything, we concentrated a great deal on the safety aspects of this Bill, and in particular on the clause to which this amendment relates. It is on the service and supply side that I should like to add a short word because it has been overlooked, and there is some genuine concern among the gas consumers who have not followed the detail of this Bill clause by clause as noble Lords have and who are still a little worried as to where they are going to end up if the Secretary of State exercises these powers as contained in the Bill.

I want to say a word about the showroom side. There may also be a way out for the Government by giving a reassurance that they will look again at the showrooms and retail outlets of all the nationalised energy industries. I have already stated at Second Reading of the Bill that the competitiveness between the nationalised industries is not always to the benefit of the consumer, certainly when choosing equipment. The Electricity Council have given me details that the value of their freehold showrooms is £33 million. The value of the freehold showrooms of the gas boards is in the region of £40 million, and the Coal Board are apparently not aware of the value of their retail outlets and could give me no figures. However, approximately £100 million worth of property is being split up through competitiveness between the nationalised industries.

I submitted at an early stage of our consideration of this Bill that those industries should be brought together and have one showroom to provide a complete range of services, in which the gas showrooms are a part and in which the gas hoards have established a special relationship with their customers which is of some value. If the Government do not want to take this amendment into consideration, could they on the otherhand give an assurance that they are looking into all the retail outlets of all the nationalised energy industries on the basis of the consumers' interests coming first? In their efforts to put this Bill through for mainly doctrinal reasons, the consumer element has been a bad third in various parts of the Bill and in particular in the clause we are discussing.

If the Government, on the other hand, see fit to accept this amendment I hope they will be able to convince themselves, and indeed the consumers not only of gas but of electricity and coal, that they are prepared to look at the whole gamut of retail outlets of the nationalised energy industries for the benefit of the consumer, in which case we would accept their views. If they do not do this, this amendment should be supported if for no better reason than that the consumers of gas can be given this reassurance that we have their interests at heart, certainly on the Opposition Benches in this House.

My Lords, I too would rise to support this amendment. I am sorry that I was not able to be here when your Lordships' proceedngs started today. There are delays both above ground and underground in transport between here and Scotland today. Accordingly, arriving somewhat out of breath, I content myself with saying only that I should have thought that the Government themselves would have found this amendment well nigh irresistible. I see no reason why a statutory protection for satisfactory standards of service and supply to consumers should be resisted, particularly by this Government in this Bill.

My Lords, my name has been mentioned more than once this afternoon, so I feel I should make a brief comment. Time is short and there is more business to do. I am grateful for the sympathy of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher; she made her point very well, in a wide-ranging speech. Since Amendment No. 18A to Clause 9, we have come quite a long way, in that, as noble Lords opposite will agree, we have not only put safety first, which we all agreed was most important, but we have put it in the right place in the Bill; it now appears in Clause 11(2), and that must be read in conjuction with the whole of Clause 14, which is a most important provision in that it gives power to go into homes to see that all appliances are satisfactorily installed, whether they have been put in by British Gas or by private people.

As noble Lords will recall, I supported the insertion of "services and supply to consumers", along with a provision saying that those services should be maintained, and I still agree with that, because until we are well and truly over what will be the difficult hump of putting part of the supply of gas into the hands of private people, we shall not quite know where we are. However, we have ensured that at absolutely every level, from the Secretary of State to Ministers in your Lordships' House, in no way will they agree to the hiving off —that was the original term—of gas showrooms or any part of them unless they are absolutely satisfied that all the prerequisites for safety are maintained and are likely to be maintained in the future.

Like the noble Baroness, I recognise that there are many occasions in courts of law when one has to interpret certain words, and, as we are all aware, words are important and must be as precise as possible in a Bill. For that reason, when the amendment refers to "satisfactory standards", I, as a magistrate, however lowly, must ask myself: what is a satisfactory standard and who is to adjudicate on it? If it came to it in a court of law, a learned judge, counsel or someone else would have to prove what was a satisfactory standard. Although, therefore, as noble Lords will be aware, I agree with the principle that services and supplies to consumers should be maintained, I could not agree to the phrase "satisfactory standards" because it would not hold up in a court of law. In any event, I believe that what is sought is covered elsewhere in the Bill. For that reason, I shall not be able to vote for the amendment on this occasion.

My Lords, with this amendment we return to a point which was fully discussed on Report, and it is obvious that the explanations which I gave to noble Lords opposite on that occasion were not received with favour. Nevertheless, I shall not go fully down all the avenues which were explored last time. I have said, and I have said consistently, that the amendment is unsatisfactory both in the way in which it has been drafted and in the effects that it could have. It does not get any better by merely repeating time and again, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has sought to do, ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that it is a good amendment.

No doubt all of us have some idea of what we mean by "supplies and services" but, as my noble friend Lady Macleod said, when we actually come to consider the detailed meaning of those words, considerable uncertainty can arise. If we were to postulate a specific disposal—for instance, the disposal of the Gas Corporation's offshore oil interests—then, if we asked each noble Lord who on the first occasion voted for the amendment, what he or she understood by the phrase and how they would define the relationship between that disposal and services and supplies, I suspect we should have almost as many answers as there were noble Lords going into the Division Lobby, and the debate, I dare say, would become heated.

That is no idle question to ask, for it is not an academic matter. If the amendment were written Into the Bill, that is precisely the situation that would be created. It is all too easy to talk about concepts like standards of service and supplies to consumers, but the vagueness of such terms mean that it is difficult to say whether at any given moment one has achieved the maintenance of those standards at a satisfactory level. All concerned, if the amendment were agreed to, would be in a state of uncertainty as to whether particular directions could properly be given; there would be perpetual discussion as to the precise scope of the powers. After a direction had been issued, it would be possible for the BGC to challenge it by dredging up all sorts of relatively minor matters which they might claim would lead to a lowering of standards for the consumer, and, since there are no absolute standards of that kind, the courts would be hesitant to come to a view that the matters were irrelevant.

The danger would be that the imprecise wording would frustrate the purposes of the Bill. I do not suggest for a moment that the corporation would seek to mount a challenge of that type. Of course not. But the wording of the Bill must be proof against any possible challenge on spurious technical grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is always chiding the Government by telling us that it is not what is not in the Bill which counts but what is in the Bill. I would go further and say that not only does what is in the Bill count but the way it is drafted.

I must stress that the amendment is not only badly drafted in the innocent sense that it could no t achieve what it seeks to do, but it would actually threaten to frustrate the Secretary of State in the achievement of the Government's stated objectives. For that reason, it is thoroughly undesirable and could not be accepted, as I have repeatedly said, although perhaps not in quite such trenchant terms. If the amendment were accepted, the disposals could be bogged down and effectively lost in interminable legal dispute, which I am sure is not in the minds of noble Lords opposite, and I am sure that is something they would not wish to have a part in. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said that there are many statutory references to "supply", and indeed there are, but there are no statutory references that I know of to "satisfactory standards of supply", let alone "satisfactory services" or "satisfactory types of service".

Then the noble Baroness once more raised the matter of gas showrooms and services to consumers. What she did not mention—and I am sure that it was due to a lapse of memory—was the report and the attitude of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The Government are determined to act upon the problem of gas appliance retailing which the commission highlighted, but it is no part of the Government's decision to act on the report in such a way that the corporation should either cease appliance installation and servicing, or should cease its emergency services; nor should it cease to maintain consumer contact points where advice can be sought and stamps and so on can be bought for the purpose of settling gas bills.

I repeat that so far as showroom policy is concerned, I must stress that the Government are determined to act upon the findings of the commission that the appliance retailing of the gas corporation in its present form is against the public interest. However, having said that, I repeat that the Government will not act until legislative measures can be introduced to protect gas safety. In the meantime, we have made it clear to the gas corporation that we shall consider other solutions to the problems which the Monopolies and Mergers Commission highlighted.

The noble Lord, Lord Tan law, asked whether we would look at the showroom arrangements for all nationalised industries so far as energy is concerned. Well, I think the answer is that we have to go one step at a time, and what we are dealing with at the moment, and what the Bill attempts to deal with, is gas. Whether in the future some other source of energy will have the searchlight of public inquiry switched upon it, I cannot at this stage say.

Therefore I have to say that, although I appreciate the very sincerely held views of noble Lords opposite, and indeed in all parts of the House, on matters of safety as affecting the consumers and the way in which they obtain their supplies and services related to gas, I cannot see that the amendment will in any way ameliorate the position of consumers. For the reasons that I have given I consider that the amendment would act as a potential way of causing legal disruption and preventing this Part of the Bill coming into effect. So in those circumstances I can but advise the House to reject the amendment if it is pressed to a Division.

My Lords, I think that the House will be extremely disappointed about the Minister's reply; and not only disappointed, but concerned as well. I should like very briefly to recap the situation which has been referred to by my noble friends Lord Underhill and Lady Fisher of Rednal. The amendment that we earlier proposed would have been an addition to the proviso of Clause 9(1) of the Bill, which, as we know, deals with the disposals of assets. What the House agreed on an all-party vote—and this is of course a non-party matter—was to add, in respect of disposal of assets the words:

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

So there are there three points—the impairment of essential services, the wish not to imperil supplies, and the desire to maintain safety standards. By a majority of 15, I believe, your Lordships, despite Government advice, said that the three aims and objectives were essential to the Bill.

As we have said, during the Report stage, on Tuesday, 8th June, the Government were successful in securing the deletion of that proviso. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, had quite rightly been anxious to deal with the safety aspect, and I submit that the amendment which was passed, and which we supported, dealt with safety only. That was the amendment which the noble Baroness proposed to what is now Clause 11(2) of the Bill. So that is quite clear. The Government argued that the noble Baroness's amendment achieved the objectives of what your Lordships, on an all-party basis, had put into the Bill at the earlier stage. But it dealt only with the question of safety, which is of course of very great importance, and concern has been expressed not only here, but also in the country, about the prospects of safety being endangered by the changes in the future structure of the industry. But that was already covered by Clause 14. Nevertheless your Lordships, with the Government's support, agreed to the noble Baroness's amendment. The Government might have come along and said that there was no need to support the noble Baroness because the matter was already covered by Clause 14. But we inserted a double assurance by passing her amendment as well.

However, the other two aspects to which I have made reference—the maintenance of essential services, and the need not to imperil supplies—have not since been dealt with, and the present amendment, for which I expect that there will be all-party support, as there was prevoiusly, is intended to look after those two important aspects. At the earlier stage your Lordships' Committee was anxious to ensure that the need to maintain adequate standards of service and security of supply to the consumer should also be taken into account in the disposal of the assets. In a way, although we are opposed to the principle of the Bill, by proposing the amendment and seeking the support of noble Lords, we are actually helping people to accept the Government's Bill; but we do not mind that, so long as we have the safeguards on all three issues—that is, the other two issues besides the safety issue.

The noble Baroness said that as a magistrate it is very difficult for her to work out what is meant by "satisfactory". Well, I, too, am a magistrate, and I could have said that when she voted for the earlier amendment the noble Baroness would have had some difficulty in saying when the disposal of the assets would result in impairment of essential services and the imperilling of supplies. But we all know what we mean by "satisfactory service", as indeed the noble Baroness knew what she meant, and noble Lords knew what they meant, when they supported in Committee Amendment No. 18A, as it then was.

So the question is whether the House will let the Bill go through with, quite rightly, a concern about, and indeed legislative action to ensure, safety, but without insisting on satisfactory standards of service, and without expressing any concern, as we did earlier, about the need not to imperil supplies, that point having been taken out. It would be quite wrong for the Bill to go back to the other place in that condition, or indeed for us to be seen in the country as not being concerned with the other two matters because the Government had taken them out. This is a non-party issue, and I hope that noble Lords will join us in the Lobbies in order to ensure that the other two aspects of concern which earlier enjoyed all-party support, are safeguarded in the Bill. This is absolutely essential, and I hope that we shall receive support on this very important amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 14, line 25, leave out (" except as aforesaid").

My Lords, at an earlier stage in the course of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked me a number of technical questions on the memorandum and articles of association of Britoil which are in existence and are there to be read. Rightly or wrongly, and partly owing to their technical nature, I did not at that stage answer, and nor have I since answered, the noble Lord's questions. Now the noble Lord asks me questions on memorandum and articles of association which do not exist and therefore I ask myself whether I would be well advised on this occasion to answer his questions bearing in mind that on the last occasion I did not. It would be very foolish to try to peer so far into the future in respect of what may happen in relation to Part II of this Bill relating to gas and try and foresee what might be within the memorandum and articles of association of a firm, and try to say what they might mean.

I thought that what the noble Lord was going to say was that, whatever justification there may or may not be for floating off Britoil without a further layer of parliamentary scrutiny, it was a constitutional outrage to do the same for some future company which may be floated off the gas corporation. I would not have been surprised to hear him say that and I would in my turn have said that there is plenty of provision for parliamentary scrutiny so far as Part II of the Bill is concerned because the order transferring shares to the Secretary of State will be subject to negative resolution procedure. Before that, it is likely that the Secretary of State will have to issue a direction to the gas corporation to set up an appropriate subsidiary and that direction will also be subject to the negative resolution procedure.

I would have argued that the amendment as it is set out on the Marshalled List is unnecessary. But the noble Lord does not make that point, and it may well be that after I have sat down one of his noble friends will elaborate on it for him. I do not know whether to make the full answer now but I think that I shall not do so because it has all been said before and I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily.

If I may go back to Britoil for a moment—because that is the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was addressing himself—I see from the Official Report that one of the matters which he asked about was the fact that the articles of association for Britoil contain no provision for directors to appoint alternates. I think that was one of his complaints. That is true. It applies to Government directors just as much as to other members of the Britoil board. The case is that as individuals, as in any other public company, the directors of Britoil will be people who can make a contribution as individuals, and it would be as individuals that they will contribute to the success of the company, and alternate directors would be contrary to the philosophy behind this.

The noble Lord asked about the single special share and the rights which it gives to the Government in effect to enable the Government to prevent any unacceptable change in the control of the company. As the noble Lord will know, the ownership of the single special share does not depend on the continued ownership of any other shares in Britoil or on the directors who may be appointed by the Government, whether such exist or not.

I said at an earlier stage that the Government regarded it as appropriate that they should have the right to appoint two directors so long as they own more than 35 per cent. of the share capital of Britoil, and one director so long as they own more than 20 per cent. If the Government-appointed director fails for some reason to be able to carry out his responsibilities, then the Government will make a new appointment. It is also a fact that if the circumstances became such that the Government wanted to dispose of their single share then of course they could, although I have no doubt that the circumstances of such disposal will be such that there will be no longer any point in the state, as it were, keeping an eye on the affairs of Britoil.

The way in which Parliament in one way or another can keep an eye on the Secretary of State is something of which we should not lose sight. The noble Lord pours a degree of scorn upon the negative resolution procedure so far as your Lordships' House is con- cerned. I quite agree that there is a custom—if not a convention, still less a law or rule—that we do not vote on such matters. Nevertheless, during the time in which I have been in your Lordships' House, on more than one occasion such prayers have been raised and the matter can be debated.

One also has to have regard to what the other place could and can do if the Secretary of State, when he was floating off a subsidiary—whether an oil or a gas subsidiary—failed to act prudently. This is really what we are talking about. lf, for instance, he did not get the price right, however innocently—and this has happened as we know in the past few months—then the Secretary of State is subject to severe parliamentary criticism, and that can be debated. He also of course would be subject to the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee so far as the disposal of shares is concerned. That body is a highly effective monitor of executive actions of government which include a financial element, and of course a floating off of this nature would include that. The precedent of the 1977 sale of Government-held shares in BP, which was a substantial disposal of public assets, is one which I think I can pray in aid. There was no question of prior parliamentary approval. Parliament was informed when the sale was ready to go ahead. The sale went ahead and Parliament exercised the scrutiny that it thought was necessary.

In the circumstances, I appreciate that what it is that this Bill does is unwelcome and—dare I say it? —anathema to noble Lords opposite. However, I hope from the detailed debates that we have had on the various provisions of the Bill—including Clause 11 — and the powers of the Secretary of State, that the noble Lord will see, as he did in Committee, that so far as parliamentary scrutiny is concerned, we are really doing the best that can be done in the circumstances, bearing in mind that at the end of the day there has to be a commercial disposal for a commercial price at the right time and in the right manner.

My Lords, we are a little sorry that the noble Earl has not taken a more constructive attitude to this arrangement. When we get to Third Reading and amendments are put down they sometimes, quite understandably, tend to have a more technical flavour and are kept within a very narrow context of matters that have been discussed on Report and in Committee. It is therefore necessary, when we are considering this amendment, to remember that what we are discussing are the principles that should govern the disposal by the state of interest in a highly profitable and highly efficient industry—the British gas industry—which has consistently made profits, much to the chagrin of the party opposite, and which has delivered to the public at large one of the best services in the provision of gas in the whole of the world. This is indeed what we are discussing.

We do not, and we cannot, here challenge the right of the majority party to enforce its political will. It does it in the other place with its colossal majority, and it can usually, in an appropriate instance, get a majority here by whipping. It can do all these things. All we can do here with any degree of success is to challenge the method and procedure by which this politically monstrous disposal of public assets can in fact be carried out. This is the most we can do.

In connection with the Gas Board, it should be remembered that the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 11 of the Bill enable him to require the British Gas Corporation to dispose in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit of—

" (a) any shares of a relevant subsidiary;

(b) the whole or any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, a relevant subsidiary; or

(c) any part of the undertaking of, or any property, rights or liabilities of, the Corporation,".

Under Clause 10 of the Bill that right extends to the establishment of subsidiaries. These powers are given to the Secretary of State.

My noble friend Lord Mishcon has dealt with the question of the submission of the memorandum and articles of association of the relevant subsidiary. This forms a very important part of this amendment. All that we are requiring is that the memorandum and articles of association of the relevant subsidiary should be produced to Parliament. The noble Earl quite properly drew a distinction between the position relating to Britoil, where the memorandum and articles are already in existence, but he said that since there existed at the moment no memorandum and articles which might become necessary by reason of the exercise of the powers of the Secretary of State under Section 11, he could not possibly envisage what they would contain. The noble Earl did not even in his usual fashion—which has endeared him to us on previous occasions—give us any form of assurance as to what the future memorandum and articles might contain. He did not even give us the assurance that the safeguards of the state and the safeguards of the corporation would be least equivalent to the safeguards already contained in the memorandum and articles relating to Britoil. He gave us no assurances at all.

The other part of the amendment which is, if I may suggest it, of even more importance, is the submission to Parliament of a memorandum setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made. What good is it to Parliament that the directions of the Secretary of State have to be incorporated in an order that is subject to negative procedure in another place and also in this House? The order may be as brief or as long, as terse or as verbose, as the Secretary of State may see fit to make it. I would venture to suggest that all that would be in it is the plain, simple, stark and harsh direction of the Secretary of State, ordering the British Gas Corporation or its subsidiaries, as the case may be, to do exactly what he wants them to do and what he has the power to enforce under the Bill as it now stands. What the negative resolution will not provide, I can assure your Lordships, is the full explanation to which Parliament is entitled, setting out the terms on which the disposal is to be made.

The party opposite on many occasions say that they are a party that believe in open government. Here we have a situation where they have taken powers to sell off the whole or part of any undertaking owned by British Gas and any part of British Gas itself, which, I repeat, is one of the most successful public corporations in the world. Yet they will not tell Parliament in ad- vance the terms on which a disposal of any part of the undertaking or any of its subsidiaries is to take place.

I would say to the noble Earl that no rational person would think that that is maintaining the power of Parliament. If these important disposals are to take place—and if they are not important why would the Government bother about them?—what is the objection to letting both Houses of Parliament, but, at a minimum, the Members of another place, have a memorandum well in advance, explaining precisely what is going to be done? This is a policy which is followed by public companies throughout the United Kingdom today. If they propose to sell part of their undertaking, whether they may dispose of shares or anything of that kind and whether there is going to be an acquisition of shares and so on, normally the brokers or the bankers inform the shareholders as to exactly what is being done and why, and why it should be profitable to the shareholders or why it might prove to be unprofitable.

Parliament in regard to these nationalised industries stands in the position of representative of the shareholders, the British public at large. Parliament is entitled to know and debate the terms on which any deal is done on the basis of the direction of the Secretary of State. The negative procedure would not cover that because, as I have explained, there is nothing in any negative procedure, following the laying of an order, which compels the Government to give Parliament any information at all as to why they are doing something or information on the consequences that are likely to flow from it.

This amendment is a very modest one indeed. It ought to appeal to all reasonable men and women anywhere. If the media let the public know that such an amendment exists—I very much doubt whether they will—and if it attracted the interest of one at least of the 14 national newspaper editors, it would of course be plastered all over the papers that the Government propose to proceed so capriciously in furtherance of the will of the Secretary of State to do almost precisely what he wants to do with national assets without informing Parliament in advance—and regardless on what side of the House any noble Lords may sit I invite them in the interests of the public at large, to support the amendment moved by my noble friend.

My Lords, I was hoping so much that the noble Earl was not going to follow the example that he said himself was not a very good example of the Front Bench by not rising to answer a speech when it was a challenging speech, a fair speech and a speech which put very material points to the Government. It is with sorrow that I see him sitting in his seat and not adding anything more to what he has already said.

The sorrow is increased by my having on two occasions put points to the noble Earl to which he has not replied. His reason given to the House at Report stage was that I had put technical points and, as I understood him, he wanted to consider them. That is a perfectly fair point for any Minister to make. He cannot be expected to be briefed upon every aspect, and certainly not upon technical matters. If the noble Earl, with the courtesy that I usually associate with him, had said at Report stage that he wished to have time to consider and would write to me, I would have been thoroughly content. But although the technical points, and they were material points, were raised last time, I received no communication between Report stage and Third Reading.

Being the optimist that I am, and having faith and confidence in Government Ministers to fulfil the duties which this House expects of them, I waited for today. Again, I put my points absolutely courteously, with the Minister having had a full opportunity to appraise himself of the answers to the technical points. All I got was a deathly silence, and that is all that the House got, too. Then, when the points raised this time were not of a technical nature but of a constitutional nature, again there was no answer, except that the Secretary of State, if he behaved badly, would no doubt be criticised —not a very healthy answer—and that, furthermore, there was the Public Accounts Committee which might decide to take this into their purview; because, of course, they do not look at everything. If the Secretary of State behaved badly and foolishly, and endangered the nation's finances and its assets, then, no doubt, the Public Accounts Committee would do their job and criticise him.

What are we all here for? What is Parliament here for? It is to check the powers, if they get too great, of Secretaries of State and Ministers, to whatever political party they belong. If this amendment is not carried today, we will have set a very sad precedent, with a Government Front Bench being able to impose their will, without answering a debate properly, and with a Secretary of State in future, of whatever political party, being given powers without informing Parliament, without consulting Parliament and treating Parliament as this House has been treated today—with disdain.

moved Amenmdent No. 6:

Page 39, line 21, at end insert (", provided that any duty of which the Corporation is to be relieved is specified in the direction.").

My Lords, I support this amendment. The House is in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for his persistent pursuit of this theme. To delegate to the executive a power to give directions, irrespective of whether the giving of those directions is in conflict with a statutory duty incumbent on the person to whom the directions are given, strikes me as being—I must be careful how I describe it, because the noble Earl is wont to accuse us of hyperbole and the like—perhaps somewhat extravagant.

I had some difficulty in deciding how it should be described constitutionally in the light of the noble Earl's reaction to the arguments which have been directed against him on this particular provision. I have in mind particularly the very reasonable arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I wondered, in pondering, whether it should be described as a constitutional outrage or whether it is a kind of constitutional aberration. But certainly there is something wrong about it. I imagine that the late Lord Hewart—I have referred to him before in the context of this matter—must be turning in his grave. When he in the early 1930s, I think it was, published his polemic which he entitled The New Despotism, attacking the then growing practice of delegating to the Executive powers which had previously been guarded as the powers of Parliament, I remember myself as a young and pretty ignorant law student thinking that perhaps the old gentleman was getting unnecessarily excited. I felt that, after all, if one was going to govern effectively one had to have what I believe the noble Earl himself described during one of the debates on this very provision as a sensible executive discretion. We do not quarrel with that.

I imagine that what concerned Lord Hewart and what perhaps escaped me as an ignorant young student of law, was that, if Parliament was not vigilant in this context, the appetite of the Executive for powers would grow and grow and grow. That is what has happened. This Bill is surely a high watermark and, with these kinds of consideration in mind, I hope that the House will accept this very modest amendment. It does not go so far as many of us felt we ought to have gone at the earlier stage—but, if the Government could not accept that, perhaps they will accept this amendment.

My Lords, this is not the first time that Clause 32(3) has occupied the attention of the House. I am sorry that there still seems to be considerable uncertainty as to the meaning of this clause. Obviously there is that uncertainty or we should not be having yet another debate in this form. I hope that I can once more put the clause into perspective and correct any misapprehensions there may be and also say why we find this amendment unacceptable.

On the last occasion when this matter was considered, some noble Lords imputed what I might call a deep constitutional issue to it. We really got into the realms of the fanciful, if not the colourful. We had mentioned The New Despotism, which has been referred to again today; and we had the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—who will no doubt spring to his feet when I sit down—talking about Magna Carta. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton, whose ancestor actually signed the document, is not too far from his place today.

Joking apart, there are two important restrictions on the duty to comply with directions which limit the scope of the words,

notwithstanding any duty imposed on it by any other enactment ".

Firstly, the directions to which Clause 32(3) apply can be given only in certain circumstances. They relate solely to the powers of disposal set out in the first two clauses of Parts I and II and to the common carrier provisions in Clauses 15, 16 and 17, and those powers have specific objectives in mind. The powers of direction, therefore, are themselves restricted in scope and are not so widely drawn as it has been suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me whether Clause 14(2) is included; the answer is, no— because it is something not related to the powers of disposal.

Secondly, the duties referred to in the parenthesis to which I have just referred are those, and only those, duties imposed specifically on either corporation. This means duties imposed on that corporation by name or in circumstances which are equally specific. The words "any enactment" therefore apply to the small category of enactments which impose individually identified duties on one or other of the corporations. What we are really talking about are just two Acts; the Gas Act 1972 and the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975.

There is no question of the words creating the wide-scale abandonment of our British legal system, of which we are all so proud, which some noble Lords suggested at Report stage. In other words—and I want to emphasise this—the words "any enactment" do not apply to all Acts. The corporations would not be able to ignore those statutory duties which apply to everybody. It would not be right to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested on the last occasion, that the corporations would be able to ignore the duties imposed on them by the Companies Acts or by the various Acts imposing taxation. It would indeed be a curious state of affairs if that interpretation were correct—but it is not. In other words, the tailpiece to Clause 32(3) has a precise and limited effect and it cannot bear the wide-ranging interpretation that some noble Lords have attempted to give to it.

A few examples. In the case of the British Gas Corporation, their principal duty is set out in Section 2(1) of the Gas Act 1972. The corporation are required,

" to develop and maintain an efficient, coordinated and economical system of gas supply in Great Britain, and to satisfy, so far as it is economical to do so, all reasonable demands for gas in Great Britain."

Another important duty on the gas corporation, in Section 14, is to secure that, taking one year with another, the combined revenues of the corporation cover the outgoings and equipment reserve allocations. A limited number of other duties are specified in the Gas Act 1972—for example, the corporation has to promote the welfare, health and safety of its employees; to settle a general programme of gas research; to comply with directions arising out of representations made by the National Gas Consumers' Councils, and so on. However, the Act specifies a relatively small number of duties for the corporation.

In the case of BNOC, as I said on the previous occasion, the corporation does not have the kind of statutory duties which are comparable to those of a public utility such as the gas corporation—but I can quote an example. Under Section 10 of the 1975 Act, BNOC has the duty to prepare accounts, including accounts for subsidiaries, on an annual basis. As part of the preparations for flotation, however, accounts will have to be prepared for Britoil part way through the year. We would not wish there to be any doubt or confusion on the part of the corporation that it should prepare accounts for a broken period.

If I may quickly take the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, presented it as being a reasonable compromise, which he hinted would not be acceptable to the Government because the Government are not susceptible to compromises, reasonable or otherwise. What the amendment seeks to do is to anticipate, or rather to ask the Government to anticipate, in each direction every possible legal objection that might be advanced by a corporation which disagreed with the Government's policies. I can liken it to suggesting that the Finance Bill should include a comprehensive code on tax avoidance covering not only all schemes already devised but also all those which might be contemplated at some stage in the future. To endeavour to cover every possible legal argument that might be advanced in a direction might confer a wholly misplaced legitimacy on some insubstantial contentions, implying wrongly that, but for the provisions of Clause 32(3), those matters would have stood in the way of the direction.

If we were to accept this amendment, there would be the real danger of inviting the Secretary of State to pick and choose between the statutory duties imposed on the corporation. But, because many of these duties, particularly those imposed on BGC, are worded in such general terms, there could well be scope to argue that any duty not specified in the direction was being breached. This would lead to the confusion that Clause 32(3) seeks to avoid. In practice, the amendment would invite the Secretary of State to relieve the corporations of all their duties. This I believe would have the opposite effect to that intended. And the Government do not wish to relieve the corporations wholesale of their duties. The only purpose of the tailpiece to Clause 32(3) is to prevent a particular duty from in some measure frustrating the Government's declared policy. I think that is the nub of the argument. If one looks at it in this light and in the light of the explanations I have given as to the scope of the tailpiece I do hope the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

My Lords, the noble Earl, with his usual powers of anticipation, said that I might rise after he concluded his remarks, and he was kind enough in those remarks to reflect upon a speech which I had inflicted upon your Lordships on a previous occasion when I had evoked, with some emotion, I may say, the principles of Magna Carta. A very touching reference was made to a Peer who is very much respected in this House and whose ancestry goes back to the days of Magna Carta, and in some way the noble Earl seemed to get some comfort from the fact that the noble Lord concerned was somewhere near this Chamber. My best information is that the noble Lord is seeking comfort in regard to this breach of Magna Carta in another room in your Lordships' House.

If I may immediately come to the argument which appears to have developed upon this reasonable amendment, the noble Earl was good enough on this occasion to deal with the arguments that had been advanced by my noble friend, and for that courtesy and kindness I thank him. But there was not very much substance, if I may say so, in the reply to the debate, and I hope to show very briefly why I say that. We are no longer arguing about the provision in the Bill which many of us find extremely distasteful that exempts the Secretary of State from having to comply with existing enactments. That is done, from our point of view, with some degree of distaste. But we have had a debate upon that, the will of the House has been expressed, and, from that point of view, that is the end of the matter for this Bill. It may not be the end of the matter from the point of view of precedents which might be set, but there it is. That argument is over.

My noble friend Lord Beswick advanced an entirely different argument, and said this: let us take it for granted that the noble Earl the Minister is right, that it is only within a very narrow province that the Secretary of State is enabled to ignore an enactment, and that, from that point of view, surely Parliament ought to be able to give him this power. however unusual it may be, without having any fears as to the future. We have swallowed that argument; we have to; there was a vote upon it and it was decided. All this amendment asks is that there should be a frank disclosure when the Secretary of State is in fact going against an existing enactment, is in fact taking away a power or a duty of the gas utility or the oil corporation. It merely asks that he in his direction says what he is doing and is frank and open about it. Parliament, in deciding whether or not there ought to be a Motion negativing the statutory instrument which contains the direction, will at least be put upon notice of the fact that an enactment is being breached, a duty is no longer to be fulfilled, a power is being removed.

What answer can there be to this amendment? Is it that the Secretary of State feels that he need not be frank with Parliament? Is it that the Secretary of State is trying to hide from the public that an enactment is being breached? What can there be by way of answer to this amendment? I hope that your Lordships will take it for granted that the noble Earl the Minister is wrong when he turns to these Benches and says that we find ourselves so hostile to the principle of this Bill that we are out to attack it at every point purely because of our opposition to it. It has been conceded —it has to be—according to our democratic process that the principle of the Act will be fulfilled, but it is our duty to see that in the powers that are given under this Act we protect the nation, we protect the public, and we protect the frankness with which the Secretary of State ought to act. That is embodied in this amendment, and that is all this amendment says.