HC Deb 20 March 1974 vol 870 cc1175-97
Mr. Speaker

I call Mr. Hooson to continue the debate.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

As this is a debate on the Kilbrandon Report, I should like to begin by saying that I am sure I express the views of people in every part of the United Kingdom when I speak of their abhorrence of violence of the kind we have heard about tonight. It is the sincere hope of all those who are concerned with the issues in the report that never shall anyone resort to violence to achieve his aims.

It was the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and other members of the Liberal Party to achieve a debate on the Kilbrandon Report early in this Parliament, so that we could adequately consider the great issues raised by that very important constitutional report. The whole House will appreciate the opportunity that has been given for a debate at this stage, because clearly the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Home Secretary have important matters to consider.

I think it is inevitable that there should be a great measure of devolution within this country. A great deal of discussion has taken place during my mature years in politics, and there will be a great deal of discussion in the future, on the degree of devolution appropriate for different parts of the United Kingdom. The one thing that seems to have escaped adequate attention is the question of the reasons. We are part of an evolving society in Western Europe and in this country. It is right to say that from the time that Harry Tudor went to the field of Bosworth and marched on to London the eyes of Wales, and later of Scotland, were switched towards London. They did not stop there. We became a part of a tremendously expanding country. The United Kingdom sent people all over the world. It is part of our history that we populated and developed a great part of the globe.

Whether in the glens of Scotland, in the valleys of Wales, in Westmorland or in the Black Country, up to 20 or 30 years ago if there was insufficient scope for an adventurous young man in his locality he looked towards London, to the seas and beyond the seas. For the first time in modern history this country, in the past 10 years, has been driven back on to its own resources. There is nowhere left for us to expand in the world. There is nowhere left for us to populate. The result is that we have a considerable population which does not reflect the old patterns. In the old days the adventurous spirits would have gone away. Nowadays they stay in their own locality.

A great deal of talent and much adventurous spirit is left in Scotland, Wales and the regions of the United Kingdom. That is why people now want a greater say in the control of their own affairs than in the past. The evolution of our society and the change in our horizons has determined that that should take place. It is an evolutionary process which is unavoidable.

The second great consideration is that the evolvement of modern government has inevitably resulted in a consistent tendency towards centralised power. It is almost an irresistible force—this tendency towards centralised power.

The hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacCormick) referred to the fact that there is a movement all over the country and in Europe which is partly expressed by the nationalist parties, partly by the Liberal Party and partly by the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. In different ways they are all expressing a discontent with the modern state of affairs which we have inherited from the past and which suited the conditions which governed us in the past.

Today it is inevitable that we have arrived at a situation in which some form of devolution is essential. I have firmly believed all my life that Wales should have a domestic parliament with legislative powers. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Argyll to Gladstone. In Gladstone's Newcastle programme there was not only a proposal for home rule for Ireland. I tell the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson), who is not in his place, that home rule in that context did not mean separation but a domestic parliament. It is to the eternal discredit of the other place that the Bill which was presented many times by Gladstone and his successors should have been obstructed and that Gladstone was frustrated in his intention to give Ireland a domestic parliament. We should have retained, if he had succeeded, what is now the Republic of Ireland within the United Kingdom.

The second measure which Gladstone intended to initiate was home rule for Scotland and the third was home rule for Wales. That would have followed the disestablishment of the Church in Wales. It was the frustration of the Irish measures under Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George that led to the present impasse, which has resulted in a part of Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom and a great deal of trouble in Northern Ireland.

That is the background to the debate. We must not repeat the mistakes of the past. It is true that in Scotland and Wales the same kind of pressures do not exist which existed in Ireland in the nineteenth century or exist today. We do not have to create such unnecessary pressures in the present century if we have enlightened government.

I was interested to hear the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). He knows that I have considerable respect for him, but he spent too much time attacking the Liberals and the nationalists and too little explaining what he would like to see implemented for Wales. Wales and Scotland are essentially different. From my many visits to Scotland and judging also by my many Scottish friends, I believe that the Scottish nationality is based more on ancient institutions than is the case in Wales.

Scotland has its own system of law. Wales had its own system of courts until 1830—the Courts of Session—which were abolished after a great speech by Edmund Burke. But apart from that, Wales has been singularly free of governmental institutions since the Tudor period. Emotionally, of course, it was a case of Wales taking over England when the Tudors moved to the throne, which had a great psychological effect in Wales. One thing which the Tudors did was to ensure that Wales was absorbed wholly into the United Kingdom. Much of their policy towards the language is still much criticised in Wales today.

In Scotland, national identity has depended on the trappings of State at a much later stage of history than is the case in Wales, which enjoyed them, if at all, for only a short time. The Welsh identity is based on cultural and social considerations far more than on institutions, and there is a great deal of difference between the two countries.

I am convinced that in the modern world we have all the pressures in Europe to strive for greater unity. Although I was against going into the Common Market, I share the view that we should aim at a united Europe. But we want to create a different kind of Europe from that which was in danger of being created by the Common Market. There are undoubted pressures for a multinational unit of some kind in Europe, enjoying its own loyalty among the people it will contain. But, as a corollary, such a multinational unit will be impossible unless we have far greater protection for minorities within it. This is why it is so important to have devolution for Wales and Scotland.

Wales in this generation needs some institutions of government which the Welsh princes and the Tudors failed to give it and which we in our day must give it if Wales is to continue to hold dear its cultural and social values. I am, therefore, entirely in favour of a Parliament with legislative powers in Wales. I have always stood for this. Not every member of my party, at least in Wales, has always supported my view, but I have always held to it. I think it is the only course which makes sense.

I understand I have been criticised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I am sorry I missed his speech, but I was unavoidably absent. He said that I was in favour of a referendum on the Kilbrandon Report. I am. I think there should be adequate debate on the report in Wales and then a referendum.

I was in favour of a referendum on the Common Market because I believe that our membership was a great constitutional change. I think that the introduction of Kilbrandon would be a great constitutional change. I supported the Bill brought in by Mr. James Davidson, who sat as Liberal Member for Aberdeenshire, West in the 1966–70 Parliament, when the Labour Party was in power last. The aim of the Bill was to have a referendum on a parliament for Scotland and a parliament for Wales. Who was against it? The Labour Party. On all major constitutional changes we should have a referendum. I have never changed my view on this. It is the only subject for which referenda are suitable in this country.

On the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report that there should be a legislative assembly for Scotland, two of the members of the Commission who supported that recommendation dissented on the same recommendation for Wales. The reasons are given in paragraph 1151 of the report: Wales, on the other hand, has no separate system of law, hardly any separate legislation and a geographically less well defined border. Two of us who favour legislative devolution for Scotland regard these and other differences between Scotland and Wales, and the strong desirability of retaining a Secretary of State for Wales, as sufficing to preclude its extension to Wales. I regard those reasons, which are the only reasons in the report, as completely inadequate for distinguishing between Wales and Scotland. The fact that Wales is such a conscious community and so needs a focal point, the fact that so little time is given by the House to the discussion of Welsh affairs, the fact that so many problems which appear unimportant to the House but are important to the social and economic future of Wales, absolutely negative the reasons given by the two dissentients.

I regard the Kilbrandon Report as being of the greatest value in analysing the kind of devolution that we can obtain. I do not regard as important the counting of heads—seven in favour of one solution and five in favour of another. Clearly, many members of the commission had preconceived ideas and, as the report indicates, what they finally recommended depended to a large extent on where they came from geographically.

Looking to the future and to the youth of Wales, if we are to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom we need devolution to Wales and Scotland. It is as important in the minds of those who wish to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom as it is in the minds of those who want, as Welsh Nationalists, far greater power for Wales. That is why I go wholeheartedly with the majority recommendation in the Kilbrandon Report in favour of legislative devolution for Wales.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen)

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), like his colleague the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and gave the impression that his speech was an all-out attack on Liberals and nationalists, thereby conveying that it was an anti-devolutionary speech. As is well known, my right hon. Friend has long held views on devolution to Wales. He has campaigned for more than 25 years for a greater voice for the Principality. I am sure that on reflection the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friend will not wish to convey the impression that my right hon. Friend is striving to hold back the natural aspirations of the Welsh people.

Mr. Hooson

I have a greater respect for the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and his views on devolution than have most of the Labour Party. If the right hon. Gentleman conveyed a wrong impression to me, that is a matter he should have put right. I accept that throughout the years he has been in favour of greater devolution for Wales.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon North)

Chwarae Têg

Mr. Jones

It is kind of the Leader of the Liberal Party to use the Welsh language in this place.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

I have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) in my absence, for which I apologise. I certainly did not attack the Liberal Party. I analysed the position of the Liberal Party and the two nationalist parties in relation to the Kilbrandon Report, and I was subsequently drawn by hon. Members to speak at greater length than I intended.

I cannot accept that there is a great deal between us, because I said clearly that I believe in a directly-elected assembly, with substantial powers, and I indicated what I thought those powers should be, namely, executive powers. It is now for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, having paid close attention to this debate and having discussed the question in Wales, to come to a conclusion.

Mr. Jones

My right hon. Friend has made his position absolutely clear, for the second time, for the benefit of Opposition Members.

This is one of the most important debates we have had in the House for many a year. I congratulate those who were lucky to secure an early place in the Ballot and who have enabled all those of us who are interested in the question of devolution to air our views and fears and to make our stand clear. The importance of this issue for the House of Commons cannot be underestimated. We cannot forget it or wish that it were not with us.

The Kilbrandon Report is a reality, and it analyses the whole problem in its correct perspective. In Wales—and in Scotland too, I am sure—there has been a great deal of misconception. People in both countries have been led up the garden path about how successive "London Governments" have mistreated them and not given them a fair share of the cake. Kilbrandon sweeps away that fallacy and misleading talk. No party comes to this debate with clean hands. No one has an untarnished record.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery talked of what was done towards the end of the last century. My attention has been drawn to a motion moved in 1895 by a Liberal Member from Birmingham, Mr. Dalziel, and seconded by that great Welshman, Lloyd George. It called for separate legislatures for Wales, Scotland and Ireland, to add to the effectiveness of Parliament and to give more direct and fuller effect to the wishes and special needs of the different nations which comprise the United Kingdom.

Mr. Steel

Hear, hear.

Mr. Jones

The Liberal Whip says, "Hear, hear". That was in 1895, and Lloyd George left office in 1922. In his speech tonight the Liberal Whip pleaded with the Secretary of State for Wales and whoever else will be responsible to hurry the whole procedure along, but at the same time his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery has just said that he wants a referendum. Perhaps they will sit down together one day and work out their own time scale for how long the referendum will take and when they expect the White Paper to be published.

For my part I go along with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas), whom I congratulate on a very good and forward-thinking speech, with most of which I entirely agree. The only problem for the hon. Gentleman is that some of his colleagues, when they read the watered-down version of his party's case which he gave us, may not be altogether happy to accept many of his proposals. But the hon. Gentleman showed the spirit in which we should now be looking at this question. That is the way we should now look at the whole problem of how to secure an elected assembly for Wales.

Mr. Hooson

The hon. Member is working hard to retain his majority of three.

Mr. Jones

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is in fine form for eleven o'clock at night, which is unusual. He refers to my majority of three. Certainly that was an experience which, if the hon. and learned Member went through it, would make a different man of him.

Consistently over the past six or seven years I have held firm views on the question of an elected assembly, no one will doubt that. Although there is now a Labour Government in power I will not shirk my responsibilities, along with my colleagues, of ensuring that we do not delay.

I agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth, although I am not sure that we can manage a White Paper in three months. His time scale for an elected assembly by 1st March 1976 is clearly something at which we should aim. It is perfectly possible. We should work together to see that it comes about. The Kilbrandon Report destroys a great many misconceptions. It destroys the misconception that Wales is badly off as a result of being part of the United Kingdom. I shall not quote chapter and verse but I am willing to do so if forced.

Consistently the report comes back to one major theme: that the advantages of devolution for Wales and Scotland are not to be found in the economic sense. The report says clearly that there is no economic case. While it is feasible for Wales and Scotland to stand on their own feet, there would be a price to pay. Page 142 says: Since separation would come about only if the Scottish and Welsh people as a whole wanted it, they would presumably be prepared if necessary to face a fall in standards. It goes on to say that there would be falls in the standard of living: There are some indications that they might both have substantial deficits, the Welsh deficit being proportionately greater than that of Scotland. The hon. Member for Merioneth talked of the concept of sovereignty. His party is clearly committed to an independent and separate Welsh State. I have with me the evidence given by the National Party to the late Lord Crowther. Mr. Watkin Powell, who is now a judge, said that Wales should be a member of the Commonwealth and would preserve its links with the Commonwealth through the Crown. He envisaged close consultation with "our neighbours", and that Wales would join the United Nations, the ILO, the World Health Organisation, UNESCO and so on.

The National Party seems to be backtracking from those grand days in 1969 and 1970 when there were visions of a seat at the United Nations. It has reached a more realistic assessment. At page 53 of the minutes of evidence Mr. Powell said, quite rightly: Whatever recommendations this Commission sees fit to make, ultimately the decision must rest with the Welsh people; and nothing can be foisted on the Welsh people. Neither would it be right if the will of the Welsh people, once expressed, were then to be blunted or slighted With only 10 per cent. of the votes, they cannot foist anything at this stage.

The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) talked of an elected assembly with no economic powers. This is not what Plaid Cymru said to the Commission on the Constitution in its evidence: A parliament with no control over the economic life of the country, over the trade or monetary policy of a country, would be ineffective to reverse the economic disintegration of which Dr. Williams has already spoken.

Mr. D. E. Thomas

I was referring in my speech to the concept of sovereignty as stressed in the opening sections of the Kilbrandon Report. I regarded that concept as being outmoded. As for having economic powers, I argued that I believed that an elected legislative assembly should have legislative powers over industrial development.

Mr. Jones

I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. Member for Merioneth. On industrial development, however, the Kilbrandon Report says clearly that even with a legislative assembly the powers and functions of the Department of Trade would still have to remain at Westminster along with other Departments of State. I argue that that is basic and essential. If we need a stronger and more effective regional policy in Britain, it cannot be devised in terms of Wales and Scotland in their own elected assemblies. We need stronger central control, if we talk of the direction of industry and greater financial inducements. That can be done only in the British context and in terms of regional development of Britain as a whole.

The case for devolution is not longer an economic argument. It is political and sociological. The fact that Wales is a nation is a political argument: how to bring decision making closer to the Welsh people is the crux of the issue. The economic argument has been blown sky high. Provided that we can clear the ground for the people of Wales so that they understand that economics is no longer the argument, we shall proceed at a faster rate. We have to put it to the Welsh people that it is no longer a question of economics but one of decision making and political will.

The problem which will confront us is that simply by bringing a parliament or an elected assembly to Cardiff we shall not solve the problems of the Welsh people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) pointed out that people will be just as vociferous in their opposition to bad policies and bad decisions by an assembly in Cardiff as they have been to the Secretary of State for Wales or Parliament at Westminster.

I turn briefly to what I hope we all agree about and intend to give attention to in the coming crucial months before we reach a final decision. The essential need is for the establishment of an elected assembly. At this stage, the long-drawn-out arguments about the functions and whether it should be legislative or executive are purely bogus. There is only a fine differential between legislative powers and executive powers. The Welsh Office is an executive body, but it has the ability to choose priorities—which road schemes to adopt, where to build a hospital, which housing scheme to approve and so on. The Welsh Office is a decison-making body, and if we give executive authority to an elected assembly in Wales we are indeed giving it powers—

Mr. D. E. Thomas

indicated dissent.

Mr. Jones

Apparently the hon. Member for Merioncth does not agree. I can only quote in aid what Kilbrandon says: The essence of this form of devolution is that Parliament and the central government would be responsible for the framework of legislation…but would transfer to directly elected assemblies the responsibility for devising specific policies for the regions, for the execution of those policies…". In other words, it will have the right within the executive framework of an elected assembly to choose the priorities.

I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will endeavour to put forward the clear lead to which the Labour Government are committed. I hope we shall not have either in Wales or in this House any argument about who really started the whole procedure, whose percentage points cause Kilbrandon to say this, and whose decline in the total vote caused something to go the other way. If we fall to that level of argument, no doubt a very strong case could be made for saying that there is no call for a legislative assembly. Indeed, others will say that there is no argument for an executive assembly.

The argument does not depend on which party in Wales has 10 per cent., 40 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the vote. There is clearly a consensus view here which surrounds the need for an elected assembly.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) referred to what the people want. I recommend hon. Members to read the research papers rather than the Kilbrandon Report, because they show some remarkable opinions being held by people in Britain. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should try to find out what the people want. I suggest that it is difficult to assess what they want.

The opinion survey carried out for Kilbrandon showed that 30 per cent. of Welsh people did not realise that the Welsh Office existed. They were not aware that there was a Welsh Office. I am not sure what to make of that, but it is there.

Another question posed to the people in the questionnaire concerned the functions of the Welsh Office. Clearly many had no idea of its functions. Only 17 per cent. of the people of Wales realised that we had any control over education. Only 9 per cent. realised that the Welsh Office was responsible for housing. Only 14 per cent. realised that the Welsh Office was responsible for roads. I could go on. [Interruption.] The Leader of the Liberal Party is providing us with a great deal of entertainment tonight, for which we are grateful.

I turn now to the kind of elected assembly that the people of Wales expect. According to page 87 of Research Paper No. 7, when asked what the composition of this elected assembly should be 48 per cent. of the people thought that it should be composed of appointed experts rather than elected members. Therefore, I hope that we shall not go down the slippery slope of trying to find out what the people want, as suggested by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. It must be a political decision as to what is best for the Principality.

There is a consensus view surrounding the need for an elected assembly. Let us not at this late stage, when we could have a White Paper in six or nine months, deny ourselves the opportunity of establishing an elected body in Wales with specific powers.

I could outline what I should prefer in such an elected assembly. We require a body with the necessary moral authority which will command respect and demand more functions as it grows in experience and stature. That should be our common aim. That is the moderate way we should go. If we fail to unite in a mood of good will, we will let down very badly the people of both Wales and Scotland.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Paul Tyler (Bodmin)

It falls to me, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, to sum up and draw together some of the points that have been made, at least on this side of the House. I do so conscious that the Scottish, Welsh and, indeed, English accents that we have heard should have added to them a Cornish accent, because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), I am a Celt, but one of those special Celts who come from the other side of the Tamar.

I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Jones). I understand that he and I share the celebrity of having very small majorities. However, I should point out that mine is three times greater than his. While at this time of night I am sure hon. Members will be glad to hear that I do not intend to exercise my privilege to speak at three times the length that he did, I think it gives me the right at least to make some points of a general nature rather than specifically articulating the national causes about which we have heard so much today.

The Kilbrandon Report, either in its majority recommendations or in its minority report, is not primarily concerned with such political jargon as "federalism" or "separation". Hon. Gentleman on the Government side who have used those words in a slipshod way should remember that its analysis of Britain's problems is not put in such terms as those.

The two words that are used most often in the report in the analysis of remedies for our ills are "decentralisation" and "democracy". That is what the report is really about. These words can be applied to every part of the British Isles. Therefore, it is important in drawing together the threads of the debate not to get ourselves enmeshed in a discussion of the particular characteristics of Scotland and Wales, much as I recognise that they are particular and need special recognition.

All the members of the Royal Commission recognised that there was a disease. All of them agreed on the nature of the disease. Their diagnoses were very close and similar. If anyone doubts what I say I invite him to read Chapter 9, the summary of which makes it clear that the whole of the commission was convinced that there was a problem and that it needed urgent action.

The members of the commission went a step further. There was general agreement that there had to be a move in a particular direction towards greater decentralisation. The difference came in the emphasis on the extent of the treatment and the time scale for it. Here I must confess that I find the memorandum of dissent much more rational and practical in its attitude to the problems of the time scale.

We must all recognise that a constitution, like an omelette, cannot be unscrambled, and therefore the importance of the whole discussion of our time scale is such that in making any changes to our constitution we must ensure that we move step by step. It may be—I hope this will be the case—that steps will be taken faster and further for particular parts of the United Kingdom, but I hope too that it will still be possible to enable those other parts of the United Kingdom which may want to come along in due course to feel that they have that opportunity and that their progress is no prejudiced.

We had for a certain period in this country a philosophical fad that was promoted by a particular group of economists. It was that there were economies in size. That philosophy went untested for many years, but it has now come to grief, and it has done so in the context of the energy crisis.

Some hon. Members may have read a notable book, which is a collection of essays, by Dr. Schumacher entitled "Small is Beautiful". It is interesting to note in passing that Dr. Schumacher was for many years economic adviser to the National Coal Board. But I understand that his advice was rarely taken, hence perhaps the troubles that that industry has had since his departure.

In his book Dr. Schumacher, who is an economist, made a number of simple points about the size of organisations and the difficulty that people find in relating to an organisation that is beyond their immediate comprehension. When an organisation—be it a firm, a unit of local government or a country—ceases to have a personal relationship with an individual and he ceases to feel a personal identity with that organisation, there are immediate human and social problems. This is true with the multinational companies. This is true with the ever-increasing size of units of local government, and it is true of many other organisations.

Dr. Schumacher's thesis has been proved all too right in recent months by the energy crisis. The concept of economy of size depended all too often on cheap personal mobility. This is basically why we were pushed into accepting larger and larger units of local government and why many companies grew larger. The energy crisis came too late to affect the deliberations of the Royal Commission, but it would have increased the tendency for its members to react against remote, impersonal government. In retrospect many hon. Members, not just on this bench, may feel that the Local Government Act 1972 overestimated the advantages of centralisation. We will live to regret it, not least because of the enormous change in the cost of personal mobility.

I find it difficult to take seriously some of the criticisms of centralisation that we have heard tonight, most notably from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). For someone who has been at the very centre of the centralisation process in several Governments now to criticise that process is a remarkable conversion. We should welcome any convert, but it is important to recognise that the Kilbrandon Report is a damning indictment of centralisation over the last 25 to 30 years.

The other key word in the report is "democracy". Quite rightly, the summaries of both minority and majority reports point to the deadening effect of centralisation on the political, commercial and cultural life of the regions. But it also points to the imposition by the centre of a uniformity which is inconsistent with the retention of a distinctive regional character.

For both these analyses of the situation one of the worst culprits has been the nationalised industries and the ad hoc bodies set up in recent years, taking away from the democratic institutions control of many features of our local life. I speak as an ex-member of a police authority, on which I had no direct democratic responsibility. The same is true of the health authorities, the water authorities and the nationalised services. The report shows all these bodies to be inadequate substitutes for genuine democratic control by people over the services which affect their lives.

The central problem now is, how far and how fast? What, for whom, and when? The political pressures for devolution are uneven. Scotland and Wales have much stronger feelings and want to go much further, but other areas feel strongly too. The attitude survey in Research Paper 7 showed that Yorkshire and the far South-West have much stronger views about the remoteness of Whitehall and Westminster than parts which are physically closer to the centre of power. This is obvious. Nevertheless it is easily forgotten if we concentrate entirely on the case of the national parts of the United Kingdom.

But those nations clearly must be the pioneers in our new venture in decentralisation. The important point is that when we have legislation for their progress it must not be allowed to hold back considerable advances for the whole United Kingdom. It would not be fair, I believe, to Yorkshire, to Cornwall or to any other part of the United Kingdom if Scotland and Wales alone were allowed to have constitutions to match the necessities of the latter half of the twentieth century and we were left with the dregs, the nineteenth-century remains.

We are all gradualists now. I am sure that all hon. Members want to proceed gradually, but if gradualism is to be as slow as some Labour Members would encourage us to believe there will come a time when there will be resentment and anger in many different parts of the United Kingdom. The consumers of government are the elector; and, however efficient in business and administrative terms an organisation may be, if the consumers do not see the products of that organisation as being geared to their needs and wishes, no one can say that that is efficient. Administrative efficiency is far less important than effective democracy.

We in Cornwall feel remote. We feel alienated from the centre of power. However administratively efficient Whitehall may be in dealing with our problems— with the latest example of the rate support grant, I fear that no one in Cornwall is likely to think that; but even if Whitehall were administratively efficient there would still be resentment that the remoteness of central government made it difficult for us to influence what was going on.

Kilbrandon—all the members of the commission, and all the parts of the report—adds up to a damning indictment of the centralising tendencies of all Governments since the last war. I believe that now is the time for all parts of the country to be given new hope that this trend is to be reversed.

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Robert Sheldon)

This debate has been unusual and, in one respect, unique. I refer, of course, to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with his grave news. Also, it has been most unusual because of four maiden speeches, to which I wish to pay my due tribute.

The hon. Members for Argyle (Mr. MacCormick), Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. B. Henderson), Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. D. Henderson) and the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) made their contributions to the debate. I cannot recollect there being as many maiden speeches in the debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill in recent years. The clarity and sincerity those hon. Members brought to the debate and their strong sense of national and regional identity were echoed elsewhere in the House and contributed to a very valuable and well-thought-out debate. I am sure that there would have been further contributions if it had not been for the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. G. Jones), my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. A. Jones), who also made very valuable and carefully considered contributions.

Mr. Steel

While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's presence here tonight, may I ask whether he does not agree that another unusual factor is the total absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland throughout the debate?

Mr. Sheldon

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman made that criticism because, as he may have observed, two of my hon. Friends with responsibilities for Scotland and two of my hon. Friends with responsibilities for Wales have sat patiently through the debate for the best part of five and a half hours. I commend their diligence.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones

Will my hon. Friend point out to hon. Members on the Opposition benches that we have achieved a tremendous consensus in this debate? I appealed to hon. Members not to talk in terms of percentage points and silly arguments of that kind. Will my hon. Friend ask the Liberal Whip to refrain from talking such rubbish?

Mr. Thorpe

May I totally withdraw my hon. Friend's remarks, on his behalf? We have been delighted to have the Secretary of State for Wales here. He has diligently attended the debate. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. G. Jones) that we want the acceptance of Kilbrandon. It is for that reason that we accept the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Sheldon

I would point out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was well represented by other Ministers having responsibilities in this sector. It is a pity that, having had what I consider to be a most valuable debate, we should find ourselves getting bogged down with what are not very important points at this late stage.

The importance of this debate has been that I, like others, have found it very instructive to listen to what has been, in effect, the first extensive debate that this House has been able to have on the Kilbrandon Report. The debate has shown how urgently hon. Members—especially those from Scotland and Wales—have regarded this subject. At this stage I should make it plain that this sense of urgency is fully shared by the Government. At the same time there have emerged from the debate some very good reasons why it would be quite irresponsible of the Government, after only a few days in office, to go headlong into specific constitutional commitments which could have significant and long-term implications for all our people.

To a considerable extent the position of the Government is quite clear from what has been said in the Queen's Speech and the answers given to hon. Members earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other members of the Government. At this stage I should say once again where we stand on this matter.

First, it was the last Labour administration which first recognised, in 1968, that alienation from government was a problem that called for serious investigation. Coupled with this sense of alienation were strong feelings of national sentiment in Scotland and Wales, often associated with resentment at the amount of government coming from London.

There was also the feeling on the part of many people in other parts of the United Kingdom that the control of government was actually slipping out of the hands of people in those other parts and that, in effect, government was being carried out without their proper participation. It was against that background that the Government set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution.

In case anybody thinks that this was simply a political gimmick, it ought to be stated that there were two factors that led us to that view. In the first place, it was quite clear to us, as it must have been to anyone with any appreciation of life in Scotland and Wales, that the feelings of national sentiment in those two countries were not simply going to go away. There never was any possibility, let alone, I submit, any wish, that this would happen.

The distinctiveness of Scotland and Wales had already been recognised in governmental terms by the setting up of the Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, with substantial powers, under their Secretaries of State, and some kind of further development was bound to remain an active question, quite apart from any electoral successes which might be enjoyed by the Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties.

As the Kilbrandon Report says, in relation to Scotland, there are many Scots who have no wish to break the union with England but who are nevertheless proud of Scotland and want to see their own particular light quite rightly shining rather more brightly in the world. That is a perfectly natural and honourable feeling, which is also reflected in Wales, and it has been a permanent feature of our United Kingdom society.

It was plain to us when the Government first set up the Royal Commission on the Constitution that we were carrying these matters forward in a way that was bound to stimulate further debate, whatever the commission might recommend. It was always clear that any argument could never, and would never, end there.

We did not have in mind, as many people have implied, that the commission would be a convenient way of shelving the problem over a long period. It is true that in the event the commission sat for four years. It is gratifying to note, from the references made to the report during the debate, how widely it has been read. However, it is quite clear from the most cursory reading of the report and the memorandum of dissent that the length of time taken by the commission was due entirely to the complexities of the matters which it was required to consider. In the end the report turned out to be substantial, scrupulously fair, detailed and closely argued, for which we must all be grateful.

The size of the report—including, as it does, little material which could be discarded without some loss—is also an indication of the size of the problem before us; so too is the fact that the report is accompanied by a well-argued memorandum of dissent, a full volume in itself. This, although it approaches the question from an entirely different point of view, was intended—as its principal author, Lord Crowther-Hunt, has pointed out—to put forward additional models which could be tested for practicability and acceptability, along with those described in the main report.

I reaffirm that it is our intention to move quickly on the report. It has been stated in the Gracious Speech that we intend to initiate discussions in Scotland and Wales and to bring forward proposals. We have, as a matter of urgency, to decide on the scope and nature of the discussions. When that has been settled, discussions will be put in hand at the earliest possible time and will be conducted with all possible speed.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has stated clearly that we intended to publish a White Paper on this subject, and subsequently a Bill will be brought before the House. We have appointed Lord Crowther-Hunt as constitutional adviser to the Government to give an impetus to this and all the other work that has to be done and to take a leading part in it. This appointment demonstrates how seriously the Government take the Kilbrandon Report and how anxious we are that there should be no avoidable delay.

I trust, however, that hon. Members will recognise that, in view of the complicated nature of the problems involved, it is not possible for me at this stage to set out a detailed timetable to cover all the various stages of the operation which we now have to go through. This is not a subject on which the Government can reasonably be expected to reach conclusions within a week or two of taking office. Those who argue that a decision should be possible immediately are, in my opinion, misjudging the situation. There has been a realistic mood about this which has informed much of the debate.

A number of people would like to use Kilbrandon quickly, without proper consideration, as a stepping stone to other things—for example, separation or federalism, both of which Kilbrandon rejects. Others, in good faith, take the view that, since the commission worked on these problems for more than four years and produced a thorough report, the Government should now be in a position to make up their minds on the basis of the report.

Helpful though it is, however, the commission does not come out with one definite recommendation. Both majority and minority reports put forward a number of alternative recommendations. The commission rightly recognised that the ultimate decision was political. It therefore saw its own role as one of analysis and assessment. It examined a number of alternatives and the advantages and disadvantages of each. It left, as it had to, the final choice to be made by the people and the representatives they have elected to this House.

All the suggested models of devolution now require to be examined and tested for practicability and acceptability. That is not a simple task because it involves a number of questions of great com- plexity, and the fact that the commission was divided as to what would be the preferable solution shows that the issues involved are not as easy as perhaps might have been thought. The commission stressed the importance of the views of the people in their choice of their own system of government. It stated the vital importance of public debate and the formulation of a more clearly defined public opinion and that only when this had been done would it be right for the decision to be taken.

At present public opinion, even in Scotland and Wales is not clearly established. Although there is obviously a good deal of impetus towards devolution, the implications of the various alternatives are not fully understood—how could they be at this stage?—and the extent of the support for any of these alternatives can only be guessed at.

Mr. Gordon Wilson

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the Louis Harris poll, published in the Scottish Daily Express in October 1973, which set out certain attitudes which might be prevalent within Scotland?

Mr. Sheldon

We have just gone through a General Election in which the Louis Harris poll singularly failed to provide an indication of the result, so I would not regard it as an ideal test on which to make an important decision of this kind. I accept that it is an indication, but there are other indications as well, and the consultations will make attitudes more clearly ascertainable by the Government. We have to examine most carefully the various constitutional options which were identified in Kilbrandon, and a great deal of the work is already in hand.

Mr. Richard Wainwright

While accepting that Scotland and Wales must have priority in the time scale, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the intended consultations in the provinces of England?

Mr. Sheldon

I shall come to that point.

As I have said, a great deal of the work of consultation is already in hand, and one of the important aspects is to discover what the people of our country really think about this issue. This is why consultations are necessary with the appropriate organisations in Scotland and Wales, including, if they are willing to accept the Prime Minister's invitation, the political parties. Although we have not yet settled the precise form of the consultations, the important aspect is that we do not see them re-doing the work of Kilbrandon. We see them as focusing on the specific problems that have already been raised by the various models of devolution which are presented in the report. That should provide a basis for the preparation of a White Paper and a Bill. Kilbrandon does not provide the answer but it provides a range of choices. It should enable us to make the consultation process much more rapid than would have been the case without the production of the report.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) has said that England represents as much a part of the Kilbrandon Report as Scotland and Wales. Although he will have seen that the Queen's Speech refers only to discussions in Scotland and Wales, he should not take that omission as an indication that the Government wish to give no consideration to England. We have taken the view that the issues involved happen at present to be far more pressing in Scotland and in Wales and that at this busy time England can be given a lower priority.

In our examination of the Kilbrandon proposals we shall be looking at the report as a whole, including the proposals for England. Whatever action is found to be appropriate for England will be taken in due course. Although, for the reasons I have given, I am not yet in a position to commit the Government to a particular course of action or at this early stage of our investigations even to suggest a firm timetable, our minds are open to all the solutions which are put forward in Kilbrandon and in the memorandum of dissent. We shall study them and present our conclusions as quickly as the obvious complications of the subject allow.

We are not shelving the subject or avoiding it. We are not trying to got rid of it. It is our belief that the proper way to deal with the matter is to get on with it. We intend to push forward to a satisfying conclusion.