ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE CONSTITUTION

HC Deb 31 October 1973 vol 863 cc163-75

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.

The report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution has been formally presented to Parliament and copies are now available in the Vote Office.

It is a substantial report which examines a number of complex and interrelated issues of major political, constitutional and practical importance. The Government are indebted to the Commission for the efforts it has devoted to its work over such a long period of time. All the members of the Commission deserve the gratitude of the House, but I should like to mention in particular Lord Kilbrandon who assumed chairmanship of the Commission after the death of Lord Crowther last year.

The Commission had very wide terms of reference and its report covers a great deal of ground where judgments which are essentially political will be required before final decisions are reached. Many differing points of view were put to the Commission on what should be the appropriate constitutional and economic relationships between the different parts of the United Kingdom. In these circumstances it is not perhaps surprising that the members of the Commission have not found themselves able to make unanimous recommendations. There is a minority report signed by two members; and the majority report, though it expresses agreement on the analysis of the underlying problems and of the nature of the possible solutions, does not arrive at unanimous recommendations. This, however, does not detract from the value of the report as a contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the issues involved.

The Commission, rightly in my view, expects its report to lead to a public debate in which the various solutions identified can be examined. The Government believe that there should be the widest possible public discussion before any decisions are taken on issues which affect so fundamentally the way in which our country is governed.

The report also deals with the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The Commission's recommendations on this subject will be considered in consultation with the Governments of those territories.

Mr. Harold Wilson

I should like to associate the Opposition with the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman has paid to the members of the Commission for the thoroughness with which they have surveyed these problems and what he said about the later chairman, Lord Kilbrandon, and to express, however posthumously, the debt of the House and the country to the tremendous job Lord Crowther did in starting the work in the way it was done.

The right hon. Gentleman commented on the fact that there is valuable analysis, but that political decisions have to be taken. It is clear that there is not a majority for any particular group of propositions among the members of the Commission. In these circumstances—and I think that that is what the Prime Minister has in mind—it is right that public debate should be allowed and encouraged to continue as thoroughly as possible, in Britain as a whole, but not least in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, as rightly mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and also the English regions. There are important recommendations about regional government which may find considerable support in many quarters.

I take it that in due course the Leader of the House will be prepared to offer a debate in Government time. I have not had an opportunity to study the report as fully as I should like, but my own view is that the public debate in all the areas I have mentioned and throughout the country should have time to develop for views to be formed before we in the House take the political decisions. I hope that we may have an assurance about a debate in the House, but not immediately.

The Prime Minister

I agree with the right hon. Member that there should be the fullest discussion in public of this subject and that in due course, naturally, the House will wish to debate the report.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, although there is agreement about analysis, there were wide differences of view about possible solutions, and the memorandum of dissent by two of the Commission members is a document of 225 pages on its own. The House will realise, therefore, that there is a great deal of meat in the Royal Commission's report and in the memorandum.

Mr. Maude

Will the Government take care not to be too far deflected by talk of the need for devolution in Celtic fringes, and take account of the growing strength of the movement for home rule for England?

The Prime Minister

Both the report and the memorandum of dissent deal extensively with the position of England. In fact, in the report there are eight who favour a system of regional advisory councils for England, eight who favour an assembly for Scotland with limited legislative powers, six who favour a similar scheme for wales, two favour a system of executive but not legislative devolution throughout Great Britain; and in the memorandum of dissent the two commissioners recommend seven assemblies and seven governments and also reform of the House of Lords and the Select Committee structure of the House of Commons.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Prime Minister aware that this matter has been under discussion not for three years but for about 80 years? Is he also aware that we were under the impression that the right hon. Members for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) produced a document which was said to be Conservative policy before the last General Election? Are we now to understand that the Conservative Government have no policy, that they are as hopelessly split as is the Labour Party on the matter, and that they simply intend to play out time until after the next General Election because they cannot make up their minds what to do?

The Prime Minister

Not at all. The Royal Commission has been sitting for four and a half years. We said we would take into account its recommendations as well as those of my right hon. Friend before the Government produce their proposals. We have undertaken to do that for Scotland, and we shall do so.

Mr. Edward Taylor

While obviously this report will require a great deal of study, do the Government intend, during the lifetime of this Parliament, to produce, in the form of a Green Paper or in any other form, proposals for an assembly in Scotland?

The Prime Minister

The Government will produce proposals for Scotland, but whether a Green Paper is the way in which they will do so we must be allowed to decide, after both the Government and the House have considered the Royal Commission's report. However, our intention remains the same.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

Is the Prime Minister aware that we who belong to the Celtic fringe will do all we can to protect the English interest in this matter? Is he further aware that, notwithstanding the division of opinion among the members of the Commission on functions to which he has referred, there is a clear consensus in the report in favour of a democratically elected Welsh body? Will the Government hear that in mind when making proposals?

On the question of discussion, to which the Prime Minister referred, will he say what specific proposals he has for ascertaining public opinion on the report?

The Prime Minister

Of course, we will take into account proposals in the Commission's report as well as in the memorandum of dissent and the weight given to each of them by the respective commissioners. In addition, the Government will take into account the views of Parliament and other organisations which are concerned.

Mr. Brewis

Is it not the case that Scotland should still be represented by a Secretary of State in the Cabinet, and also that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament should not be reduced? Is that the report's proposition?

The Prime Minister

The report deals with these matters as well as with representations in Parliament.

Mr. Ross

Surely one thing that was clear, and one thing on which there was unanimity, was that the political and economic unity of the United Kingdom should remain. Complete separatism was ruled out, as was federalism—the Liberal Party might not like that—though many of us are not prepared to leave a United Kingdom Parliament purely to the English. The Commission suggests that, if we are to have meaningful assemblies, there will be no Secretary of State in the Cabinet, a reduced number of Scottish Members of Parliament and a reduced number of Welsh Members of Parliament. That is why we must not close our minds to any workable and meaningful solution that may be put forward.

Would the Prime Minister remember that his party was the one party that gave no evidence to the Commission? It did not submit itself to oral scrutiny by Lord Crowther when he was in Scotland. In his first Queen's Speech, the Prime Minister made the point that proposals would be brought forward, although the Government did not know what the Commission would suggest.

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We said that we must wait until there had been the reform of local government in Scotland, which is only now taking place. Now that the Royal Commission's report has been published, I should have thought it wise to take this reform into account in any proposals that the Government put forward. All that the English have ever asked is that at least sometimes their voice should be heard.

Miss Quennell

As a mere English Member, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the rather diverse views expressed in the report, he has in mind any time scale for public discussion, and how long he would like it to continue?

The Prime Minister

I have no doubt that vigorous public discussion will begin straight away. At this time I should not like to place a limit upon it.

Mr. Donald Stewart

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that the time for decision making has arrived, that the worst advice he can take is the advice proffered by the Leader of the Opposition to keep talking till the cows come home, advice which the right hon. Gentleman himself accepted? He will be overtaken by events next week in the pending Scottish by-election. The Government cannot fob off——

Mr. Speaker

Comments must be put in the form of questions.

Mr. Stewart

Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that he must state the time for giving a measure of self-government to Scotland, otherwise the Scottish people will make their views very clearly known in the near future?

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

In accordance with precedent, I should prefer to take that point of order at the end of questions on the statement.

Mr. Skinner

It refers to the statement that the hon. Member has just made.

Mr. Speaker

I should prefer it to be raised later on if the hon. Member wishes to do so.

The Prime Minister

If the hon. Gentleman will give due attention to the report, he will see that in any case, as already remarked, the report works in the framework of a United Kingdom and rejects federalism.

Mr. Gower

Contrary to the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the view immediately expressed, does not the range and extent of the report emphasise the need for long and detailed consideration of these problems? Would my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that the views of people in all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Wales, are carefully examined?

The Prime Minister

Of course I give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but, as I remarked in my opening statement, the analysis in the Royal Commission's report of the particular problems of government in this country today is in itself immensely valuable. I should have thought that all political parties, as well as Parliament, would want to draw the lessons from the analysis and then discuss possible solutions, having given due thought to them.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. English. [Laughter.]

Mr. English

I had always thought that my name was useful on election platforms.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all realise his difficulties? Will he not find great difficulty agreeing to any measure of devolution when at the same time one of his principle policies is to centralise functions for Western Europe in Brussels?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman will find what the report says on this aspect of government extremely interesting. The Commission did not find any difficulty about the course it was proposing when the United Kingdom became a member of the European Economic Community; it is very clear on this point.

Mr. Stanbrook

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that after the convulsion of the reorganisation of local government the last thing people want is another change of this kind? Would it not be preferable decently to bury this report and forget it?

The Prime Minister

The report which the Royal Commission has presented, and the memorandum of dissent expressing a separate approach, are important documents in their own right, and are matters to which proper and full consideration ought to be given. That is not to say that no conclusions should be reached. I believe that the country will expect conclusions to be reached on the various proposals which are put forward. It is a choice of alternatives, and they should be discussed fully in public and then decisions reached.

Mr. Michael Stewart

I ask this question under the same disability as most hon. Members have in not yet having had the opportunity to read the report. Subject to that, will the Prime Minister accept that, partly as a result of historical accident and partly as a result of the good sense of our people, this country has so far been delivered from the evil of the straitjacket of a written or rigid constitution, and it would be the height of folly to throw away that bounty?

The Prime Minister

I think that even that remark has to be qualified to a certain extent, because part of the United Kingdom has had a written constitution as a result of devolution from Parliament, and has it at this moment.

Mr. Arthur Jones

The reform of local government in England and Wales—I think this applies to Scotland as well—was divorced from the financial implications. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that in the context of these proposals, when they come to fruition, the financial consequences will be given careful consideration coincident with the divisions in constitutional terms?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. The financial implications of the variety of solutions proposed in the report and the memorandum are of the utmost importance and must be taken into account.

Mr. Lawson

For those of us who are much opposed to any movement that might lead towards the separation of England and Scotland, I welcome the obvious difficulty of the Commission in making up its mind on the many conflicting points of view that have arisen. Will the Prime Minister bear closely in mind that anything that might savour of setting up some kind of Stormont in Scotland could lead to very bad consequences, and will he see to it that the evidence must be overwhelming before we start any such thing as we are suffering in Ireland?

The Prime Minister

The Royal Commission's report deals with the history of Stormont and that institution as an aspect of government. Of course, the hon. Gentleman's views will be borne in mind.

Mr. George Thomas

While recognising that this report is probably the most confusing to come from any commission in recent years, offering solutions to suit everybody and nobody—it is not often the Welsh are guilty of understatement, as I am now—I ask the Prime Minister whether he will assure us that when the House ultimately comes to discuss this matter the Welsh aspects will not be side-tracked into the Welsh Grand Committee but we shall have our proper place on the Floor of the House. Will he bear in mind also that there will be enormous trouble if there is any proposal to reduce Welsh representation in this House?

The Prime Minister

I am sure that no one has any desire to side-track the Welsh in any direction whatever. It may be that the fact that the Commission has put forward a variety of solutions, did not agree upon any particular one, but submitted arguments for each will help to clarify one's mind when the report and memorandum of dissent are examined.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

In the 1970 General Election the United Kingdom manifesto of the Conservative Party made no reference to this matter, yet the Scottish manifesto specifically did. Will the Prime Minister affirm that, whatever proposals he makes to the House, at no stage will he suggest any reduction in the number of Scottish Members in the United Kingdom Parliament—as is stated in the manifesto of his party in Scotland?

The Prime Minister

The manifesto mentioned a Scottish Assembly because a proposal had been discussed at the party conference, when we said that in the lifetime of this Parliament we would put proposals to it. I have already said that that is what we intend to do. We did not have any similar proposals for Wales, England or Northern Ireland, but, naturally, it was expected that, whenever the Royal Commission's report was published, the Government of the day would give full consideration to it, and so would Parliament, and a decision would be reached. That is a very clear position.

As regards the hon. Gentleman's second question, the matter of parliamentary representation for different parts of the United Kingdom is dealt with fully in the report and, clearly, the House will wish to consider it.

Mr. Lipton

Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will think that the £483,993 spent on preparing the report has been a complete waste of time and money, that nobody will do anything about the report, and that it will moulder away in some cubbyhole in Whitehall for years to come?

The Prime Minister

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's views. In any case, the Royal Commission was set up by his own Government in his own time. It falls to all of us now to give proper consideration to the report.

Mr. Hooson

Is it correct that there was unanimity among the Commission on two matters at least—first, that the assemblies, whatever their function, should be directly elected and not nominated and, secondly, that they should be elected by proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote? Will the Government say whether they accept those principles if they are in the report?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. There were different views on these matters. It is true that in the memorandum of dissent the proposal for the five assemblies was for election by proportional representation.

Mr. Sillars

The Prime Minister mentioned the Labour Government. Does he agree that it was a very wise decision of the Labour Government to establish the Royal Commission and that the wisdom has been proven by the impartiality with which the Commission has gone about its business? I cannot comment on its conclusions because I have not read them, but the Prime Minister has. Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as all the commissioners were unanimous, as I understand from his statement, in saying that the status quo is not acceptable, the argument has to be about not whether devolution is required but, given that devolution is required, to what degree and with what objectives?

The Prime Minister

I did not criticise the Labour Government for setting up the Royal Commission. We set up the committee under my right hon. Friend, and, after we took the initiative, the Labour Government thought it right to set up a Royal Commission. Naturally, I appreciated that.

What the hon. Gentleman says in the other part of his argument is broadly true, that the analysis made by the members of the Commission indicates that there are problems of government today that need attention, some of which relate particularly to regional matters and others to different problems. The Commission has submitted a variety of solutions in the context of a United Kingdom in which sovereignty is not to be fragmented and there is not to be a federal system.

Mr. Kinnock

Does the Prime Minister recall that on the last occasion he introduced a proposal of major constitutional importance he did not seek or gain the full-hearted consent of the British people? Will he give us his assurance that nothing like that will ever occur again? Will he give full attention to the fact that the report does not find any will or support for separatism or federalism? Will he take note that there is no large body of opinion, at least in Wales, that wants a half-baked, overgrown county council with no effective powers which could have the effect of further depressing public confidence in democracy and would not extend the control that individual workers and citizens have over their own destiny?

The Prime Minister

I have already told the House that the framework in which the Commission worked was that described by the hon. Gentleman. The last part of his question was an expression of his view concerning various proposals put forward in both the Commission's report and the memorandum of dissent affecting Wales. As regards the first part of his question, if, as Prime Minister, I could get a majority of 112 for any one of these proposals, I should have done very well indeed.

Mr. Crosland

May I say one more word about England and ask the Prime Minister this before the whole House gives way to total cynicism about a report which none of us has read? In England, we are developing already a large amount of regional government, in terms of economic planning councils, water authorities, health authorities, and so on, all of which have one characteristic in that they are open to no kind of democratic control whatsoever. I ask the Prime Minister, when he is considering whatever may be the regional proposals for England, not to drop these totally overboard, because we have just had local government reform, but to take them seriously.

The Prime Minister

I hope that I conveyed to the House this afternoon what I considered to be the importance of the Royal Commission's report as well as the memorandum of dissent, which, although it takes a completely different approach, is nevertheless extremely interesting. I have asked Parliament to give the fullest consideration to the report, for public opinion to discuss it and for every organisation to let right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have its views, so that we can be the better informed for our debates.

I detect that in some quarters in the House there is a feeling that there is an immense amount of material which will take a great deal of digesting. There is no doubt about that. When a Royal Commission which has worked for four and a half years finds that it is difficult to come to a unanimous recommendation on each aspect of such complex matters of government, perhaps it is not surprising. But Parliament in due course will be able to take decisions about each of the proposals which are put forward. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I am treating this lightly or cynically. Far from it, I believe that both of these are extremely valuable documents, and they deserve the fullest attention of Parliament.

Mr. Skinner

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) asked questions today about the Royal Commission's report, he prefaced his remarks with a few comments, as indeed have six or seven other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in questions to the Prime Minister.

I cannot understand the way in which some Members, Mr. Speaker, are stopped by you from making some quite innocent but valuable remarks before they get to the question. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when you were dragged to that Chair on 12th February 1971 it was on the basis that everybody should be treated alike. In so far as this incident is concerned and some others, not only those in which I have been involved, it seems to me that the slip is showing.

Mr. Speaker

I am not sure what that last remark means. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for his help. It is probably true that I am much too tolerant with him. But I deprecate right hon. and hon. Members prefacing their questions with statements. I do the best I can to stop it. It really is cheating, and I would much prefer that everybody would ask questions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point of order.