HC Deb 24 June 1952 vol 502 cc2178-94
Mr. Goronwy Roberts (Caernarvon)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "three," and to insert "those."

Some hon. Members may remember that last week on the Committee stage I drew attention to what I regarded as a defective wording in this Clause. At the time the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to look into it. I expected that this evening he would be moving his own Amendment to set that right. I am rather surprised, and not a little disappointed, that he has not done so. That being so, the Minister may be able to accept my Amendment. It does not alter the intention of the Bill in the slightest degree. It merely seeks to re-form the wording of the Clause, which, as it stands, is inexact and ambiguous.

I am not concerned that there should be a separate scheme for the Principality of Wales at the moment. There are strong arguments for such an arrangement, but I am not arguing that particular point. My concern is that the Clause, as it stands, is so badly drafted, that it does convey a studied insult to the Principality. [Laughter.] Hon. Members on the other side of the House who take it upon themselves to titter may well remind themselves of the lavish promises which the Welsh electorate was subjected to by their colleagues during the last General Election.

Let us look at this Clause. Four countries are named in it—England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. It may be argued that Northern Ireland is only two-ninths of a country. I personally have no objections, at all, if Northern Ireland, or the six counties in the north-east corner of Ireland, are promoted to the status of nationhood in order to delight the hearts of the Parliamentary draftsmen.

But I do strongly object that Wales, a country older in nationhood and national identity than any one of these, and a country which has contributed in peace and war to the security, prosperity and, not least, the agriculture of the United Kingdom, is demoted, indeed, wiped out from its position as a national unit by the terms of this Clause. That is the effect of the Clause as it stands, and as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have chosen to let it stand, even after the mistake was pointed out to them in the debate during the Committee stage.

While four countries are named, the Clause goes on to refer to "all three countries." The mathematics of the Clause is wrong. How is this kind of drafting possible? Is there no one in the drafting office, who takes care of this kind of thing? Is there no one among the advisers of the Minister who can point out to him how inevitable and unnecessary a feeling is aroused in Wales by this kind of drafting? What about the Minister of Welsh affairs? Where is he? Being the watchdog for Welsh interests, I suppose? What a watchdog. More like a poodle. [An HON. MEMBER: "A corgi."] By no means a corgi. The qualities of watchfulness, dash, and determination of the corgi are very considerable.

How is it that fully a week after this point had been raised, no representation has been made to the Ministers of Agriculture by the Minister for Welsh Affairs? Would he allow this kind of insult to Scotland? I very much doubt it. The curious fact is that there never was a time when the Tory Party were so fulsome in their flattery of the Welsh people. Hardly a week goes by, but a ministerial spokesman comes to Wales and discovers some new virtue in the Welsh people.

It seems that, to a Tory Government, we have as many virtues as we have votes. The Minister of Agriculture recently came along, and paid high tribute to the Welsh agricultural community. Within a fortnight, this is what he tolerates to be done; implicitly to wipe out Wales as a distinctive country by the terms of this Bill.

It is not enough to flatter us in Wales. We expect respect and recognition in this House and in the legislation put forward here. Otherwise we shall take it that Wales is expected to ask that she should manage these matters on her own. If she did that she would not run the risk of being drafted out of existence.

I appeal once more to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. We feel most deeply about this question. Let the Government not say that this is a matter of no consequence. It is important. Let them not say that, after all, Wales is getting its £5 per acre. This is a matter of principle. It is a principle for which the ancient nation has fought persistently over a long period of centuries against the most overwhelming odds—the principle of maintaining its national integrity and identity. That to us is worth much more than £5 per acre.

Mr. Tudor Watkins (Brecon and Radnor)

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that we shall get a better reply than that which was given in the Committee stage. This is a very badly drafted subsection. I was tempted, if I had been allowed by the Table, to put down an Amendment in the Welsh language. I hope that the spirit expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) will be reciprocated by the Parliamentary Secretary. There is still another stage of this Bill in another place when this matter can be remedied for the benefit of those of us from Wales.

This is not a new consideration. Consideration was given to the special iden- tity of Wales in the Agriculture Act, 1947, and in other Acts on agricultural matters, in the Forestry Act and in the Hill Farming Act. The good work done by the last Government, to which objection was not taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, ought to be carried on.

I regret that the Minister for Welsh Affairs and his Joint Under-Secretary are not here. I wonder whether the Minister of Agriculture or his Parliamentary Secretary have consulted either of them on this issue. I wonder whether the Minister for Wales said, "Do not bother with that. There is nothing much in it." We should like to know. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary nods his head to show that he was consulted and that he made that reply. That will be very good news for the Welsh Press tomorrow morning.

Serious consideration ought to be given to this Amendment. We in Wales are not counted as a country or a nation. We are linked up with England. On a previous Bill I had to move an Amendment to make it clear to the people of Wales that they were entitled to the benefit of it. We have not gone as far as that here, but we suggest that there ought to be opportunity for the Minister to put forward a separate scheme for Wales.

Mr. Roderic Bowen (Cardigan)

I support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends. This subsection contains a serious inaccuracy which amounts to an affront and insult to the Principality of Wales. When I saw mention of the three countries, I immediately assumed that the reference was to England, Wales and Scotland. But it is clear from the drafting that it is intended that the countries to be referred to are England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

So we have the assertion by implication that Wales is not a country, and to add insult to injury that Northern Ireland is a country. I would respectfully suggest that whereas Wales is a country, Northern Ireland or the South of England or North Wales is not a country in itself. The Minister does not consider Wales to be a country according to the Bill. That, I would respectfully suggest, is something that should be put right as soon as possible.

11.15 p.m.

By implication also there is a denial that Wales is a nation. I have taken the trouble, in case there should be any ambiguity, to look at the Oxford dictionary's definition of a country. We are told there that a country is the territory or land of a nation. So there is a denial by the Minister in this Bill that Wales is a nation. Perhaps it would be of value if I gave the definition in full: The territory or land of a nation, usually an independent State or once independent and still distinct in race, language, institutions or historical memories. I would respectfully suggest that we could not possibly have a more accurate description of the position of Wales vis-à-vis England, Scotland or Northern Ireland than that contained in that definition.

The matter does not rest there, because it might be said this is just a piece of clumsy draftsmanship. Unfortunately, there is evidence from the Second Reading and Committee stages of the Bill that this type of either deliberate insult to Wales or loose language is prevalent. For example, on Second Reading the Minister committed the same fault. Quite contrary to what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) suggested, this error is not confined to the Tory Party or one side of the House, because in the speeches on the Second Reading and Committee stages the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) made the same mistake. Of course, they should know better.

I feel that if the Minister had taken the trouble to consult the Minister for Welsh Affairs he would have taken the earliest possible opportunity to put this matter right. In fact, if the Minister had chosen for one moment to revive his memory of Henry V he would have realised immediately that the language used in the Bill was much at fault. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the words which were addressed by Fluellen to the King: If your majesties is remembered of it, the Welshmen did goot service in a garden where leeks did grow… The King replied: I wear it for a memorable honour: For I am Welsh you know, good countryman. Fluellen: "All the water in Wye cannot wash your majesty's Welsh plood out of your pody, I can tell you that… King Henry: "Thanks, good my countryman. Fluellen: "By Cheshu, I am your majesty's countryman… Here we have in this Clause a denial that Wales is a country.

There is one other matter to which I would respectfully draw the attention of the Minister with regard to this Amendment. Unfortunately, the wording of the Bill prevents the Minister if he chose from designing a separate scheme as far as Wales is concerned. The Clause enables him, if he chooses, to prepare a separate scheme for Scotland or for Northern Ireland. I should have thought he would have been only too glad to have placed in the Bill—and an Amendment a little wider than the one under discussion at the moment would have enabled him to do so if he chose—a separate scheme for Wales as distinct from England.

I hope he will reconsider this matter in a way designed to remove this either studied or accidental insult to Wales, and, at the same time, widen the scope of the Clause so as to enable him if he so chooses to make provision for a separate scheme for Wales. I must say that when the Parliamentary Secretary spoke he did not fall into error in this matter. Throughout his speech on Second Reading he referred to Wales as distinct from England. He also—and this is important from the point of view of the second point I tried to make—indicated quite clearly that in this matter as in many other respects Wales had a particular problem.

For those reasons I urge the Minister, if he cannot accept the precise wording of the Amendment, to give an undertaking to the House that he will see to it that the wording of this Bill is altered so as to make it perfectly clear that Wales is a country, and to remove this unfortunate phraseology from the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

I fully endorse the arguments put forward by my two hon. Friends and by the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen). This, on the face of it, appears to be just an unimportant drafting point, but may I remind hon. Members on both sides of the House that it is far more than that.

Behind this small Amendment there lies a very great principle. It is, in fact, an assertion of the right of Wales to be regarded as a nation by this House at all times and in every Bill that comes before it. I do not think it is a studied insult on the part of the Minister to the Welsh people, although it could be so interpreted in the Principality—and will be so interpreted in many quarters there.

The omission appears to arise, as these omissions always arise in this House, from an obtuse refusal to appreciate what is quite obvious, that Wales has equal status with England and Scotland, and certainly with the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.

I would like to hear from the Minister whether he has consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and Minister for Welsh Affairs. I am quite certain that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention had been drawn to this Amendment he would be extremely indignant to think that the country for which he has ministerial responsibility is being treated in such a cavalier fashion.

Wales has her own quite definite and separate agricultural problems which are distinct from those of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. If the Minister studies carefully the last debate on agriculture in this House he will realise why we submit that Wales is entitled to completely distinct consideration in the matter of a scheme under this Bill. I give notice to the Minister that if he does not accept this Amendment tonight we shall fight for it as hard as we can. I also give notice to the Government that if in future Bills they attempt to lower the status of Wales by comparison with Scotland, Northern Ireland or England we shall fight them at every opportunity.

Mr. T. W. Jones (Merioneth)

I am pleased to have an opportunity to support this Amendment. This Bill emphasises once again the difficulty of persuading people that England and Wales are two distinct countries, and that the respective peoples are two distinct and separate nations. Why it should be so difficult I do not know. If one goes to Scotland or to Northern Ireland one can easily persuade oneself—dialect apart—that he is still in England. No one can go to Merionethshire, Caernarvonshire, Anglesey——

Mr. Bowen

Or Cardigan.

Mr. Jones

Or Cardigan, without realising immediately that he is in a different country. He will not understand the language. I do not know whether the Minister has heard it, but I can give him an example of it by translating the last sentence: Ni fuaasi'n alluog i ddeall yr iaith a lefarir. This is the language habitually spoken by the people through the length and breadth of the Principality. Reference is always made to England and Wales, and, naturally, that coupling together of the two countries is irritating to ardent Welsh people. I think it would be more tolerable if sometimes there was a reference to Wales and England, but it is always England and Wales.

I would also remind the House how different the countries are geographically. Wales, as I said the last time we had a debate on agriculture, is a country of hill farmers, and these farmers have their peculiar problems, which were brought to the notice of the Minister during that debate. This again is an additional, and to my mind a very important reason why this Amendment should be agreed to on this occasion. I trust that it will be accepted in the spirit in which it has been moved, seconded and supported.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

I should like to intervene briefly in this matter, because I represent a Welsh constituency, and ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to appreciate that, as has been said from the benches opposite, there is a sentiment in our part of the British Isles, which, while completely loyal to the Crown and indeed to the idea of the Commonwealth, resents the impression that the interests of Wales are being identified with England, and that the Principality is just being regarded as an additional English county.

I think it would be unfortunate if in this or any other Measure that impression strengthened, because undoubtedly there is a growing nationalistic sentiment, which, if this kind of thing goes on, might be encouraged. For my part, I do not wish that nationalist movement to take control of the quite natural ideas in the minds of many Welsh people which are becoming a power in the State.

11.30 p.m.

It seems to me that we sometimes overlook the nature of the Principality. After all, the population of Wales is considerably greater than that of Northern Ireland, and indeed it is greater than that of a self-governing Dominion like New Zealand. As the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) observed, in his part of Wales undoubtedly a visitor is immediately aware that he is in a different country. I am quite prepared to admit that in my constituency there are places where one would not easily get that impression; but I live in the Anglicised part of Wales.

In urging the Parliamentary Secretary to accept this Amendment with sympathy—and its acceptance would not make any radical change—I ask him to realise that in agriculture particularly there have been some peculiar developments in Wales. As doubtless has been said on many occasions, Wales is primarily a country of smaller farms than those that are to be found in the English counties.

I must express my sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. I leave it to the Government to consider it with proper sympathy for, after all, this Government have made a more positive advance towards Welsh devolution than have any previous Government. With all its limitations, the appointment of a Minister with extra responsibility for Welsh affairs together with the appointment of an extra Under-Secretary was a positive advance.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Eye wash.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I think it would be reasonable if I started by reminding the House that, immensely important though these Welsh affairs are—and I am the first to recognise the Welsh national feeling that was expressed so eloquently tonight—we are discussing the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill and that we should therefore consider this issue within the ambit and the scope of the Bill.

The first comment I should make is that as this Amendment is drafted it would not be practicable to insert it in the Bill. The proposal to leave out "three," and to insert "those." would make it impossible to have a combination of three. One can only have a combination of two. Leaving aside the question of drafting, however, may I address a remark or two to the constitutional point which has been raised with such fire and eloquence by hon. Members from the Principality?

I should like to assure them straight away that, of course, we have looked very carefully at the suggestion which was made on the Committee stage—as we undertook to do—to discover whether it would be practicable and possible to give effect to what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) asked. I can assure him that the reason why no Amendment was put down on the Order Paper was that in our opinion it was not possible to meet his request.

Mr. G. Roberts

I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his usual courtesy. He said that it was only possible to join two countries together and not three. Actually, under this Amendment it would be possible to join four because the scheme for England and Wales together would still be the same scheme for both. In that event all that would be done would be to remove the word in the Clause which deprives Wales of any national position. The fact that there would be the same scheme for England and Wales would protect the position from the point of view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said.

Mr. Bowen

Is the Parliamentary Secretary seriously contending that this Clause cannot be amended to make it clear that England and Wales are two countries? If he is, I would respectfully suggest it is a quite absurd suggestion.

Mr. Nugent

When the hon. and learned Gentleman comes to read HANSARD tomorrow he will see I was making no such suggestion. Obviously, it would be possible to draft an Amendment to meet the point I was making. I only made that comment in passing because I think the House should know it.

I was about to address myself to the main weight of the comment made by the Welsh Members. My general reply to the constitutional point is that England and Wales or, if they prefer it, Wales and England, have been administered as one agricultural unit traditionally for many years, and that it has been found a convenient and workable unit. Therefore, in this Bill we have followed the traditional form, which has worked satisfactorily in the past. There is certainly no derogation of the Principality's status either intended or implied, and I feel sure the people of Wales will not be so sensitive as to think that there could be any implication of that kind in following the normal wording, which has appeared in very many Acts.

Mr. Bowen

Could the hon. Gentleman give us any examples where the phrase "country" has been used to cover England and Wales?

Mr. Nugent

I think it will be found in the Hill Farming Act, the Livestock Rearing Act, and the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act. I will get a complete list for the hon. Gentleman if he would like to have it, but I assure him that for agricultural purposes this is normal form.

Mr. Bowen

Is the Minister confusing instances where the phrase "England and Wales" is used and where there is statutory authority for Wales including England? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wales including England?"] It is an expression like "man embraces woman." Here there is a specific reference to the country, with an implication that Wales is not a country.

Mr. Nugent

I suspect that I have offended the hon. and learned Gentleman. If that is the source of his complaint, we will have to look more closely at the second scheme.

I now deal with the point raised by almost every Welsh Member—the special geographical and agricultural needs of Wales. First, it would be possible in a scheme to find a condition which applied to Wales only, if it was thought that because of the nature of any particular subsidy it was necessary so to apply, so that the need for a separate scheme for Wales could be covered within the terms of any scheme which was being drafted.

But, in a general way, although there are conditions in Wales which are exceptional, great parts of Welsh agriculture are the same as great parts of English agriculture and, indeed, Scottish agriculture, and the right way of dealing with these special geographical problems in agriculture is by specific Acts, like the Hill Farming Act, which deals with very high lands, or the Livestock Rearing Act, which deals with very low lands, and so on, rather than by defining particular areas. I think that all the hon. Members from Wales can be assured that there is no danger in the Bill, as now drafted, that the particular agricultural and geographical problems of Wales cannot adequately be met.

Mr. C. Hughes

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, whatever the merits or demerits of having a separate scheme for Wales, it is undesirable that Wales should be classed with England, for this purpose, as one country?

Mr. Nugent

The object of the Bill is to provide for the application of these grants to stimulate the ploughing up of grassland and if, as has happened often in the past, England and Wales can be conveniently treated as one administrative area, I think there is every reason to follow that precedent. I seriously suggest that there is no possible implication that because we have followed the normal practice in this matter—which has given good results in the past—that anybody in Wales should feel that the national pride is torn apart. That is not the implication in the Bill, and I hope that the House will agree to reject the Amendment.

Mr. G. Brown

I think that everybody in the House will have a good deal of sympathy with the viewpoint of the Welsh Members who have spoken, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister himself. Nobody complains of the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with this matter, but the Minister will know, as I have found from experience at the Ministry of Agriculture, that this is a very delicate subject; that it is looked upon with more importance in Wales.

We, in a practical frame of mind, think that there is a good deal of similarity between, say, the western counties, and some of the midland counties; there is the hill land in my own constituency. We think we are not so distinct from Wales, and that there is not much point in what has been said by my hon.

Friends. But, in Wales, a different view is taken, and more importance is attached to it; and the Minister should say a word about this himself because I think that it will give rise to a good deal of bad feeling in Wales if he does not.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say a word or two about it and to consider the matter again before this Bill finishes its journey. If I thought that accepting the Amendment would put the Department in a difficulty in being forced to have a separate scheme for Wales which, after all, turned out to be almost similar to the scheme for England, I could understand it. But nothing which the Parliamentary Secretary has said led me to believe it would have that effect at all.

The Amendment, if accepted, leaves the position unchanged very largely from what it is now. All my hon. Friends want is that Wales should be recognised as a country separate in itself for the purposes of the working of this Bill; on all fours with the other countries forming the United Kingdom. I thought all of us would have accepted that, but at the moment the Parliamentary Secretary says that if there is a special Welsh agricultural need it can be dealt with now and that failure to agree to the proposed words does not mean that there is a case which cannot be met.

Surely that gives away his argument. If the Minister could meet a special Welsh case if one exists, what objection can there then be in amending the Bill in this form? There can be none at all. The only justification for dying in the last ditch over it is either if you do not want to admit that there is a special Welsh case or if you are prepared to admit it although, in fact, it is not there. I urge upon the Minister that, by making this Amendment, which does not seem to me to effect the practical situation as it already exists, he will make a very considerable concession to a body of feeling to which one does not wish to cause trouble. One does not wish to offend susceptibilities in the Principality to no particular purpose.

11.45 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary said that if we leave out the word "three," we can only have a joint scheme for two. I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has convinced him that at any rate we have one for two or one for four. With very great respect there is another place, and it seems if we wish to put in another Amendment to provide for three, two or four schemes, there is another opportunity for doing it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman did not mean that as a serious objection to the Amendment. As he gave the case away and paid lavish tribute himself to the need for recognizing Welsh feeling on the matter, and as he has said there is no practical objection, I cannot see why the Minister should propose to take this to the last ditch.

The hon. Gentleman made reference to consultation with the Minister for Wales or his Parliamentary Secretary. Why is neither of them here tonight? It must have been known that the only point likely to give rise to any debate tonight was this point. So much has been said about how much this Government are doing to recognise Wales, but neither of them troubles to come along and show interest by listening to the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary still has not told us whether the Minister has been consulted. There was also the great song and dance made recently about the change the Minister was making in the position of his own Welsh Secretary, and the Home Secretary came to the House in all his glory and raiment to tell us that the Welsh Secretary of the Department of Agriculture was to have a new salary and a new status and to be consulted about all things affecting Wales.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he consulted the Minister for Wales? Did he consult his own Secretary? I have a suspicion that I could draft the advice he would have received from the Welsh Secretary. If he had consulted either of them he would have to tell us he is going against the advice of both. I think he is putting himself in the impossible position of being constantly shot at in Wales, and of offending susceptibilities for no practical reason whatever.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something about it, because I think this is important for public opinion in Wales. I would be with him in resisting this if I thought it would be making difficulty, but since I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary it really does not make the position any different from what it is at present, I urge him to accede to the views of my hon. Friends and say that before the Bill finally finishes its journey, he will try to find a solution which meets the point and raises no practical objection.

Sir T. Dugdale

I really think that the House is making rather heavy weather of this, although I completely understand the point of view which is being raised in this debate by hon. Members from Welsh constituencies. But, listening to their speeches, it appeared to me that they were under the impression that this was something new. That is not the case at all.

The House knows only too well the circumstances regarding Welsh agriculture and respects the work of Welsh farmers in every part of the Principality. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the wording of this Bill follows parallel Acts; to give just two examples, the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1940, and the Agricultural (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1910. I have no doubt there are many others. I hope that the House, and particularly the hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies who have raised this point, will realise that there is nothing new about this and that the wording in no way detracts from the respect with which this House looks upon the farmers throughout the Principality.

To get back to the Bill itself, I think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, dealt with the points, but I would summarise them again. The special position of Wales in relation to agriculture problems is understood, but it is at present a single administrative unit with England for agriculture purposes. Various agriculture advisory and executive functions are carried out on my behalf as Minister of Agriculture in Wales and in England. When this Bill becomes an Act, as I hope it will shortly, the agriculture executive committees of Welsh counties will carry out the actual examination of claims and payments of this subsidy, and will, in due course, report to me as Minister of Agriculture.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, if it were decided in any future scheme to lay down special conditions so far as ploughing up Welsh land was concerned, it would be possible to do so by a special clause in a particular scheme. But the House will agree that this is purely hypothetical. If at some future time some Government decided to take such a course, they would have to satisfy themselves, not only that the problems of Wales were different from those in England, but that the conditions at that time were different from those in England and, therefore, would justify a special clause in a definite scheme. If the House will consider the existing conditions they will agree that it is much more likely that any special provisions would apply to what we term the hill farming counties in England and Wales.

Mr. G. Brown

I think the Minister has a misconception of the proposal, which is to substitute the word "those" for the word "three," in the last line. The subsection would then read: (2) A scheme under this Act may be a separate scheme for England and Wales, or for Scotland, or for Northern Ireland, or may be a joint scheme … for all three countries. He is addressing his argument to the problem which would arise if this Amendment provided for a separate scheme for Wales; but the Amendment does not do so.

The Amendment would not make a separate scheme for Wales. It does not affect that part of the Clause, which deals with a separate scheme. The only separate schemes would be for England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. The whole argument is misconceived. The right hon. Gentleman has to show that there would be some difficulty if he provided for a joint scheme for all these countries instead of a joint scheme for all three countries. I submit that he is answering a point which is not raised by this Amendment.

Mr. G. Roberts

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for putting it so well. The Amendment was not directed to a separate scheme, although there may be a case for a separate scheme for Wales. I think it can be done administratively all right by inserting a Clause in the way the Minister described, but the Amendment is directed to re-forming the wording of this Clause. One can proceed with a joint scheme for England and Wales, but all we ask is that the Amendment should be re-arranged so as not to give, implicitly, a sense of insult and injury to Welsh people. I think that if the Amendment were regarded as a drafting one, no serious consequence or difficulty would arise.

Sir T. Dugdale

This puts a completely new complexion on our discussion. We may be wrong on this side, but, if there is no intention that there should be a separate scheme for Wales, then I am prepared to have these words examined and see if anything can be done in another place before the Bill becomes an Act. What I was trying to say was that we cannot, at the moment, have a separate scheme for Wales.

Mr. Roberts

On that assurance, I think I can ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, but, I repeat, that the intention was not to seek a separate scheme for Wales. We seek a form of words which will meet the point put forward by my right hon. Friend. I am grateful to the Minister for giving that undertaking. If, in any way, Welsh Members can help him, between now and the next stage of the Bill, we shall be only too glad to talk over this matter in an amicable and helpful fashion. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.