Commons Sitting of 31 July 1975

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (BICENTENARY)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that, to mark the bicentennial celebrations of the United States of America, there be made, on behalf of Parliament to the Congress of the United States, as representative of the American people, a loan for one year of one of the two original copies of Magna Carta dated 1215 AD and held by the British Library; that a permanent showcase be presented to the Congress for the display of the document, and that the document be replaced at the end of the loan period by a replica; that the presentation be made by representatives from both Houses of Parliament; and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House proposes that this historic occasion be marked in such a way and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposals into effect.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Wine Industry
    Mr. Gouldasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to protect the English wine industry in the light of the EEC policy of restricting production.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I appreciate the concern of vine growers in the United Kingdom on this point, and I shall have their interests fully in mind when the question is discussed in the Council of Ministers in September.
    Mr. Gould: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Commission's proposals for dealing with the Community wine surplus, especially the ban on future planting, are entirely inappropriate to the tiny but growing English wine industry? Does he accept that the mere existence of a Community surplus, whether in wine, dairy products, or glasshouse products, is not necessarily a good reason for restricting British production? Is this not one of the disadvantages of trying to operate a Community market in these products?
    Mr. Strang: I agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom wine industry is infinitesimal in relation to the Community industry and it would be quite inappropriate if the ban on plantings were to be applied to the United Kingdom. On my hon. Friend's latter point, we would not expect production to be restricted in this country if we could produce more efficiently than our counterparts in the Community.
    Mr. Marten: How is it that proposals like this can go forward from the Commission without any derogation on behalf of our own wine industry? Is it that representations on behalf of the industry were not made with adequate strength to the Commission?
    Mr. Strang: With his great knowledge of these matters, the hon. Member will know that they are discussed fully in the Community. There is a special meeting of the Council of Ministers on 9th September to discuss this matter. At an official level we are in constant touch with the Commission, and we expect a satisfactory solution in September.

    Potatoes
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the supply of potatoes.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of the potato market.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Edward S. Bishop): There has been a significant improvement in the supplies of potatoes coming on to the market from the new home crop. There were problems earlier this months, because the prolonged dry weather delayed the development of the crop, but these have been alleviated by the rainfall in the middle of this month.
    Mr. Marten: In spite of the fact that we are just starting a Test Match, if the dry weather should continue for any length of time and the crop is bad, can the hon. Gentleman say whether there are favourable overseas supplies from such countries as South Africa and Poland, from which countries we have imported potatoes in the past?
    Mr. Bishop: I think we must wait to see how the crop turns out. The original difficulty was caused by the fact that we normally import new potatoes, subject to plant health requirements, and there was a shortage of supplies. In the case of Cyprus. in particular, the supplies did not materialise. With regard to the main crop, this is not normally a matter involving imports, but we are keeping the position closely under review.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is important to think ahead on this matter and that a balance must be drawn between assisting the farmers, who may run into difficulties if the dry weather continues, and looking after the housewives, who require a supply of potatoes at reasonable prices?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern. The difficulties of last month were caused by factors that were hard to foresee. I have no doubt that in future we shall be better able to regulate supplies and, accordingly, ensure reasonable prices.
    Mr. Freud: I realise that the Minister could not have foreseen the weather conditions or the potato shortage, but is he aware that the potato manufacturers in my constituency had to lay off a substantial number of people because the Minister was unwilling to issue a permit
    2024
    for the import of potatoes from Common Market countries? I am sure that it must cost the country much more to pay these people unemployment benefit.
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Member should not over-dramatise the situation. I am aware of the circumstances to which he refers, in his constituency, although these were due to other factors besides those which were apparent. The difficulty with the supply of potatoes for chips was limited to certain areas of the country, and we do not expect a recurrence of that situation in the future.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: It has not only been the shortage of potatoes that has affected the fish and chip retailers; it has been the high price, as well. Is my hon. Friend aware that costs have gone up 10 times in four months? What do the Government intend to do to deal with people who take advantage of the shortage and charge a very high price?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. In the period of shortage prices rose rapidly, but now they are down to between 6p and 9p per lb. retail. I would not have thought there was any difficulty in people finding a substitute for potatoes—and many people seem to think it an admirable object in life to reduce their consumption on this commodity.

    Tied Cottages
    Mr. Moateasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to issue the promised consultative document on the subject of agricultural service houses.
    Mr. Strang: My right hon. Friends aim to issue this document as soon as practicable—probably next month.
    Mr. Moate: Will the Minister be sure to consult all shades of opinion in the agriculture industry in this matter? He must be aware that many farmworkers would value the retention of the tied cottage system. Is he aware, for example, of the views of the Scottish farmworkers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, published recently? Will he confirm that he has approached these consultations with a completely open mind and, in that spirit, has not ruled out the possibility of achieving his

    2025
    objectives without legislation, if that should prove possible?
    Mr. Strang: I do not doubt that farm-workers as a whole will warmly welcome the implementation of this historic reform, but nevertheless we shall consult all the interests in this matter—which is why we are producing the consultative document.
    Miss Maynard: Does my hon. Friend agree that no man's home should depend upon his job—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Prime Minister?".] Does he agree that since half the farmworkers now live in free houses it is quite possible for the industry to operate without the tied cottage system?
    Mr. Strang: I agree that it is desirable that we should move to a situation in which a worker's house is not dependent on his employment. I think that the interjections of Conservative Members in comparing the position of a farm-worker with that of the Prime Minister illustrates how ignorant they are of the position in which farmworkers and their families live.
    Mr. Monro: Does not the Minister realise that he is totally out of touch with reality? Does he not understand that in livestock rearing and hill farms, for example, it is impossible to operate without tied houses? Will he stop preaching his gospel in the countryside when he knows that many farmworkers and the NFU do not support him?
    Mr. Strang: I am sure that even the hon. Member will he aware of the very long campaign which the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers has rightly mounted on this issue—
    Mr. Monro: Not in Scotland.
    Mr. Strang: We are talking about England and Wales. Agriculture is a devolved subject. The situation in Scotland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Torney: Is my hon. Friend aware that a great deal of real hardship is caused to farmworkers in some parts of the country, particularly in the South of England, through being thrown out of their homes when they no longer work for a farmer, perhaps because of health problems? Is he aware that for a long
    2026
    time the agricultural workers' union has been conducting a campaign on this issue, and that it has been Labour Party policy in past manifestos to abolish the tied cottage system? Can my hon. Friend say anything more definite about the time when something positive will be done to that end?
    Mr. Strang: I am grateful to my hon. friend for those remarks. The time when a farmworker loses his job, perhaps through ill health, retirement, or just because he has fallen out with his boss, is the time when he most needs his home, but it is precisely then that he cannot count upon it. It is our clear intention to implement this very important reform in the next Session.
    Mr. Wiggin: Since the agricultural tied cottage represents a very small percentage of all tied houses, will the Minister explain why the Government have selected them for this inquiry?
    Mr. Strang: We have done so because it is in the agriculture industry that far and away the most hardship has been caused. The evidence for that can be found in the number of possession orders granted each year and in the number of evictions, which represent only the tip of the iceberg.

    Food Production (White Paper)
    Mr. Freudasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved in increased home food production since publication of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".
    Mr. Hicksasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will lay down a timetable to facilitate the implementation of the White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources".
    Mr. Copeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to be able to announce the results of his discussions with the NFU on how to achieve the aims set out in the Government White Paper, "Food from Our Own Resources", and if he will publish those results.
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to follow up his White Paper on "Food from Our Own Resources" with

    2027
    detailed and long-term plans for increased production in each section of the agricultural industry, where this is desirable.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): The White Paper "Food from Our Own Resources" established guidelines for agriculture and agricultural policy into the 1980s. The discussions initiated in May following the publication of the White Paper are continuing. In the meanwhile, I announced last week measures which are expected to increase producers' returns in a full year by over £100 million. I shall continue to keep the situation under review and shall make further statements as the need arises.
    Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that farmers in the Isle of Ely, and probably everywhere else, are less interested in White Papers and more interested in some guarantee of profitable trading? Is he aware of the appalling difficulties of the farming community in raising capital, as a result of the lack of confidence? Is he further aware that it is impossible to expand without capital? What does he intend to do about that?
    Mr. Peart: What we intend to do is set out in my White Paper. Resources will inevitably have to come from the market. I went to Brussels the other week and secured a change in the representative rate, which means over £100 million for producers at this time. The hon. Member must realise that the country is facing difficult economic circumstances, and what I secured in Brussels amounts to substantial action to help British farmers' returns. This was a mid-term increase in common support prices and in the milk guarantee. I made it quite clear that we shall pursue the long-term objectives of British agriculture as set out in the White Paper. I recognise the difficulties, but we shall not go back on what we have said.
    Mr. Corbett: In order to help farmers to meet the objectives of the White Paper, will my right hon. Friend consider cutting down losses through animal diseases by increasing the number of vets in the State Veterinary Service, and will he give us his views on the Swann Report on this subject?
    Mr. Peart: I have announced the publication of the Swann Report and I hope that hon. Members will study it carefully. I agree with my hon. Friend. When I took over as the Minister morale in the service was not good. I believe that there has now been an improvement—it is no good the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) smiling, and deriding what I say. He cannot deny that there has been a tremendous change of morale in the profession. It has had a good pay award, and there has been a 6 per cent. increase in staff—
    Mr. Wiggin: Only 6 per cent.?
    Mr. Peart: The Conservative Government did nothing.
    Mr. Hicks: Does the Minister not agree that increased gross returns are not the same as increased profitability, and it is increased profitability that the industry requires? How will the Minister set about achieving that?
    Mr. Peart: As I have said, the change in the representative rate amounts to 5 per cent., across the board. In the current difficult circumstances, I think that that is a reasonably fair balance between the needs of the producers and the needs of the consumer.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Secretary of State agree that hill farmers have a contribution to make, and have particular problems? Will he tell us what priorities and plans for assistance he has in mind for Britain's hill farmers?
    Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend—as Minister of Agriculture, not as Secretary of State—that the hill farming sector must be helped. I represent a hill farming area. In the last award I gave the hill farming sector priority. Only this morning I discussed with the industry problems affecting the hill areas and the various hill subsidies that we have given.
    Mr. Cope: The Minister spoke, as indeed the White Paper speaks, of increased milk production. Is the Minister still as complacent as he seemed last time we had Questions on agriculture, about the possibility of having to import liquid milk this winter? If liquid milk does have to be imported this winter, will the Minister resign?
    Mr. Peart: I am never complacent, and I have no intention of resigning. The White Paper is a good paper, and I hope that all hon. Members will support it.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Minister tell us how he expects to achieve increased milk production when the number of cows is falling at the rate of 3 per cent. a year? Further, will he estimate how many dairy farmers will go out of production if tied cottages are abolished? Does he realise that unless dairy farmers in Britain receive 40p a gallon for their milk this winter, many more will go out of production?
    Mr. Peart: Before I became Minister there was a scheme to enable people to switch from the dairy industry to the beef sector. I recognise that there is a serious problem in the dairy industry. That is why I was glad to have this interim award, which will help the industry.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister has said that there is a problem in the dairy sector. Does he not agree that there is a conflict between the objectives of "Food from Our Own Resources" and the recent common agricultural stocktaking document? Will he undertake to ensure that the policies in the stocktaking document, for reducing the production of liquid milk, will not apply to the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Peart: I have said over and over again in this House, in reply to Questions, that there is no conflict between our interests and what is mentioned in the Community's stock-taking document. Basically, it states that production should be encouraged in the areas where it is most efficient. Our industry is extremely efficient and, therefore, I have made our position clear in the Community.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now announce the continuation of the operational subsidy for fishing vessels.
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current position of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Bishop: I refer the hon. Members to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson) on 29th July.
    Mr. Wall: Further to the Minister's decision to continue subsidies, will he agree that that is only a temporary palliative? It is now 14 years since the Fleck Commission reported, and the industry again faces all the uncertainties inherent in the possible extension of our fishing limits to 200 miles. Will the hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to setting up an independent commission to consider the future of the industry on the lines recommended by the Fleck Commission?
    Mr. Bishop: I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this financial aid is an extension of the aid given in the past six months. It was given in a situation in which we realised that certain difficulties have to be overcome in order to ensure the viability of the industry. In our announcement of the initial subsidy or financial aid we said that in the long run the industry must obtain its return from the market.
    The industry does not want to depend on long-term subsidies. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that changes are taking place in the common fisheries policy. The question of the future of the industry is tied up with limits, access, quotas and other aspects. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is losing no time in pressing all these matters in Brussels, as he did in April and as he has done since, in order to help the industry become viable.
    Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister satisfied that this is enough for the industry at this time, when it is in these difficulties? Does he accept that it would be extremely helpful to the industry and would cost the taxpayer very little if there were a moratorium, for a period, on the repayment of loans to the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board and that this would go a long way towards improving the temporary cash flow while the Government sort out the long-term future of the industry?
    Mr. Bishop: I value the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the aim of the present subsidies. However, I assure him that the repayment of loans is, among

    2031
    other matters, being borne in mind at present, because the industry's future is still under consideration. We hope that the financial aid that has been welcomed by the industry will help to give it some confidence about the future.
    Mr. Beith: I welcome the fact that the Government have agreed to extend the period of aid. Does the Minister agree that before the period expires it is important that the Government should make a serious study of the future requirements and size of the fishing fleet? Is he aware that there has been a great loss of confidence, because it is felt that the Government are simply prepared to allow a decline in the industry? Will the Minister ensure that that study will be carried out during the period of this temporary respite? Has there been any evidence over the past six months to support the decision to exclude boats shorter than 40 ft from the limits for aid?
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the decision to give no aid to vessels under 40 ft in length was considered in relation to structural aspects applying to those vessels eligible for aid. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and that of the industry about the long-term future of the industry. These matters are tied up with other considerations, for example, the Law of the Sea Conference, the common fisheries policy, and other matters which are now under urgent consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Hicks: Will the Minister explain to the House and the inshore fishing industry why it has been discriminated against for the second time in six months? Are not that industry's problems, in their own way, just as great as those of the middle-distance and deep-water fishing fleets?
    Mr. Bishop: I deny that there has been any discrimination. The subsidy announced in February, for the first six months of this year, covered those parts of the industry which are responsible for 90 per cent. of the catch. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have had to clip some money off the longer vessels and maintain the policy of the previous subsidy in not giving help in respect of those boats under 40 ft in length. We do not believe that the structural considerations applying to vessels eligible for aid
    2032
    apply in the case of vessels under 40 ft, although we appreciate that there are difficulties. The subsidy is only a temporary aid until other matters are sorted out. We shall certainly bear in mind the problems to which he has referred.

    Beef Production
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take in the light of the present difficulties of beef farmers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Bishop: The recent fall in market prices has not affected the total returns received by beef fatteners. These are fully maintained by the premiums. Average total returns in Great Britain for the week beginning 14th July were, for example, £22·94 per live hundredweight. As regards future prospects and the particular interests of calf and store producers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on 24th July.—[Vol. 896, c. 271.]
    Mr. Farr: As the production of beef is such a lengthy business, necessitating much long-term planning, will the Minister give a certain amount of stability and reassurance to the industry by promising that the present beef arrangements will be continued through 1976 and beyond, if necessary?
    Mr. Bishop: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I am unable to answer that question in detail, because my answer would depend on the annual review and other negotiations concerning the EEC. He will realise that we have given the seasonal prices, which go right through to the end of February. This has been welcomed by the farmers' unions and others, and will give a degree of confidence. In addition, assuming that the present beef arrangements continue, there will be the further increase in our intervention price of at least £1 per live hundredweight, when we take the next transitional step towards the common guide price at the beginning of the 1976–77 marketing year. These things are likely to give confidence to the industry, and I have no doubt that when the new prices are being considered the current situation will be taken into account.
    Mr. Watkinson: No doubt my hon. Friend will be aware that one of the

    2033
    major problems facing the livestock industry is the problem of fodder in the coming winter. What measures will the Government take to alleviate this situation? Will my hon. Friend consider issuing an order to prevent the burning of straw?
    Mr. Bishop: My hon. Friend obviously shares the general concern about the fodder situation—a concern that we had last winter. The fact is that although the fodder supply situation is one of smaller quantity, the indication at present is that the quality is much better. There has been appreciation of the work of the ADAS in helping farmers in this situation. The points made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister accept that due to the extreme drought conditions prevailing, largely in the South of England, many farmers, including myself, are already feeding hay? Will he give serious consideration to lowering the minimum classification limit for stores and heifers, as one way of alleviating the situation? If he lowered it to 5 cwt. it would help the store situation this autumn, which is likely to be disastrous.
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. I shall bear those points in mind.
    Mr. Hardy: Will my hon. Friend answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson)? Could we not have some more decisive action on the question of straw burning?
    Mr. Bishop: This matter has been considered by my right hon. Friend, but we do not think that any action is necessary at present. However, we shall bear the matter in mind, with other measures which may be necessary.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Is the Minister aware that my farmers will be relieved to learn that his right hon. Friend has got around to discussing with the unions concerned the appalling problems of hill farmers? However, is the Minister further aware, from the many letters he has received on the subject of last week's package, of the serious plight of my farmers, which that package will do nothing whatever to relieve? Does he appreciate that my farmers need action, not words, and
    2034
    that unless they get some cash in their pockets—for example, by a restoration of the cut in the calf subsidy, and the immediate payment of a further hill cow subsidy—they will be unable to buy the fodder which, despite what the Minister has said, will be in very short supply this winter, because the barley is very short on the stalk and whether or not they burn it there will be very little of it?
    Mr. Bishop: I think that the hon. Lady will realise, as we do, that the industry needs profits, and not prophets of doom. The Government are seeking to ensure the former, while the Opposition seem to be looking after the latter. The hon. Lady has obviously overlooked the fact that for the beef industry the package announced a few days ago by my right hon. Friend amounts to about £31 million net, in aid to the industry. As to the hill cow subsidy, the hon. Lady will recall that not long ago we brought forward the payment to the early part of the year, which helped farmers' cash flow. This is a move which cannot be easily repeated. However, the points made by the hon. Lady are being borne in mind. Indeed, they were under discussion with the President of the NFU, whom we met this morning.

    Horticultural Produce (Prices)
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a comparative list of prices in respect of horticultural products for the United Kingdom and other members of the EEC.
    Mr. Strang: With permission, I shall publish in the Official Report such retail prices as we have for February 1975, the most recent month for which figures are readily available.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister accept that those figures, whatever they may be, do not show the degree of subsidy which is occurring within the EEC, in terms of both credits and heating costs, particularly in the glasshouse sector? In this situation, the NFU is unable to obtain a detailed picture of subsidies within the EEC. What is the Minister's Department doing, within the dialogue in Brussels, to get more information? Will the Minister take a less complacent tone about

    2035
    this industry than he has done recently, given that we are only half way through the season and that problems of inflation still bear heavily?
    Mr. Strang: As the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is very difficult to obtain a clear picture of the various aids which

    AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND OTHER EEC COUNTRIES IN FEBRUARY 1975

    Pence per lb.

    Belgium

    Denmark

    Federal Republic of Germany

    France

    Irish Republic

    Netherlands

    United Kingdom

    Apples

    …

    …

    10·4

    13·8

    10·8

    10·4

    —

    8·4

    15·3

    Cabbage

    …

    …

    —

    4·3

    5·9

    —

    11·4*

    6·0

    5·9

    Carrots

    …

    …

    8·2

    12·9

    9·2

    8·6

    11·5

    8·5

    7·2

    Cauliflower

    …

    …

    39·7*

    20·5

    14·1

    11·7

    —

    34·5*

    12·9

    Onions

    …

    …

    7·1

    12·3

    10·3

    7·6

    12·0

    6·2

    6·7

    Tomatoes

    …

    …

    42·5

    51·3

    32·0

    27·2

    33·6

    —

    31·2

    * Pence per head.

    Sources:
    United Kingdom—General Index of Retail Prices.
    Other Countries—National Publications.
    Notes:
    Owing to differences in varieties, grades and methods of presentation these prices are not necessarily comparable one with another.
    Comparable figures for Italy are not available

    Glasshouse Industry
    Mr. Grahamasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the current profitability of the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry.
    Mr. Strang: The glasshouse sector is too diverse to enable an overall estimate of profitability to be made. However, on the information available so far this season I believe that efficient growers are obtaining satisfactory returns.
    Mr. Graham: Bearing in mind the current situation, does the Minister agree that the market is sufficiently buoyant to give a good return to glasshouse growers and that the special subsidies given to the industry were obviously given at the right time?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Unlike some other members of the Community, we concentrated the subsidy into last year, when it was badly needed. It is the case that wholesale tomato prices, for example, are up by 45 per cent., which is very helpful to the industry.
    Mr. Edward Gardner: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who
    exist throughout the Community. However, I reject absolutely the suggestion that we have been in any way complacent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcomes the firm prices which his horticultural producers are receiving at present.
    Following is the information:
    are engaged in the glasshouse industry are now in considerable financial difficulty? They fear that these difficulties will become even more formidable as winter approaches. What are the Government prepared to do to stave off the threat of bankruptcy, which is a real threat to these people?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. and learned Gentleman should recognise that the amount of money put into the British industry in the form of oil subsidy compares extremely favourably with that paid in any other member State of the Community. He should also not lose sight of the capital grants that we give and the help that the ADAS gives to growers who wish to convert to more efficient forms of heating.
    Mr. Newens: Despite his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham), does my hon. Friend not recognise that many growers have been very hard hit by the increase in fuel prices? Is he not aware that as a result of the refusal to extend the subsidy, many of our growers are working at a severe disadvantage, as compared with Dutch growers, who are enjoying a considerable subsidy at present?
    Mr. Strang: I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that the British Government moved very quickly to pay the subsidy when it was most needed. We really cannot go on indefinitely providing an operating subsidy to an industry which is getting very good prices for its produce.

    Grain (Intervention Buying)
    Mr. Arthur Jonesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to facilitate intervention buying of cereals in the event of the United Kingdom's prices falling below intervention prices in the coming harvest.
    Mr. Pearl: Sales into intervention are governed by Community rules. It is open to owners of wheat and barley at any time to offer their grain for sale into intervention and, if the conditions are satisfied, it will be bought at the appropriate price.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is he able to predict the future trend of grain prices, in view of harvest predictions in the Northern Hemisphere? Is he further able to give any estimate of the likely yields of this year's harvest in the home market?
    Mr. Pearl: There are indications that this year's harvest will not reach the previous figures, but I cannot give any forecasts. I shall look at this matter carefully and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Corbett: If we come to intervention buying after this harvest, will my right hon. Friend consider, in the light of the quality of the grain produced, arguing a case for a special lower category in feeding wheats?
    Mr. Pearl: This matter came up the other day in the Community, but I have not made up my mind on it. There are arguments for and against. I shall watch the position carefully.

    Butter Imports
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the levels of butter imports in tonnage and value terms in 1972, 1973 and 1974; and what is the forecast for 1975.
    Mr. Bishop: With permission, I shall publish the figures for 1972, 1973 and 1974 in the Official Report. These show a higher level of imports in 1974 than in 1972 and 1973. It is not the practice of my Department to publish forecasts of imports.
    Mr. Renton: While finding it difficult to thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he does not consider that the Secretary of State's answer to an earlier Question about the dairy situation in Britain showed a complacency that is totally out of place? Is it not true that the home dairy industry is now in a state of crisis and that cows are being brought forward for slaughter at a disastrous rate? What steps will the Government now take to set the British dairy industry on the path of expansion?
    Mr. Bishop: The Question was about butter. I deny the hon. Gentleman's allegation about my right hon. Friend. The main effect of the discussions on the green pound, and the agreement reached last week, will be on the guaranteed price for milk, which is worth £60 million in a full year. That addition has been welcomed by the farming industry.
    Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister agree that virtually no butter will be made in this country between now and March 1976? Does he accept that that will happen as a result of the shortage of milk caused by Government policies, and that the recent 2·2p per gallon rise will do nothing to stem the downturn in milk production? Will he give us an assurance that before the winter begins there will be another adjustment to the milk price, so that we can put dairy produce and dairy production back on the right road?
    Mr. Bishop: I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to either the Minister's statement or the announcement last week. Since the 1974 annual review we have increased the guaranteed price of milk by 37 per cent. That has helped the industry. The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that there are increases in the pipeline which must still be put into effect. The fall in butter production is not due only to the fall in milk production or to more milk being consumed as liquid;

    2039
    it is also used in the manufacture of cheese and other products.
    Following is the information:

    UNITED KINGDOM IMPORTS OF BUTTER

    '000 tons

    £ million

    1972

    …

    …

    339

    165

    1973

    …

    …

    327

    134

    1974

    …

    …

    437

    230*

    Source: Overseas Trade Accounts. *Adjusted in the light of more recent information.

    Egg Imports
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the operation of the measures adopted by the EEC Commission on 7th July in respect of the egg industry.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about imports of foreign eggs, particularly from France.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of the United Kingdom poultry industry.
    Mr. Bishop: Since the measures authorised by the European Commission to deal with the situation in our egg market came into effect on 7th July, egg packing stations have increased the prices they pay to producers by an average of over 5p a dozen. Imports are running at a low level. We shall continue to watch developments in the market closely.
    Mr. Miller: Does the Minister accept that the reduction in imports is due to the strengthening of the market on the Continent? Will he therefore keep a careful watch on this trend, bearing in mind the fact that despite the improvement which he mentioned, the return to producers is still 5p below the cost of production?
    Mr. Bishop: The situation has improved, partly as a result of the steps taken by my right hon. Friend in Brussels. The changes in the export restitutions means that there is now more encouragement to send eggs from Europe in other directions rather than to the United Kingdom, and especially to third countries. All those factors, combined with the steps we have taken to allow the export of eggs to France, are helping the market.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is the Minister aware of the continuing concern in the poultry industry? Will he say how many eggs have been exported to France? Have the difficulties encountered with arsenical compounds in feeding stuffs been overcome?
    Mr. Bishop: My right hon. Friend and I met the leaders of the British Poultry Federation yesterday. I held a meeting with other representatives of the industry and the NFU in my constituency on Saturday.
    We have reached agreement with the French to allow the import of British eggs into France as we have taken steps to ensure that arsenical compounds are not used as feed additives.
    Mr. Hardy: Many hon. Members are relieved at the achievement of the Minister of Agriculture. As this problem has existed for many years, it is strange that the Opposition have only recently taken an interest in it, despite the fact that the previous administration refused to take any action.
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate those comments. Despite the demands made as a result of the economic situation, my right hon. Friend pursued this matter vigorously in Brussels. Steps are now being taken within the Community, and by its egg-producing member States, to ensure greater stability of egg production in future.

    Trawler Fleet
    Mr. Sproatasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he regards as the acceptable minimum size of the United Kingdom trawler fleet.
    Mr. Peart: The trawler fleet comprises vessels of different sizes and catching capacity, based on different ports and fishing different stocks at varying distances from our shores. It would not be helpful to speculate about its appropriate size at the present time. The important consideration is that it should be able to take full advantage of the fishing opportunities open to the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Sproat: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an equally important consideration is that in the past 18 months the United Kingdom trawling fleet has been reduced, overall, by 20 per

    2041
    cent. and by almost 30 per cent. in Scotland? Is he aware that the inadequate subsidy scheme, which was announced this week, will mean that the number of vessels tied up or transferred may approach 40 per cent. of the fleet by the end of the year? Does he agree that after September there must be an end to this hand-to-mouth existence and that there must be certainty of stable, long-term financial viability in the industry?
    Mr. Peart: The subsidy was welcomed by the industry. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's mean attitude towards the announcement, when he said that the subsidy was not enough. The hon. Gentleman must not be a Mr. Micawber. This is a good deal for the industry, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

    EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
    Mr. Beithasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in Brussels on 16th July, so far as they related to direct elections to the European Parliament.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he made at the meeting of Heads of EEC Governments in Brussels on 16th July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have been asked to reply.
    It is not the practice to make set speeches at these meetings and details of the discussions are confidential. The question of direct elections arose in the context of discussions on the future development of the Community. The Heads of Government decided that various ideas should be looked at by the Council of Foreign Ministers. The Council will set up a working group.
    Mr. Beith: Why are the Prime Minister and the Government so unwilling to make a statement of principle in favour of direct elections? Are they afraid of allowing the British people to choose their representatives to the European Community? Might the answer be that the system of election used might be much fairer than our system?
    Mr. Short: Not at all. Direct elections appear in the Treaty of Rome, as an
    2042
    objective. We accept that treaty. The Prime Minister told the House on 3rd July—we repeated it at the meeting of Heads of Government—that we should examine the matter very carefully. We are doing so now, as there are complicated constitutional issues involved. The Prime Minister also welcomed the decision of the Heads of Government to ask the Council of Foreign Ministers to look into this and to report back to the Heads of Government.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be pointless to accept the principle of direct election of members of the European Parliament without a considerable increase in the powers of the Parliament to which they are being elected? Otherwise, the electorate will not be interested in voting for such people. Will my right hon. Friend create machinery between the Government and the current representatives of Britain at Strasbourg to devise ways acceptable to Britain of increasing the powers of the current Assembly? Until we do that, the principle of direct elections seems irrelevant.
    Mr. Short: That is a wider question. The Government will be happy to talk to the present representatives, to hear their views and to discuss with them the powers of the present Assembly.
    Mr. Marten: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no decision about direct elections to a European Parliament until we know what powers that Parliament will have, if any? Will he give an assurance that there will be no changes in those powers without the consent of each national Parliament?
    Mr. Short: Yes. I can give a complete assurance. There will be no change in the method of selecting or electing our representatives without the consent of this Parliament?
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the Government agree to direct elections to the European Parliament it will be made clear that candidates will not be confined to members of the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and that any British citizen on the electoral roll will be entitled to stand as a candidate for that Parliament?
    Mr. Short: I repeat that as we accept the Treaty of Rome we accept the principle of direct elections as a long-term objective. The second point raised by my right hon. Friend is exactly the kind of matter that has to be considered. It has to be considered very carefully. That is why we have made a study of it in addition to the study being made by the Foreign Ministers.

    ECONOMIC SITUATION
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.
    Mr. Rostasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the heads of the nationalised industries to meet him to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economy.
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the leaders of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11 th July on the economic situation.
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to meet the heads of the nationalised industries to discuss his statement of 11th July on the economic situation.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend discussed our intentions on pay limits with the heads of 21 public corporations on 10th July. They have assured the Government that they will support the new policy in every way and that they will operate strictly within the limits laid down in the guidelines. The Ministers concerned will continue to keep in close touch with the corporations on the implementation of the policy.
    Mr. Renton: Will the Lord President remind the Prime Minister that the losses so far reported by the nationalised industries in one year amount to more than £14 per head of the population, with more to come? Is he aware that the people are fed up with the prospect of having to pay for these vast losses out of their straitened incomes? Are not prices for the products of nationalised
    2044
    industries rapidly moving out of the range of those who need them most?
    Mr. Short: No, Sir. The deficits which are being announced reflect the degree to which the publicly-owned industries have been constrained in their pricing policies, under both the previous Conservative Government and the present Government, and, therefore, the extent to which the publicly-owned industries have been subsidising private industry.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: To absorb a growing number of unemployed, is not a national recovery programme called for? Has not the Prime Minister rightly encouraged France and Germany to expand their economies, whereas we are being asked to cut back ours? How can it be inflationary for us to expand our economy if it costs little more to keep a man fully employed than to have him idle?
    Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be making an announcement about this before the Summer Recess.
    Mr. Rost: Why are the Government stubbornly pressing on with their further disastrous programme of nationalisation when it is clear to everyone except the prejudiced and blinkered Socialists that nationalised industries have failed the nation, that we cannot afford more nationalisation and that if we get more it will lead only to more unemployment and more inflation?
    Mr. Short: That supplementary question from the hon. Gentleman was entirely predictable. It is on a level with all the supplementary questions he puts on this subject. The hon. Gentleman has not made a constructive comment on anything since he came to the House. The nationalised industries are the basis of our economy. For many years now they have been restricted in their pricing policy and, therefore, they have been subsidising the rest of our economy.
    Mr. Latham: How much of the £6 a week permitted wage increase next year will be taken up by increased energy, rail and postal charges?
    Mr. Short: I cannot answer that off the cuff. If the hon. Gentleman will table a Question we shall let him have a reply.
    Mr. Heffer: Are not Opposition Members hypocritical about this matter? Does not private enterprise receive about £2½ million a day in various subsidies? Have not Opposition Members only this afternoon demanded subsidies for the fishing industry? It is apparently all right to have subsidies for the fishing industry and private enterprise, but not all right to have subsidies for nationalised industries. Is it not clear that the Opposition are a bunch of damned hypocrites?
    Mr. Speaker: I deprecate that phraseology. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it differently.
    Mr. Heifer: If I have gone beyond the bounds of parliamentary terminology, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the appropriate words, whichever they are.
    Mr. Lawson: In the light of last night's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party at which the Environment Secretary's decision to accept a Lords Amendment to the "Clay Cross" Bill was overruled by a majority of 21, could the chairmen of the nationalised industries be told which of the Government's policies will in future be decided by the Cabinet and which by the Parliamentary Labour Party, on the advice of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
    Mr. Short: Last night my right hon. Friend, in a democratic manner consulted his colleagues on a purely parliamentary matter. We are willing to accept the decision of our colleagues on this.

    HATFIELD
    Mrs. Haymanasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Hatfield.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that were the Prime Minister, he, or indeed anyone, to visit Hatfield he would learn to appreciate how dependent that part of my constituency is on the aerospace industry? Is he aware of the damage caused to that industry, on the civil side, by the threat to the HS146 and, on the missile side, by the threat to the
    2046
    USGW? Will he confirm that the Government do not intend to commit the folly of buying American weapons for the Navy and cancelling this valuable British project?
    Mr. Short: With regard to the USGW, no decision has yet been taken on how to meet the obvious requirement for an underwater-to-surface guided weapon. A great many factors have to be taken into consideration, including operational performance, cost, foreign exchange expenditure and the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of equipment within the alliance. I repeat that no decision has yet been taken on how to meet this requirement.
    Mr. Pattie: Does the Lord President accept that the uncertainty in the aerospace industry, to which the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman) often refers, would be ended if the Government dropped their plans for nationalising that industry?
    Mr. Short: To end the uncertainty, may I make clear that we think that the Bill will have its Second Reading in November.

    TUC AND CBI
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the TUC and the CBI.
    Mr. Edward Short: I have been asked to reply.
    As my right hon. Friend has told the House, there have been and will continue to be extensive discussions between the Government, TUC and CBI on the proposals contained in the White Paper "The Attack on Inflation" (Cmnd. 6151).
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best proposition that could be put forward at the forthcoming meeting with the TUC, and perhaps to a lesser extent at the meeting with the CBI, is that, arising out of our recent debates on the new economic policy and, bearing in mind all the legal difficulties in relation to conspiracy matters and injunctions, the Government should drop any intention they may have of introducing, in any form, reserve powers of the kind that have been loosely described by Government spokesmen?
    Mr. Short: What has emerged from the long but excellent debates we have had is the massive amount of support for the Government's policy in the House and in the country. There is no intention to introduce the reserve powers unless we are forced to do so. If we are forced to do so, we shall introduce them.
    Mr. Norman Lamont: If the Prime Minister does meet the TUC will he explain to it precisely why the Socialist Government felt it necessary to raise the Bank Rate by a full 1 per cent. on the day after the announcement that there were 1 million unemployed? Is it because the Government's conversion to monetarism is complete, or because the Government's control of public expenditure is still non-existent, that the Government have ended up where all Socialist Governments end up, by being completely in pawn to foreign bankers?
    Mr. Short: I think the hon. Gentleman understands as well as I do the reason for that increase.
    Mrs. Bain: Will the Leader of the House accept that many of us are pleased that the Prime Minister finds it worth while to have discussions with the TUC and CBI? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the next time the Scottish Trades Union Congress asks for a meeting with the Prime Minister it will not be with the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Secretary of State for Energy, particularly when the STUC wants to discuss the economic and unemployment situation in Scotland?
    Mr. Short: I do not know whether the hon. Lady is trying to appear as a great champion of the STUC. The Prime Minister and I, and several colleagues, some time ago spent a whole weekend in Glasgow, discussing all kinds of matters with the STUC, and we intend to do so again later this year.
    Mr. McElhone: It ill becomes the hon. Lady—a member of the Scottish National Party—to be concerned about the STUC. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the STUC is on record as saying that the Scottish National Party has no relevance to the working people of Scotland?

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order. May I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, the matter of the grouping of Questions in so far as it affects the rights of hon. Members. Some time ago the grouping of Questions by the Prime Minister was raised with you, and it was agreed that he would stop at Question No. Q10. Today Questions Nos. 53, 41 and 46 were taken by Ministers replying for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Question No. 13 was not reached. It seems to me that a difficult situation arises over the rights of back benchers.
    Mr. Speaker: There must be flexibility in any system, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

BANBRIDGE, CO. DOWN (INCIDENT)
Mr. Powell Mr. Powell(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on the fatal incident reported last night near Banbridge in County Down.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The House will deplore such violence and will join with me in expressing sympathy for the families.
The House will understand that, while this investigation is continuing, I cannot give full details. However, my information is that at about two o'clock this morning a minibus containing members of the Miami Showband from the Republic of Ireland, who were returning from a professional engagement in Banbridge, County Down, was stopped on the main Dublin road north of Newry. Five members of the band were apparently ordered out of their vehicle by terrorists. There was then an explosion. This was apparently the premature detonation of a bomb. There was also some shooting. As a result, three members of the band were shot dead and one was seriously injured. Two other men believed to have been terrorists were killed by the explosion. The remaining member of the band was unhurt but is understandably badly shocked.
Neither the identity of the terrorists nor that of the organisation to which they

2049
belong has been definitely established, but the police are following a positive line of inquiry.
Mr. Powell: Does the Secretary of State agree that this horrifying outrage is rendered, if possible, more shocking by the fact that it was carried out against persons who were peaceably visiting the United Kingdom from another country? Does he further agree that what matters now is the identification and the bringing to justice of the survivors amongst those who were responsible, and the further improvement of the rate of detention and conviction of terrorists?
Mr. Rees: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the victims were visitors, peaceably visiting part of the United Kingdom for innocuous reasons. The police are pursuing a line of investigation. The evidence so far available makes them reasonably confident that the terrorists were not members of the PIRA or any related organisation. I cannot confirm that any particular Protestant group—the UVF for example—was responsible. I understand that an arm with the letters "UVF" tattooed on it has been found.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that we are grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and to him for enabling every one of us to express our detestation of this atrocity and to join in sympathy and prayers for the dead and bereaved and best wishes for the recovery of the survivor suffering from shock?
Does not the fact that the showband came from across the border, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, and that members of it originated from different sides of the border, remind us that the terror hangs over the Irish Republic as well as the United Kingdom, and should be met in co-operation by the two sovereign Powers?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Her Majesty's Opposition support him and the security forces in all measures, including detention, that may be appropriate for the smashing of the terrorist gangs, whatever colours they brandish and besmirch?
Mr. Rees: I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He will know
2050
that in the past six months the violence has come not from one quarter but from across the community divide. Some people—not the hon. Gentleman—seem to ignore that. The RUC, with the assistance of the Army where appropriate, will pursue the killers in this case. As I have informed the House, it is following a positive line of inquiry.
Mr. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend accept that hon. Members on the Government side of the House, too, will want to be associated with his expressions of horror at this latest tragic incident in the Six Counties and to express our sympathy with the relatives and families of the dead men? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if such an incident occurred anywhere else in the United Kingdom there would rightly be a massive public outcry for concentrated police activity to bring the criminals to book and to trial? Will my right hon. Friend give us further details of the kind of action the police are taking to bring the case to the courts?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's words, which are in accordance with the views on both sides of the House. I agree that people become numbed in Northern Ireland, and sometimes one feels that there is not the same outcry as there would he in other parts of the United Kingdom. What matters in Northern Ireland is that people on both sides of the community divide should express their horror when something is committed by people on their side of the community fence. This is happening increasingly. As for my hon. Friend's other question, it would be better if I simply used the words that I used in my statement: the police are following a positive line of inquiry.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the hon. Members on this bench, representing the Northern Ireland constituents, totally condemn, without reservation, those who were guilty of this diabolical deed? Was the band a mixed band, with both religions represented in it, as I have reason to believe? Will the new patrol group of the Royal Ulster Constabulary be operating in the area to bring the criminals to justice?
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words, and for the fact that

2051
he says them without reservation. His words will matter in Northern Ireland. I have no knowledge of the religion of the people concerned. The special patrol group is involved.
Mr. Fitt: First, may I express my sympathy with all the relatives of those who lost their lives. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that the area in which this atrocious murder took place is allegedly a Loyalist area, where there is no hostility or animosity towards the police or the security forces? Is he satisfied that adequate protection is being given to those who travel in such areas? Will he confirm that those who are allegedly responsible for this brutal crime came from an area known as The Triangle in Portadown, where a number of brutal murders have taken place recently? Is he satisfied that the RUC and security forces are giving due attention to the murderers who emanate from that area?
Mr. Rees: The police are accepted in the area. It is certainly not a no-go area by any stretch 'of the imagination. The police cannot protect every inch of a road as people are traveling along it. It would be wrong of me to give any suggestion that they could. Even if another five battalions of troops were sent it could not be done. It is easy to murder and kill—far easier than to talk and argue. It is much better for me to leave to the police the question where the murderers come from.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 4th August—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security Pensions Bill, the Child Benefit Bill, and the Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Bill and others that may be received.
TUESDAY 5th August—Completion of remaining stages of the Employment Protection Bill.
Motion on the undertaking with Caledonian Macbrayne Limited.
2052
WEDNESDAY 6th August—Until 7 o'clock a debate on Court Line Limited.
Thereafter, until, say, midnight, a debate on the textile, clothing and footwear industries when EEC Documents S/799/75 and R/1431/75 will be relevant.
THURSDAY 7th August—Subject to agreement, the House will meet at 11 am, take Questions until 12 noon, and adjourn at 5 pm for the summer until Monday, 13th October.
Mrs. Thatcher: As we are reaching the end of an unusually long Session with a lot of uncompleted work—for example, three major Bills have yet to go to the House of Lords and many Bills have to return from there, while many important measures have not yet been debated, in spite of assurances to the contrary—would not the Lord President agree that the legislative programme has been grossly overloaded and that we have not had the time for proper parliamentary scrutiny nor are we likely to have it? Would he not therefore drop one or two Bills from the Government's programme now?
Mr. Short: No, Sir. The programme has been a heavy one but I do not agree that it has been unduly overloaded. There will be an overspill period in the autumn. We certainly hope to complete our legislative programme for this Session.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that last week when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) asked you whether it was possible for a motion to be moved requiring the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse) to come to this House, you said that it was a matter for the House and not the Chair. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt have seen Early-Day Motion No. 622.
[That the Governor of Her Majesty's Prison at Brixton do bring the Right honourable John Thompson Stonehouse in custody to this House on any one day before the eighth day of August, if the said Right honourable John Thompson Stonehouse shall desire to be so brought up, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants to the said Governor and to

2053
the Serjeant at Arms attending this House accordingly.]
This motion, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth and others, and to which I am a signatory, asks that the right hon. Member should come here to give an explanation of himself to the House. Since it is our right to know what has been happening, may I ask the Leader of the House either to move such a motion or to give time for us to move it so that the right hon. Member may be brought here?
Mr. Short: There are obviously a number of views about this. I think it would be sensible to wait until we have a specific request from the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand the position, we have not yet had a specific request. If we receive one, we shall have to consider it. The House will have to decide the matter.
Mr. Tuck: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you had already received such a request from the right hon. Member.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member will refer to the terms of the letter which I read out to the House he will see that the request is not yet specific.
Mr. Edward Gardner: May I bring to the attention of the Leader of the House Early-Day Motion No. 624?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to abolish the archaic rule which compels the courts to wait upon the formal consent of Parliament before they can take judicial notice of the public record of proceedings in Parliament and asks that the rule be submitted for examination and report by the Select Committee on Procedure.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this motion has been signed by a number of right hon. and hon. Members on all sides of the House and that it urges the Government to take action to abolish the archaic rule which makes parliamentary consent necessary before Hansard can he read in a court of law? Is he aware that it was the abortive attempts last week by the Law Officers to follow this rule that gave rise to the equally absurd double voting episode in this House? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be an early opportunity to debate
2054
this motion? If there is not time to do so, will he give the House an assurance that the Government will take steps to submit this rule to the Select Committee on Procedure as soon as possible?
Mr. Short: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will certainly consider what he says. The rule would certainly appear to be archaic.
Mr. George Cunningham: Like a number of other things in this House.
Mr. Short: I respect what the hon. and learned Member says about this. Perhaps I could have some discussions through the usual channels to find out how we can deal with the matter.
Mr. English: In connection with the same Early-Day Motion, may I ask my right hon. Friend to study the amendment which I have tabled? It reads,
"leave out from first 'to' to end and add 'have the two reports of Lord Donovan's Joint Committee of both Houses on Defamation and Privilege considered and decided upon by the two Houses, and meanwhile to take no steps to alter the existing law which prevents other courts taking judicial notice of words spoken in Parliament, since any such change would inhibit Members from discussing criminal or civil offences suspected or committed by any person, or from doing as Mr. Duncan Sandys did and break the law (in his case the Official Secrets Act) in the national interest, if their words could later be used elsewhere as evidence of such crimes or civil offences'"
Is it not time that the House discussed the report of Lord Donovan's Joint Committee of both Houses on the whole subject of defamation and privilege rather than attempt to deal with one tiny issue by itself? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this procedure prevents our words from being used in evidence in court without the permission of the House? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is something that we should all think about before we endeavour to change it in isolation?
Mr. Short: That is a much wider question. The more immediate and rather restricted question was raised by the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner). I will certainly look at this. I hope that there will be an opportunity to deal with this next Session.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman yet again whether he expects a statement to be made next week about the Maxwell Stamp Report,

2055
bearing in mind that as reported in col. 749 of Hansard for 10th July he promised to write to me about this, and unless the Post Office has failed to deliver that letter, it would appear that the letter has not yet been written?
Mr. Short: We will look into this and write to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly there will not be a statement next week.
Mr. Greville Janner: Can my right hon. Friend say when time is likely to be given for discussion of the archaic laws of bankruptcy and liquidation, both of which are sadly topical and on both of which we have been promised legislation in due course?
Mr. Short: Certainly not next week.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the statement by the Prime Minister that he was seeking a détente of action, not words, and the fact that the main action which seems to have followed that speech is the suppression of the Socialist majority in Portugal, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House about the whole Helsinki operation?
Mr. Short: I am sure that if the House wishes it, my right hon. Friend will be very happy to make a statement about this most important conference when he returns.
Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will be grateful to him for saying earlier this week that he is willing to set up a Select Committee to visit Cyprus? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Committee will be set up before the House rises so that it can visit the island and see the refugees, British and Cypriot, who constitute an important problem for which this House ought to take immediate responsibility?
Mr. Short: I hope to table a motion on this subject today.
Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that we shall have a debate in Government time on foreign affairs during the overspill period? Does he not agree that it is more important to keep our gaze on some of the extremely serious events
2056
taking place in the world than to deal with a further rash of Socialist Bills?
Mr. Short: I certainly think that it is time we had a foreign affairs debate and I will try to ensure that we have one in the overspill period.
Mr. Bryan Davies: Would my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House for ensuring that the Summer Recess begins in time for the "Glorious twelfth"—the start of grouse shooting? Would he further accept that he would have earned further congratulations from my hon. Friends if he had preserved a sufficient amount of parliamentary time to ensure that essential Government legislation was passed while at the same time reaching a terminal date in the summer which coincided rather more with the school holidays of our children?
Mr. Short: I very much feel that we have to look very seriously next year at the latter point raised by my hon. Friend. I know a great many hon. Members, especially Scottish Members, are being put to great inconvenience because their children return to school in the middle of August. There is a real problem here and I believe that the House must look at the time of the year at which it takes its Summer Recess. Probably it is too late in the year.
Sir A. Meyer: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early-Day Motion No. 623?
[That this House reminds Her Majesty's Government of the votes which the Labour Party won at two elections in 1974 by holding out hopes of retaining steel making at BSC, Shotton; notes the excellent industrial relations which have prevailed and still prevail there; and urges the Government not to sacrifice the jobs of Shotton workers for the benefit of Port Talbot.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this motion, standing in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, concerns the possible rundown of steelmaking at BSC Shotton? Is he aware of the gnawing anxiety which now prevails on Deeside? Can he give an undertaking that a statement will be made one way or the other in good time before the House rises? Will there be an opportunity to debate the statement?
Mr. Short: I understand the seriousness of this matter for Shotton. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) has been to see me to discuss this matter. I can give an assurance that there will be a statement before the recess.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend accept that having ruined many domestic arrangements, there is very little point in his making pious remarks at this time of the year about the need to look at the procedure of the House, if he does not spend a little time during the recess investigating the shortage of parliamentry draftsmen and the inability of Departments to get their Bills in early enough to be considered? Would my hon. Friend not accept that this situation leads to bad legislation and a total waste of Parliament's time?
Mr. Short: I do not agree at all with my hon. Friend. I believe that in this Session we have been able to introduce some excellent Socialist legislation. My right hon. and hon. Friends fought and won the last General Election on that basis. I am delighted that we have managed to get so much important legislation on the statute book.
Mr. Tebbit: May I revert to the business for next week? Will the Lord President say in precisely what way the House will debate what he referred to as the affairs of Court Line Limited? I understood, and my hon. Friends understood, that we were to have a debate on the scandalous manner in which the Government have contemptuously rejected the two independent reports upon the role of the Secretary of State for Energy in that affair.
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman greatly overstates the matter. We have not contemptuously rejected anything. We disagree with a conclusion, that is all. Certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade said yesterday that we would try to find time to debate the matter. We felt that the House would wish to debate it and therefore, I found half a day for the purpose. I propose that we debate the matter on the Adjournment. I am willing to discuss the matter if that is the general wish.
Mr. Peyton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will clear up the question whether his right hon. Friend the Secre-
2058
tary of State for Energy is to take part in the debate on Wednesday? There is some uncertainty about that. The hon. Gentleman is so eloquent in a sendentary position, but will the Lord President clear up that matter? To have a debate on this subject without the right hon. Gentleman taking part would be rather like Hamlet without the grave-digger.
Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when we return after the recess we shall want to have a debate on the whole question of the volume of business coining before Parliament, how it is handled and the provision of the necessary papers at the right time? I have considerable sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman, but does he realise that we are very concerned that he, as Leader of the House, should defend the House of Commons against the heedless and crude ambitions of some of his colleagues?
Mr. Short: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman's last sentence means. As regards printing, I expressed my concern yesterday. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department and I, and the Lord Privy Seal, are considering what form of inquiry we should have into the difficulties that we are facing. I think that the time has come when we must carefully consider these problems.
On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, the prince will be present and taking part in the debate on Court Line. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Energy will both be taking part in the debate.
Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when and in what form we shall be asked to take a decision about the future broadcasting of our proceedings?
Mr. Short: The present position is that the Services Committee has re-established the sub-committee on broadcasting and asked it to evaluate the experiment. When that has been done we propose to put the proposal to the House. Following that we would set up a joint committee of the Lords and Commons to work out the details. I appreciate that that sounds a long process, but I hope that we can carry it out reasonably quickly.
Mr. Norman Lamont: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that certain Written Answers to Questions submitted to the right hon. Gentleman have recently been received by the Press 24 hours before being received by the hon. Members concerned? Will the right hon. Gentleman at least do hon. Members the courtesy of letting them see the replies to their Questions before they are seen by the Press?
Mr. Short: I am quite sure that that does not happen in my office.
Mr. Lamont: It does.
Mr. Short: If the hon. Gentleman says that it does, perhaps he will discuss the matter with me and let me have his evidence. I shall look into this matter immediately.
Mr. Frank Allaun: The date 13th October has been mentioned as the date on which we are likely to return, but so far it has not been mentioned by my right hon. Friend in the House. Is it possible for him to do so now?
Mr. Short: I am sure that I mentioned it in my statement.
Mr. Gow: As regards next Wednesday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether there is any precedent for the Government rejecting the independent report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration?
Mr. Short: I am answering questions on business, and I have announced a debate on that matter. That is the sort of point that the hon. Gentleman can make in the debate.

MOTOR CYCLE INDUSTRY
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the motor cycle industry.
In July 1973 the previous administration was instrumental in the creation of Norton Villiers Triumph, which absorbed the motor cycle activities of the earlier BSA company. Under Section 8 of the Industry Act 1972 assistance of £4·87 million was provided. Subsequently NVT decided to close its Meriden factory.
My predecessor announced in July 1974 that the Government would be
2060
prepared to make available £4·95 million towards the formation of a co-operative at Meriden subject to certain conditions, including the necessary arrangements and agreements being negotiated with NVT for the purchase of assets and marketing.
Last March the House approved export credit guarantees on a long-term basis for NVT under Section 8 of the Industry Act for £8 million, to which an additional facility would be available of £4 million from ECGD under its normal commercial arrangements. In addition, a special guarantee facility of £6 million was authorised for the Meriden output.
However, NVT's sales abroad have fallen dramatically. The export guarantee provided against its long-term needs has in the course of the past three months almost been used up. Substantial stocks of unsold motor cycles have accumulated.
In these circumstances, the Export Credit Guarantee Department concluded that it would not be justified in guaranteeing further financial to increase stocks which are unlikely to be sold for some time. This situation has nothing whatsoever to do with the setting up of the Meriden co-operative, which has not yet entered the North American export market. Even after this guarantee had been withdrawn, nearly £24 million of public money has been spent or committed to the motor cycle industry in the past two years.
To enable the Government to form a view of the long-term prospects for the industry, my predecessor commissioned a study by the Boston Consulting Group. I have now received its report, and have considered its conclusions, together with representatives of the management and the work force in the industry. I have decided that, apart from commercially confidential material, the full report should be published. Copies will be available in the Vote Office.
The consultants were not asked to make a specific recommendation but to evaluate possible development strategies. The consultants characterised the history of the industry during the 1960s as one of a progressive loss of market share, a failure to introduce competitive new models and a concentration on the larger motor cycles through a managerial preoccupation with short-term profits. In the event, this policy turned out to be

2061
mistaken and contributed to the financial difficulties of BSA.
The main market for our motor cycles is now in North America. Total sales there increased at a rate of 15 per cent. a year from 1968 to 1974, but our share fell dramatically during that period.
After full consideration of possible future courses, the consultants identified three which appeared to hold the best prospect. One was for a much smaller industry. The second was for an industry employing about the same work force as at present. The third was an intermediate strategy.
Additional Government funds required range from a minimum of £15 million for the first strategy to £50 million and more if the work force directly employed on motor cycles were maintained at its present size of about 3,000—without provision for contingencies.
All three courses called for the rapid development of new models, the installation of new equipment, and concentration of production in at most two factories.
All would involve high risks, and at best employment on making motor cycles would be no higher 'than at present—if everything worked out right.
Even if everything did go right and all the risks could be surmounted, the consultants' report indicates that the industry would have cash flow deficits which would not be recovered at the very best until the late 1980s.
In addition to the options identified by the consultants, the Government have weighed very carefully other proposals and possibilities for a further investment in the industry, enabling it to recapture markets from which it has successively withdrawn.
In view of the importance of the subject, I have consulted the Industrial Development Advisory Board as recently enlarged. In its opinion, none of the strategies identified by the consultants offered an adequate prospect of viability. The board looked for an alternative option, but was unable to recommend one.
One of the factors that the Government had to take into account when considering the large scale of support that would be required under the options identified
2062
by the consultants was the many other calls on Government money in other spheres of economic and social policy, and the need to ensure that our limited resources are used to the best advantage.
The management of NVT has pressed me for an urgent decision about the provision of further funds.
In the light of our most thorough consideration of all possibilities, the Government have concluded that this request for funds must be refused.
I want to make clear that we have given full weight to the skill and enthusiasm of the work force and the employment situation in the Midlands.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be asking the Manpower Services Commission to do everything it can to help the workers affected to find new jobs.
We have not taken our decision lightly, and if I had felt that any more favourable decision was a practical proposition we would, of course, have chosen it.
Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State for Industry' recognise that this is a sad day for all involved in the British motor cycle industry—not least for those who work at the Small Heath works in NVT who, on 6th November 1974, were told by the Secretary of State for Energy that
"the Government is fully committed to securing the future of the motor cycle industry in this country, and of course this involves the success of NVT no less than the co-operative."
Will the right hon. Gentleman understand that today's statement is a total repudiation of that commitment? Will he recognise that there is a fundamental contradiction between his view that the problems of NVT have nothing to do with the Meriden co-operative and the advice consistently given to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and supported by today's report, that a three-factory solution was not credible? Thirdly, will he say what consequences he foresees for those employed in the industry and whether he expects the jobs, which his statement today will prejudice, to be lost in Wolverhampton, Meriden or Small Heath? Finally, is it not clear that there has been a major ministerial blunder and that there must now be a full public inquiry so that those responsible can be held publicly accountable?
Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, many of which refer to history. If he wants to delve into history, he should go back a little further. He will know that the situation in NVT did not begin when the Labour Government came into office. Mr. Christopher Chataway, the then Minister for Industrial Development, announced to the House that he would be instrumental in setting up NVT, and, indeed, he told hon. Members from this Dispatch Box that he was most optimistic and was establishing a proven entrepreneurial team, yet the Boston Group's report shows that one of the problems of the motor cycle industry is the mismanagement which has occurred and the great failure of British management in the industry over the years. Furthermore, the Conservative Government never announced to the House that the only solution was a two-factory industry. That was never said. I do not know what was said in private by the NVT management to Mr. Chataway, but it was never said from this Dispatch Box by any Government spokesman in 1973.
The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) should stop pursuing his vendetta against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and using these matters as a stick with which to beat him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy fought like a tiger to establish the motor cycle industry. We take no pleasure, nor does my right hon. Friend, from the situation which has arisen.
Mr. Les Huckfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a sad day for the whole British motor-cycle industry? Is he also aware that the real reason why these valuable markets in the United States have been lost is not due to any action by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, as he then was, or through the setting-up of the Meriden co-operative, but arose through the procrastination and failure to sign agreements by Mr. Dennis Poore? Is he aware that ever since 1973 there has been a succession of agreements proposed by Mr. Poore which would have enabled all three factories to continue to supply spares and to service the markets, but Mr. Poore, having proposed these agreements, failed to sign them? Is my right hon. Friend able to say anything
2064
at all about the future production and marketing arrangements at the Meriden co-operative? Above all, is it not about time that somebody asked Mr. Poore whether he sincerely wants to make or sell motor cycles?
Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has a great knowledge of the industry, and I know his involvement in, and his work on behalf of, the Meriden co-operative. The Meriden co-operative is a separate legal entity. It has a marketing arrangement with NVT, and it will be up to the co-operative to pursue the point with NVT.
My hon. Friend is right to say that this involves a question of markets. There has been a collapse of the United States market, which is a dominant market. There are some 13,000 NVT motor cycles stockpiled throughout the world and no prospect of sales. I am sure my hon. Friend realises the seriousness of the situation.
As for withdrawing support, I would point out to my hon. Friend that that is not the case. Since December 1974 about £19 million of Government money has been committed to the industry.
Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Secretary of State now say what compensation or remedy is available to those in the work force who have lost their jobs, and to shareholders who have lost their money? Will he do anything about the injustice sustained following maladministration by his predecessor, who wilfully established a third factory in contradiction to the advice of his own advisory board and blackmailed—that is the word used by the shop stewards at Small Heath—the work force and management into agreements which he announced with the Meriden co-operative? Finally, when they came to sign the agreements, those concerned were worried about whether the Government would make finance available for the third factory to be viable and were given the assurance which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) as to the Government's commitment. What compensation or remedy is available to those people?
May I end by saying that they have asked me to refer the matter to the Ombudsman?
Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman has wholly misrepresented the views and actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. Nobody could have done more than my right hon. Friend to try to help this industry. That is absolutely plain, and when the evidence is examined closely that will be seen. The hon. Gentleman suggested that advice was given by the then Government not to set up the Meriden co-operative. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that that was done by anybody, and I say that speaking from this Dispatch Box on behalf of this Government.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that my right hon. Friend gave guarantees. I have been looking at the Press reports of my right hon. Friend's visit to the NVTs Birmingham factory at Small Heath on 8th November last year. He is reported as having said that
"he would be deceiving Small Heath workers if he gave the guarantee they sought, five years free of redundancy … with world business in its current state …".
Then again, in the Birmingham Post of 9th November it was reported that
"'One thing the workers are demanding is five years without redundancy. I have not got the power to guarantee anyone a job', said Mr. Benn."
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that when the Labour Government came in the problem of Meriden was firmly placed on the desk of Ministers in the Department? The matter had not been resolved by the previous Government. The discussions in relation to the Meriden co-operative were going on, the previous Tory Minister had had discussions with Mr. Dennis Poore and with the Meriden workers, and before we went in there were discussions about the establishment of a co-operative. The position was very clearly one which we endeavoured to resolve. Unfortunately, we inherited a situation which was very complex indeed.
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that it was quite clear that we were faced with the total failure of private enterprise in the motor cycle industry? Any solution to the problem of the motor cycle industry must have meant the injection of public money. That is precisely what happened, even under the previous Government, as well as this Government.
2066
Will my right hon. Friend accept that there was an alternative—which, unfortunately, we have not pursued—of taking the industry under public control? I am of the opinion that the answer, even at this stage, is to reconsider this question and to take the NVT under full public ownership, and to reorganise the industry on that basis.
Mr. Varley: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he was dealing with some of these matters when he was the Minister of State in the Department of Industry, and that he considered some of the representations made at that time. His understanding is my understanding—that the previous Government did not rule out the possibility of a co-operative at Meriden. That is how I understand it. The question of public ownership of the industry depends on being able successfully to manufacture motor cycles and sell them in world markets. That is the real issue, and even that would involve, in my view, disproportionate public funds at this time, especially when we consider the call on public funds by all the other socially desirable and economic projects that my hon. Friend and I hold dear to our hearts.
Mr. Eyre: Will the Secretary of State say what consultations took place with trade union representatives at BSA before this devastating blow was struck, at a time when unemployment in Birmingham is at the highest level since 1940? Does the Secretary of State understand that specific assurances were given to the men at BSA by the Secretary of State for Energy, and that, as those assurances have been broken, working men in Birmingham will never trust that Minister again?
Mr. Varley: We take no pleasure, of course, out of the situation which has arisen in this industry. We deeply regret it and are sickened by it. It is not a matter of levelling charges against my right hon. Friend. One needs to look at the whole history of this industry.
On the question of specific assurances, my right hon. Friend did not give specific assurances. In fact, the hon. Member for Henley, who leads for the Opposition on this matter, has just waved in front of me a letter dated 6th November 1974. I suppose that he is referring to the third

2067
paragraph of that letter, but in the second paragraph my right hon. Friend said:
"… I am not today in a position to give you firm undertakings about possible investment on the basis of the long-term plan just presented by the management of NVT."
I hope that he will read that, and the commitment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] If hon. Gentlemen would like me to continue, rather than shout me down, I will do so. The commitment referred to by the hon. Gentleman is the commitment that was given, first, to carry through the public funds that had been allocated to NVT by the previous Government, the commitment of public money to the Meriden co-operative, and the £8 million under the Industry Act in export credit. They are the commitments referred to by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Edwards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today will cause widespread despair and disillusionment among the whole community in Wolverhampton? The closure of the Wolverhampton factory involves not merely a few thousand workers but over 60 different establishments which do the work for the motor cycle industry.
Is not my right hon. Friend also aware that the consultants could not have viewed the three new models, which the experts insist are competitive in any market in the world against the Japanese?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are only 6,000 motor cycles in stock in America, and that they are already being sold very rapidly indeed?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that surely we have to call a halt to Japanese competition that is penetrating British industry and closing down basic industry, and has he considered restrictions on the import of Japanese motor cycles, which in my view are heavily subsidised by the Japanese Government?
Mr. Varley: I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern. I know that he has been closely involved in this matter. He has raised some very fundamental points. It is not a question really, in regard to the motor cycle industry, of restricting Japanese imports to this country. It is a question of international markets for the motor cycles that NVT, and eventually Meriden, will produce. There is a capacity in Britain at the
2068
moment for producing 20,000 to 30,000 motor cycles a year. The British market for the motor cycles we produce is only about 10,000 a year, and British motor cycles have about half that market at the moment.
If the whole of the British market were allocated by the method suggested by my hon. Friend, it really would not help the situation, because the international competitiveness of NVT and British motor cycles comes into the matter.
On the question of stocks, my hon. Friend is right that there are just over 6,000 motor cycles stocked in the United States. There are nearly 2,000 stocked in Canada, and the remainder, making up the total 13,000, are in other parts of the world.
Mr. Heseltine: May I read the passage that the Secretary of State for Industry was pressed to read after the paragraph that he quoted? It reads:
"I can, however, give you my firmest assurance that there will be no discrimination by the Government in favour of the Co-operative to the detriment of the Small Heath or Wolverhampton workers. The Government is fully committed to securing the future of the motor cycle industry in this country, and of course this involves the success of NVT no less than the Co-operative."
Mr. Varley: The commitment referred to in this letter is the one I outlined earlier today, which was a carrying forward of the commitment of funds allocated by the previous Government in regard to NVT, the funds allocated to Meriden and the £8 million. It must be read in connection with the second paragraph, where my right hon. Friend made it absolutely plain that he was not in a position to give firm undertakings about the possible investment on the basis of a long-term plan. That is clear and explicit.
Mr. Edelman: Despite the relish with which some Opposition Members have greeted this news, is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be greeted with dismay in the Midlands, where unemployment is already so high? Does he agree that the tragedy of the motor cycle industry is that large numbers of motor cycle workers will feel that they have been led up the garden path by successive Ministers and have now been left competing with each other for jobs? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend take into account the suggestion made by

2069
my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) that there should now be a State holding company both for NVT and for the Meriden cooperative, so that together they might work out with the workers concerned a policy for the industry's survival, and not rely simply on the advice given by a professional company of management advisers?
Mr. Varley: I know that right hon. and hon. Members have not yet had a chance to look at and consider the consultants' report. It was a commitment given to all parties—the NVT workers, the management, the Meriden co-operative and the Government. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider it.
The sums of money required under any of the strategies outlined—or any others—are truly enormous. If we wanted to maintain the present work force, which is between 3,000 and 3,500 workers, it would involve Government expenditure of about £50 million, and there are suggestions that even that would not be sufficient. The cost per job would be about £17,000. One has to consider that sum of £17,000 in relation to other support; for example, the rescue cases under the Industry Act. The average rescue case for 1972-73 was at a cost of £582. In 1973–74 it was £731. In 1974–75 it was £740. That is the difference. Truly enormous sums are involved, and we have to bear in mind other calls on public expenditure for other projects.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: When does the right hon. Gentleman next expect to come before the House to try to explain away yet another misjudgment on the part of the Secretary of State for Energy?
Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong and very unfair in saying that about my right. hon. Friend, who tried his hardest to get a secure future for the motor cycle industry. No one could have done more. Instead of scoffing at my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman would do a great deal better to pay tribute to him.
Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Steyr-Daimler-Puch, which has its British headquarters in Nottingham, is an Austrian company and not a Japanese one? It can manufacture cycles efficiently in a country where labour costs
2070
are high and it can absorb the resulting transport costs and still sell them efficiently in this country. Does not that fact conclusively prove my right hon. Friend's remarks about bad management in Britain and that he and the Government are right in the decision that my right hon. Friend has announced today?
Mr. Varley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and for that information. It is true, as the report brings out, that the industry has a history of troubled and inefficient management.
Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members will wish to congratulate the Secretary of State for his wisdom in taking the expert advice of the Industrial Development Advisory Board in this matter? Will he now take the board's advice on the Meriden co-operative?
Mr. Varley: I am not looking for congratulations. This is a very sad day for the motor cycle industry and for this House. I am disturbed by the fact that so many Opposition Members are taking so much pleasure out of this.
As for the Industrial Development Advisory Board, it is the enlarged board which considered the various strategies and other possible courses. I have to take very seriously the advice which it has given me.
Mrs. Renée Short: I ought to say first for the record that hon. Members most concerned with this problem—and, of course, I include myself—have found it impossible to get the précis of the report from the consultants, either from my right hon. Friend or from his Department, despite frequent requests. I should have thought that if this had been put to the management and the shop stewards, Members of Parliament should at least have had it at the same time.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that this will be grim news for Wolverhampton, because large numbers of families rely on the success of the NVT operation. My right hon. Friend can try to pass it off, but there is no doubt that the letter from his predecessor dated 6th November has had a wide circulation in the Wolverhampton factory—and, as far as I know, in the other one. Certainly it was given to me by my shop stewards,

2071
and they have pegged their belief in what this Government intended to do on the undertaking given in that letter—
Mr. Heffer: Why blame him? He has been moved, has he not?
Mrs. Short: There is no doubt that they will be very concerned when they read in the Press tonight the statement made by my right hon. Friend, his successor. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormity of the situation that he has announced, not only in terms of jobs in the West Midlands, where unemployment is higher than it has been for almost half a century, but in terms of the fact that there is now no British motor cycle industry if this one goes down? It means that the whole world market is left open to the Japanese and, to some degree, the Italians and Germans and that our own market is left open to the Japanese so that anyone in this country who wants to buy a motor cycle of whatever size will be compelled to buy a foreign machine, adding to our balance of payments difficulties. He will have no choice in the matter at all. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would bury his head in shame at the prospect of such a situation, making our economic position even more difficult. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady a great deal of latitude—
Mrs. Short: I am asking a question.
Mr. Speaker: It did not sound like it. Will the hon. Lady please conclude quickly?
Mrs. Short: My right hon. Friend has given figures of the cost of taking this firm into public ownership, which the workers in NVT certainly want. Has he also considered the cost to the nation of the unemployment pay, the social security benefits, the rent and rate rebates, the free school meals and the other payments, let alone the loss of tax revenue resulting from making 20,000 people unemployed in the West Midlands? Is it not time that he thought again and decided to take the industry into public ownership, as his predecessor intended to do?
Hon. Members: Oh!
Mr. Varley: The statement which I have made today is made on behalf of the whole Government, and I resent very much the implications of my hon. Friend's remarks. My hon. Friend referred to the "Checkley" letter of 6th November. The interpretation which I have put on that letter has been agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. My right hon. Friend interprets the question of the future of the industry in the way that I have interpreted it today. I do not take any pleasure from this. It is a very sad situation.
I am very sorry, too, that my hon. Friend did not receive a copy of the précis of this report. The workers have not had the report, which is in the Vote Office now. They have had a précis. I was committed to consulting the workers in a confidential way. They asked my predecessor to do that through the tripartite system, so I am committed to it. My hon. Friend should not take me to task for carrying out that promise.
Mr. Eyre: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the flagrant breach of specific assurances given by the present Secretary of State for Energy in the course of his duties as Secretary of State for Industry as a consequence of which large work forces in the West Midlands will be losing their jobs from tomorrow onwards."
Mr. Speaker: In the circumstances I could not have expected the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre) to give me notice of his application, because it has arisen out of the statement that has just been made and the exchanges that have taken place in the last few minutes. It would be quite inappropriate for me to allow the debate today in view of the fact that there has not been time to read the documents. I am not prepared to disrupt Monday's business, but for once I shall have some time at my own disposal on Thursday. If the hon. Gentleman makes an application for this matter to be one of the topics to be raised on Thursday on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, I shall certainly see that reasonable time is given to debate the matter.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) accused the former Secretary of State for Industry of blackmailing the workers at NVT and the management. Is it in order to use such expressions in the House about a right hon. Member who is not present, particularly in view of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry at that time had a tape recording of everything he said at the factory and has listened to that tape recording and can back up any statement he made on that day?
Mr. Speaker: As I understood it the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) was quoting what somebody else had said, but I do very much deprecate exchanges of this kind across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Peyton: May I ask that those most interesting tapes should be laid on the Table? After all, it is time that we got in on an act like that.
Mr. Speaker: It does not lie within my power so to order.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Resolved,
That this House do meet on Thursday next at Eleven o'clock, that no Questions be taken after Twelve o'clock, that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses, but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker shall at Five o'clock, or as soon thereafter as he shall have so reported, adjourn the House without putting any Question.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)
4.34 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I beg to move,
That this House at its rising on Thursday next do adjourn till Monday 13th October.
It would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I move the motion on the Order Paper formally and reply to any points raised at the end of the debate.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: Before we adjourn we should have more information about the state of the business of the House. This is a matter which I and other hon. Members have raised on many occasions, and indeed it was mentioned again at Question Time today. It is a most serious state of affairs. Not only is there lack of documentation, to which the Leader of the House referred this afternoon, but there is congestion and overloading of both Members of Parliament and all the services of the House. This has been the state of affairs for the past couple of months.
There have been occasions when half of the Members of Parliament have been sitting on Committees upstairs thereby totally disrupting the business in the main Chamber. I was a member of the Committee on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill. The Government put down over 100 amendments during the couse of the sittings of the Committee and they were even putting them down after the guillotine had been brought in and right up to the last sitting. Indeed 90 per cent. of the amendments put down on Report were never debated. As hon. Members know, the debates went on by day and by night in a way which did the House of Commons no possible good in the eyes of the public.
There is no doubt what the cause of the situation was. Very little of this legislation, even on the Government's own argument, was urgent. The House was overloaded because too much legislation was introduced and most of it far too late. The Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill was at least several months late and either should have been brought in earlier or should have been postponed until the next Session.

2075
The Leader of the House has said that during the vacation, when he has time to think things over and especially his responsibilities to the House of Commons generally, he will give serious consideration to improving the production of papers. We should all welcome that. Will he also give consideration to reducing the weight of legislation, because that is one of the severest handicaps under which the country is suffering? Will he also consider improving our methods of considering legislation? I do not know whether this matter should be referred to a Committee, but it was noticeable on the Bill in respect of which I served on the Standing Committee that clearly consultation or preparation of the Bill was inadequate. That was the reason for the Government tabling over 100 amendments.
It is also apparent that many of the amendments to that Bill were tabled in the light of discussions with the industries concerned. I am not one of those who think that the House of Commons should surrender its primacy and that legislation should be largely drafted in private between the Government and industry or the trade unions. But I suggest that the present situation is unsatisfactory and leads to endless Second Reading speeches in Committee, because the whole matter has to be reopened. Could not there be more consultation in advance of legislation? Will the Leader of the House look at some pre-legislative procedure and will he give his attention to this matter during the recess?
I should like to mention the effect that such action as I have described will have on the country. We are piling on legislation which few people understand and there are not enough accountants or lawyers to deal with it. I have continually made the point that my constituents do not know what the law is and they cannot find out.
I am especially concerned about Scotland. The House is rising, but there having been only two sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee. There has been no general debate on the Floor of the House about the Scottish economy. The Leader of the House promised that we would have a debate, and I assume that this will happen in the resumed Sitting in the autumn. However, this is a vital year for Scotland. The economy demands
2076
attention. It is the year in which the final proposals for devolution will be drawn up.
I ask the Leader of the House to consider carefully whether it is an insult to Scotland, and highly undesirable for Parliament and the whole United Kingdom, that in this year of all years we should have had no general discussion of the Scottish economy and we should have truncated the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee to only two. This was the year above all years when such a debate was necessary.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this very night there can be an opportunity for a major debate on devolution?
Mr. Grimond: We can hardly have a debate tonight covering the four sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee to come. Although we may have the debate in the autumn, I suggest that that may be too late, for reasons to which I shall come.
Is the Scottish Office which is considering devolution also considering the legislation we are passing? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered, for instance, the Community Land Bill in relation to the Scottish Assembly. It will have most serious effects on some public bodies. I know that the Government are committed to introduce legislation next year or in the next Session for a Scottish Assembly. Many hon. Members, some of whom are present, have said that this is impossible. I am begining to take the view myself that it will be a botched up job unless we are very careful.
Moreover, next Session will, to some extent, also be truncated. We know that in this Session Bills were not introduced until March or April. If this happened next year it would be a total disaster for Scottish devolution. At lot of work must be done concerning the effects of devolution on the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-Lines Bill, on the development authority in Scotland, on the Community Land Bill and, indeed, many other Bills. Those Bills will not get the Royal Assent until October. Can the Leader of the House assure us that they will all be taken into account and that we shall have the Bill for a Scottish Assembly by the New Year, because that is the time by which we must have it. It must be properly considered and discussed with all

2077
the people affected and we must take into account the effects on England.
I do not think that the Government have begun to face up to this situation or indeed the situation in regard to England, Wales or Northern Ireland. What liaison is there between the various Ministries which are piling on these Bills and the unit which is considering devolution? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that whatever party we belong to, all hon. Members agree that the form of Scottish local government in advance of devolution has been a disaster and has led to incredible expense and difficulties. We must not repeat these mistakes.
Let us take, for example, the size of the public service in Scotland. It has grown out of anyone's control in expense and number. The Government will have to reduce the Civil Service in London when the Assemblies are set up. We have heard nothing about whether there will be a Scottish Civil Service, whether preparations have been made to transfer people to it—which will cause difficulties—or whether it is to be recruited. What will happen in the regions? They must be reduced or abolished. This is all in the air. We must have some indication from the Government about their thinking on this matter, bearing in mind that we have been promised a devolution Bill by the autumn of this year.
Finally, on top of all the troubles I have mentioned, there is the question of Europe. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the European matters which concern it? Has any thought been given how the Scottish Assembly will deal with Europe, be represented in Europe or discuss European matters? Is there any Government thinking on reducing the size of the public service as at any rate some decisions move from Westminster either to Edinburgh or to Brussels.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I certainly would not want to vote against the motion that we adjourn on Thursday next and come back some time in October. But before we accept the motion we ought to underline some of the problems referred to by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).
I cannot recall a bigger shambles in July within the last quarter of a century than we have at this moment. This place
2078
is usually a madhouse in July anyhow, but it is more of a madhouse in 1975 than it has been since 1950.
It is arguable as to who is to blame. But we must do something about our procedure to prevent this situation happening again. The Government of the day and successive Governments have been to blame. They have repeatedly been over-ambitious with their legislative programmes.
The growth of the Select Committee principle—an idea of which I thoroughly approve—which investigates in depth problems which otherwise would not be considered by this House, has led to about 200 hon. Members at any one time attending Committees upstairs. With the best will in the world they cannot be in two places at once. But they have thereby been deprived of the opportunity of taking part in debates on the Floor of the House on important legislation which their constituents expect them to know about and to explain to them.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to important legislation concerning not only Scotland but the rest of the United Kingdom. The problems to which he referred do not relate exclusively to Scotland. The setting up of an Assembly in Edinburgh has serious implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. The other regions of the United Kingdom will not sit back and watch such an Assembly develop, with the enormous costs which will be involved, and accept that the South-East of England, or wherever else, will foot the bill for an Assembly in Edinburgh, an Assembly in Wales and possibly other assemblies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. Other regions will request the same kind of devolution.
I am not sure what kind of devolution we are considering. The debate tonight will be on that very matter. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) sought to raise this precise matter and was told by the Officers of this House that he could not do so. I am just wondering how in those circumstances others apparently have got it. But that is another matter.
We are taking this opportunity now of trying to raise this matter. We had better not get into special arguments. If we were not to adjourn next Thursday—I

2079
put myself in order right away—we could have a debate for one or two days on this issue. It is important to know before embarking on this exercise of establishing these Assemblies what the precise cost will be bearing in mind the problems to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred concerning the reorganisation of local government. That should be a red light warning to us. If we add another rung to the ladder of administration, we shall be the most governed country in the world with community councils, district councils, regional councils, the Assemblies, Westminster, Brussels and the United Nations. My goodness, we shall have a government for every 1 million of the population.
Mr. Dalyell: On the narrow point concerning what my hon. Friend said about myself and Officers of the House, to be fair I should point out that I put in for a particular title which was not acceptable. I understand that explanation. I did not have time to explain it to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Hamilton: I was not making any reflection on the Officers of the House. They do their jobs in as objective and impartial a way as we could possibly expect. There will be a debate on this matter later, but that is not a satisfactory alternative to what the right. hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was suggesting.
I have no doubt that during the course of the debate many hon. Members on both sides of the House could and will cite examples of subjects which we could and should debate in this House. But we are bogged down with what is no doubt important legislation. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will rightly say that we fought the General Election on the programme which we are now seeking to implement. I suggest that we seem to be trying to implement it all in one year. We have three or four years ahead of us. My right hon. Friend must appreciate that there is not a shred of opposition from the other side. None of my constituents has ever said "For God's sake, get out and let the Tories in", because the Tories do not have a clue on anything. They have never produced any alternative policies, so there is no danger
2080
of this Government going out in the next three years.
I suggest that we should come back in October, complete the Bills now outstanding—the Community Land Bill, and so on—by the end of November, and then have a short Session from November to the end of June next year. During that time we should produce the minimum of legislation and have the maximum number of debates on foreign affairs and other matters which involve not legislation but the very future of this country both nationally and internationally. I suggest that in the following two years we should then produce, at most, two or three of the major Bills which are included in our manifesto. For heaven's sake, let us not be too ambitious in the first year or two.
I would go further and suggest that in the short Session which I have proposed we might with advantage introduce no new law at all, but concentrate only on general debates on how to solve our economic problems, because they will be with us for the rest of this Parliament and possibly for the rest of this decade and the one after that.
Our economic problems have never been explained adequately by any leader in this House. The nearest that anyone came to it was the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the former Prime Minister, who had to be kicked out of office as Leader of the Opposition before he could make the kind of speech that we heard from him recently. If we sought to make this place less of a legislative and more of a debating Chamber on general problems on which people want the firm leadership which they are not getting, we should be held in higher esteem than we are at the moment.
I come now to a question which might appear to be parochial, but which is important in the context of what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said when he referred to the reform of local government in Scotland. I suggest that the same problems applied in England. We are in the midst of that reform in Scotland because we are a year behind England. There are corn-plaints in the Scottish Press about enormously inflated salaries being paid to local officials who are doing the same

2081
jobs as they were doing before reorganisation took place.
But there is another side to this story which I want to put on record. I hope to develop this further next week on the Employment Protection Bill. It is argued in the Press that councillors are getting £10 a day out-of-pocket expenses. I want to refer to the other side of that coin. My unpaid agent is a councillor on the Kirkcaldy District Council. He was employed by Burroughs Machines, an American company, in Glenrothes. I was given specific undertakings by the management of Burroughs Machines that it wanted its employees to take part in local government and that my agent could get as much time off as he liked. Burroughs Machines does not believe in trade unions, and last March, after five years with the firm, my agent and lifelong friend, Jimmy Stevenson, sought to make it a trade union shop. The management called for him and said it was going to put him on a part-time contract for about £17 a week. It then called him at 4.20 p.m. on the day before he was due to leave for a fortnight's holiday and told him not to come back because he was being fired on the spot. Yesterday he came to the House and showed me his redundancy payment cheque based on his part-time employment from March.
I am going to give Burroughs Machines the most adverse publicity I can possibly give it. This kind of situation is intolerable in modern society. When hon. Members opposite and the Press criticise trade unions and men and women who are trying to engage in public service, they should look at the other side of the coin, and the Government should devote a little more time to these problems. The Employment Protection Bill goes a considerable way towards protecting people from this kind of abuse by management.
The problems of the motor cycle firm referred to in the House earlier today are another example of the bad management in this country, which bears a major responsibility for the serious economic problems we are facing. It is no good complaining about our productivity and saying that we cannot compete with Japanese motor bikes, cars or televisions or with German or Italian cars because of the restrictive practices of our workers. No doubt that is part of the problem—I
2082
would be the last to deny that—but a large part of the problem is shockingly bad management, and management must bear some of the responsibility as well.
I want to raise another matter which might appear parochial, but which I regard as very important. I hope my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is listening carefully and will pass on my comments to the Ministry of Defence. I have raised with the Minister responsible for the Army the case of a soldier, Private Davidson, who lost his life as a result of manslaughter in Colchester a few months ago. I know the case is sub judice, so I cannot say too much about it, but the soldier's parents, rightly or wrongly, believe their son lost his life because of negligence and incompetence in the medical treatment he received. It is six months since I gave notice to the Ministry of Defence that I wanted an answer about this case but I have not yet heard a single word. I understand that the Ministry sent Private Davidson's father a cheque for £138. I do not know what the intention was—whether it was to buy him off or persuade him to keep his mouth shut—and I am not interested in that. I want the people responsible for this man's death to be brought to account one way or the other. They should be either cleared or disciplined. I want some action on this matter.
The last point I wish to raise is that the present Committees on procedure and services in this House appear to be ineffectual. Perhaps we do not pay enough attention to their reports, but we do not seem to be making much progress in the reform of the parliamentary timetable and procedures. We need to look at our machinery and our timetable, and I hope that Governments, whatever their political colour, will not allow us to get choked up in the way we are at the moment. It is intolerable. It is an insult to the House and a gross affront to the people who sent us here.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Those hon. Members who are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be putting forward suggestions in the debate for making the lives of their constituents more bearable. We who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are concerned with a much

2083
more fundamental question—whether our constituents may have their lives taken from them before the House reassembles in October.
It is not only our constituents' lives that are in danger, but also the lives of other citizens, including those of neighbouring States, as we realise from last night's events. Citizens of a neighbouring State lost their lives while going about their lawful business, as did those United Kingdom citizens who were returning from a show in Cork a few weeks ago. I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in condemning those who perpetrated this latest despicable deed.
In the debate on the Adjournment for the Spring Recess, my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South said:
"one of the besetting difficulties in Northern Ireland today is the prevalence on all sides of mutual suspicion".—[Official Report, 13th May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 256.]
He went on to plead for a more open approach from the Government and the avoidance by them of any appearance of secret negotiations or arrangements with one or more of the groups who, on their own admission, employ terrorism as an instrument of policy. We are entitled to ask what heed the Government have paid to this request and to what extent suspicion has been dispelled. Regrettably, it appears that very little heed has been taken of our pleading for an end to rumour-making secret talks with at least one terrorist group. Any competent observer will conclude that, far from diminishing, suspicion has greatly increased in the past 10 weeks and so, too, have the fear and instability which inevitably go hand in hand with suspicion.
It is clear that the murder gangs have interpreted the Government's actions as meaning that they are prepared to bargain with and concede to terrorists what they deny and refuse to elected representatives. Whatever the justification for such views, it is very difficult to defend the practice of entering into arrangements and agreements, the content of which is withheld from hon. Members. The related issue of the so-called incident centres makes a sizeable contribution to
2084
instability especially as the exact nature of their functions is by no means clear to any of us. If someone is murdered and a Government representative telephones the incident centre to ask the IRA if they were responsible and is told either "Yes" or "No", in what way does that answer affect the actions of the Government, the RUC or any of the security forces?
Does the answer affect their determination to find the murderer, or does it have a bearing on any measures to prevent a repetition? The time has come to pull aside the veil of mystery which surrounds these novel so-called incident centres.
When the Secretary of State stated on 24th July his intention of ending detention by Christmas my colleagues and I set out our proposition within the hour. We said:
"The United Ulster Unionist Coalition has hitherto steadily, though not uncritically, supported the gradual and cautious running down by the Secretary of State of the numbers held in detention, since detention cannot be a permanent feature of security and law and order enforcement in Northern Ireland. We believe, however, that it was unwise and dangerous for the Secretary of State to announce a target date four months ahead for the ending of all detention, and particularly to choose the present time to make the announcement when such grave acts of renewed terrorism have been and are daily being committed. The effect can only be to add weight to the prevalent suspicion that, despite all denials, Her Majesty's Government are in reality continuing negotiations with terrorists and that an announcement of this kind is part of a process of which the true facts are being withheld from Parliament and the public."
In the course of exchanges with the Secretary of State on that day I asked him what view he took of the recommendation in paragraph 170 of the Gardiner Report. There it states,
"We think that the risk of a sudden end to detention would be too great, since it would send back into the community, at one time and with their present organisation intact, a large number of men and some women who have devoted much of their time in detention to the study of methods of violence and whose bitter sense of alienation is unhealed."
In the exchanges in the House that day I drew attention to what the report said, but the Secretary of State, perhaps mistakenly, quoted the second half of paragraph 170 which also rejects releases linked to the level of violence with the obvious injustice contained in the practice of treating those still interned as

2085
hostages for those still at large. The Secretary of State made what may have been a mistake and picked out the words "on the other hand" when Gardiner was in fact giving a second reason for delaying general release until the campaign had ended. In my view the words "on the other hand" should in this context, and in the context in which they are contained in the report, have been "hand in hand", because they reinforce the earlier part of the paragraph. We therefore have very real reservations about the Secretary of State's course of action.
I wish to draw attention to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South in the debate on 13th May when he said,
"the representatives of the Northern Ireland seats are the best friends in the Northern Ireland situation that Her Majesty's Government have."—[Official Report, 13th May 1975; Vol. 592, c. 262.]
We remain cast in that role because we supply a line of communication between Her Majesty's Government and the people of Northern Ireland. Inevitably the difficulties of keeping that channel open during the recess are very much greater than when Parliament is sitting, but we are prepared to do our duty provided the Secretary of State, by word and deed, ensures that trust and confidence are maintained at the level at which they ought to exist between Government and people.
5.5 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In July the Leader of the House has a task of almost impossible difficulty. In view of what was said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I must ask my right hon. Friend to reflect about the business situation which will arise next year and whether we shall get into similar difficulties over the length of time that the constitutional Bill on devolution will take on the Floor of the House.
I have an estimate from a very serious source—which I have not checked for attribution and therefore I will not attribute it—that it will take no fewer than 28 days for the Bill to go through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading. I think that I am right in thinking that 58 days is all the time that is available for any Government for legislation. In these circumstances—perhaps
2086
not today but at some time—we should like an estimate from the Lord President of how long the Bill will take.
I reflect on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. I have just been reading the account by Janet Morgan of the failure of land reform. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is here and I think I know some of his views on devolution. I was the PPS to the Lord President during the passage of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill. My guess is that we could have a situation where, since I understand that the Committee on the devolution Bill is to take place on the Floor of the House and where, because it is a constitutional Bill, there can be no guillotine, the right hon. Gentleman might take three or more days to himself.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps I might hope on that occasion to have the same collaboration from the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) as I enjoyed the last time.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not want to venture into those difficult waters. There is a debate on the work of the devolution unit later and it would be wrong of me to trespass on that. However, as a matter of urgency, and since you might rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I raised it in that debate, there is another issue which I wish to raise today and which is perhaps more concerned with the Foreign Office. In the Scotsman of 28th July there was a banner headline which said:
"UK views not 'representative' EEC ponder a voice for Scotland".
In the story Mr. Neal Ascherson says:
"Common Market officials are studying ways of giving Scotland a voice at Brussels. According to Commission sources, Scotland has a stronger case than the states of the West German Federation for special treatment.
It is felt in Brussels that the United Kingdom Government is rather less representative of opinion in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales than the Bonn Government is in relation to opinion in the West German "Laender".
The Laender maintain an "observer" at Brussels, who can sit with the West German delegation to the Council of Ministers but has no right to speak or vote there."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I do not want to interrupt the flow of the hon. Member's argument, but I should feel more comfortable if occasionally he related it to

2087
whether we should adjourn until 13th October.
Mr. Dalyell: Your comfort, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is my first concern. This is an urgent matter. We have to straighten out with the Commission the extent to which it talks freely on issues which are the internal business of the United Kingdom.
To be fair to the Commission, I have put down four Questions to Mr. Ortoli in my capacity as a member of the European Parliament. I have here a statement issued on the authority of Mr. Michael Lake, from the Commission which says,

"1. It is entirely up to Her Majesty's Government to decide how best the interests of the United Kingdom should be represented in Brussels.

2. The Commission has no position on this because it is not the concern of the Commission.

3. While the Commission staff may, in a personal capacity, have privately discussed the problems of representing regional interests in the Community, I can say that, in particular the suggestion that the UK delegation to the EEC (U.K. Rep.) does not adequately represent the interests of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales has no currency whatever and is quite novel."

The issue I want to raise is the extent to which those attached, at often fairly junior level, to the Press Office or to another department in the Commission are allowed to talk about highly sensitive issues involving nothing less than the possible break-up of the United Kingdom.
I shall not continue against your wishes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to quote the Scotsman report in full. I simply ask the Government as a matter of urgency and at the highest level to raise with the Commission on what basis any member of the Commission's staff talks to British journalists about this particular issue and claims that he does so on the authority of the Commission, the Commissioners and the Council of Ministers.
5.11 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hicks: Before this House rises for the Summer Recess we should give further consideration to the acute unemployment position that is now apparent in this country. The Secretary of State for Employment made a statement last week in which he told us that the July figure exceeded 1 million.
2088
All hon. Members will recognise that that is a real wastage of national resources.
There are three worrying trends inherent in this figure. First, the position will probably get worse before it gets better. There are firm indications of this and as we approach the autumn and then the winter, seasonal factors will accentuate this adverse trend.
Contained within this figure also is the position of school leavers. All hon. Members find this aspect especially worrying. Nothing could be more depressing than young people leaving our schools at the age of 16 or technical colleges at the age of 18 or 19 and having no job or career structure before them. It has serious long-term implications in a social context. The 16-to-20 age range is a crucial age group. Nothing could be worse for the future productive output of the country and for the whole fabric of our social structure as we know it today than for these people to be allowed to remain out of work for too long a period.
That is why I find particularly encouraging Early-Day Motion No. 593 which has been signed by 50 or so of my hon. Friends. It reads:
"That this House, conscious of the need to make special efforts to help school-leavers to find their first jobs, urges local councils to prepare and organise suitable work schemes in the community for them; and asks the Government to make available for the payment of workers in such schemes money which would otherwise have to be paid out in unemployment benefit."
I am not suggesting that necessarily it should be local authorities or local councils which should do this. Voluntary organisations could well be the more suitable agencies. However, the principle, particularly at this time, is worth investigating. I hope that, between now and when we probably rise next week, we shall have time to inquire into these possibilities for young people.
The third point that I should like to raise about the current unemployment situation relates to the regional implications. As the House knows, I represent a constituency in the South-West. Five-sixths of my Bodmin constituency is within the South-West development area, the remaining one-sixth falling within the Plymouth intermediate area, which is also an assisted area.

2089
At the present time in the South-West development area, 8·4 per cent. of the population are unemployed and there are, within this umbrella figure, local variations, so that in part of my constituency the figure exceeds 12 per cent. The South-West differs from other development areas, in that it is not a long-established industrial region or a region in which the traditional industries have run down for one reason or another and they either need to be rejuvenated or replaced.
Our economy is based on primary economic activities such as agriculture, horticulture and fishing. Tourism is also important. Then there are the scattered light industries based on a large number of small market towns. Many of these light industries were attracted into the South-West during the course of the last decade as a result of regional development policies pursued by Governments of both parties. I welcome this. However, experience has shown that they tend largely to be what one might describe as branch-line factories in that they are either linked structurally to or dependent upon industrial units in other parts of the country.
Perhaps we can have the opportunity to examine whether this whole fabric of regional aid that we have at present is sufficiently flexible in its application to take account of the needs of these rural and mixed economies. When a factory closes in a small market town such as Saltash, Liskeard, Bodmin or Callington and 50 people are put out of work, those people in a small town's economy are the equivalent of a thousand, for example, in Scotland, South Wales or on Merseyside. One gets the impression that it is easier to extract from Governments of either party tens of millions of pounds to help other assisted areas than to get £20,000 to help a small company in a small market town in the South-West.
Likewise, I question whether our retraining facilities are suitably flexible and adjustable to meet the individual requirements of rural areas. I hope that when the Secretary of State for Employment makes a further statement, as I gather he may well do, he will give this aspect specific consideration. I hope that the Lord President of the Council will pass that on to his right hon. Friend.
2090
My final point concerns the location of the Small Firms Advisory Unit within the Department of Industry. This at present is based on Bristol to serve the South-West. Many hon. Members feel that as Bristol is nearer to London than it is to Bodmin, the unit should be located either in or near the South-West assisted area, and Plymouth is the obvious choice. All hon. Members will recognise that contact and identification is crucial when we are dealing with problems of this nature and if we wish to get the maximum return and output from these services provided by various Departments of State.
Many of these smaller business units in my area are experiencing serious difficulties. These reflect in part the overall economic position—the lack of cash, liquidity problems, lack of orders, and so on. But, in addition, some are in part a reflection of the policies being pursued by the Labour Party. One thinks, for example, of the pressure put on them by the increased rating burden, and the additional burdens on the self-employed. In the Bodmin parliamentary division 20 per cent. of the male work force are self-employed. That is the extent of the dependence of the local economy of South-East Cornwall on such people.
I hope, therefore, that before the House rises for the Summer Recess we shall have an announcement by the Government indicating how they intend to alleviate some of the serious difficulties faced by people operating businesses in the West Country. I appreciate that I represent a very attractive area scenically. I am very fortunate to represent such an area. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House that we cannot live on the scenic attraction alone.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Before the House rises for the Summer Recess, I should like to raise a matter which may be parochial but which affects not only my constituency but the constituencies of a number of my hon. Friends. The constituency of Erdington has within it the monstrosity which has acquired the name throughout the country of "Spaghetti Junction". I am raising today the question of the compensation which is being paid to house owners under the Land Compensation Act, how

2091
that is being administered and what the valuations are. No doubt it affects not only my constituents but those in other areas through which roadways run at present or will run in the future.
The people in this area have suffered not only from the monstrosity but, much more so, from the noise, dirt and pollution and the health hazards, for instance, of lead pollution, which have not yet been fully evaluated. Under the terms of the Land Compensation Act, they are entitled to full market value compensation resulting from the physical factors. In other words, they are entitled to compensation for loss or depreciation in value of their house from noise, dirt and pollution, but not for the loss of amenity value or the fact that they have an objection to the sight opposite their homes.
The view I expressed when that Act was being passed was that this was not adequate, because it is not merely a question of the inconvenience. Most of the people involved are ordinary working men. The house in which they live is their only asset. A depreciation in the value of that house means a serious loss to them. What is still more injurious, it means that they will have the greatest difficulty in selling their house in order to buy another house. That is the problem which concerns those involved. Therefore, they are concerned about the amount of compensation offered to them.
I accept that in present circumstances it may be somewhat difficult to persuade the Government to amend the original Act. However, I am wondering whether the Act is being properly administered, even in the terms of the Act or the parameters set out in Section 2, which defines the nature of the compensation. The offer which has been made in the majority of cases extends from about £100 to £300, and in a few cases to £400. That is on a house which may have a market value of between £7,000 and £11,000. That is a ridiculous amount of compensation, even under the terms of the Act as it is.
The working-class people of that area are more concerned with the physical factors than with the amenity value. I had no complaints whatsoever until the roadway was opened to traffic, but then they were entirely based on the noise
2092
and the physical factors. Therefore, the physical factors are undoubtedly the most important in assessing the depreciation.
It is true that under the terms of the regulations passed under the Act, noise insulation will be provided in the majority of cases. However, let me put this forward as a practical proposition: let us suppose that an hon. Member had his house encased in double glazing and could not open his windows or use his garden because of the roar of traffic outside, and was affected by the noise, dirt and pollution. Would he consider that he had been reasonably compensated by an amount of about £300? I should have thought on the face of it that that is nonsense. That is what the people in the area think.
I have had many representations made to me. The people there have been thinking of doing various things, such as blocking the roadway and bringing traffic to a halt, because the view they take is that they have been virtually robbed of the compensation to which they are entitled.
This is a serious matter. I hope that the Leader of the House will bring it to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Environment and, especially, the Minister for Transport, who has responsibility for it. I know that the terms of valuation under the Act are rather complicated. I am wondering whether the district valuers who make the valuations are receiving proper guidance from the Government, because I have spoken to the valuers in Birmingham and I find it difficult to comprehend the basis on which they make this offer of compensation, which seems absurd and ridiculous to me.
I hope that there will be a review of the operation of this legislation in order to give the people in my constituency, and others who are similarly affected, fair compensation for the damage they have suffered and the damage done to what in many cases is their only asset—the house in which they live. Even if the Act cannot be amended, the principles of the Act, at any rate, should be fairly operated according to the meaning that we understood the Act to have when it was passed.

2093
I shall detain the House no longer. I have made my point. I hope that some announcement can still be made before the House rises for the recess. If not, I hope that this matter will be brought to the attention of the Ministers concerned.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman because I realised that his argument was very important to him. However, we are in danger of having a series of Consolidated Fund debates for those who were unlucky in the Ballot. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman is one of those Members. I am referring to those drawn at the end of the list. In order to be fair to those who have been drawn late in the Ballot, I hope that this will be remembered by the House.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I want to make three brief points and to ask the Leader of the House to consider the matters I raise before we agree to his motion. They are all House of Commons matters which I hope can be dealt with before the House rises for the Recess. I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will tell me if you wish me to be repetitious and to keep on saying, "Before the House rises, will the Minister look into this matter?"
The three points are these. Is the Leader of the House able to say when time will be found for a debate upon the report of the Procedure Committee on European secondary legislation, a matter which is of very great importance and which, because the report is lying on the Table with no time found for debate, is beginning to clog up the whole machinery and the system. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to indicate that a debate will be held on this subject.
Second, I return to a subject I have raised with the right hon. Gentleman previously, which is the printing of reports of Committees of this House. There is an ever-growing backlog of documentation. The Leader of the House has been courteous in his correspondence with me. Today I received a letter from him in which he refers to two Select Committee reports. He says it is accepted that the pressure of work in the parliamentary Press precludes the publication of the reports before the recess and that
2094
priority should be given to the seventh report of the Expenditure Committee.
The printer says how much print time he has available. It is not right that Clerks of Select Committees and Standing Committees should have to argue the priority of their reports with the printer of the House documents. The Lord President said that he would look into the matter. I urge him to accept that there is no justification for forcing Select Committees to choose their order of priority, leaving the printer to say whether he can fit in reports before a certain time. This brings Parliament into contempt, as we are ruled by the printers and not by the will of the House. I say that in a constructive manner.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) commented on the length of the sittings. Had the printers done their job there would have been another report from the Select Committee on Procedure dealing with that point. That report is somewhere between the end of our deliberations, the printing press and the Table of the House. I do not see it lying on the Table at present. The Lord President could take up this point before we rise without using parliamentary time, in which case I should not find it necessary to suggest that we do not adopt this motion.
It is the ever-growing practice of Ministers of Governments of all parties to answer Written Questions by saying that they will write to the hon. Member concerned. That is not good enough. I have caused some research to be made to demonstrate this growing menace. I have taken the two-month period of May and June. In 1969, there were 24 answers in which it was said that the Minister would write to the hon. Member. In May and June of this year the figure rose to 73. If a Question is accepted by the Table Office, every Member of Parliament has the right to see the answer in the Official Report. It is not good enough for Ministers to reply, "I shall write to the hon. Member" or, when pressed, "I shall put the answer in the Library". That is not the right place. Members of Parliament ask Questions for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes organisations request Members of Parliament to ask Questions seeking clarification. They require answers. Some hon. Members may wish a debate to take

2095
place. If the answer does not appear in the Official Report, their purpose is frustrated.
Will the Lord President assure us that he will ask all his colleagues in the Government to refrain from giving answers which say, "I shall write to the hon. Member" and to do the House the courtesy of printing the answers in full?
5.35 p.m.
Mr Ivor Clemitson: I urge that before we rise for the Summer Recess consideration be given to the complex problems facing a number of minority immigrant groups being integrated into the community.
I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend to Early-Day Motion No. 510, which deals with one aspect of that problem, and which enjoys the support of nearly 50 hon. Members on all sides of the House. It refers to the problems faced by the Bangladeshi community in this country. I refer to the inadequate provision of programmes in the Bengali language by the British Broadcasting Corporation.
There is a regular Asian television programme broadcast by the BBC. It performs valuable functions in helping the process of integration and in supplying information to immigrant communities coming from the Indian sub-continent. It deals with matters of current concern and provides cultural programmes in Urdu and Hindi. None of those programmes is broadcast in the Bengali language.
There are well over 100,000 Bangladeshis in the United Kingdom. They form an important minority group within the community. They speak Bengali, which is a different language from either Hindi or Urdu. It is not good enough to say that those two languages are the lingua franca of the Indian sub-continent.
The committee which advises on these programmes comprises 13 members, of whom one is a Bangladeshi resident in the United Kingdom. The other Bangladeshi member of the Committee comes from the Bangladesh High Commission.
Representations on this matter have been made to the appropriate authorities within the BBC and to several members of the Government, although without success. The leaders of the Bangladeshi community made specific offers to the
2096
advisory committee. They suggested the names of persons who might participate in the programmes and lists of artists who could participate in the cultural programmes. Unfortunately those constructive offers have not been taken up.
There is also the question of the provisions of television and local radio time in the Bengali language. There are 10 local BBC radio stations which provide programmes in either Urdu, Hindi or both, but only three radio stations provide programmes in Bengali. I refer to the radio stations in Leeds, Sheffield and London. The radio stations in Birmingham, Manchester and Nottingham, despite requests from the Bangladeshi community, do not provide programmes in Bengali.
This is a question of the integration of immigrant communities into the wider community.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am sure that there is much sympathy for the provision of programmes in minority languages. However, does the hon. Gentleman think that such programmes further integration? On the contrary, does not the provision of such programmes hinder integration?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Although this is an important subject, it is one for an Adjournment debate at the end of a day. Hon. Members must relate arguments to the recess, whether the House should rise, and for how long.
Mr. Clemitson: As a result of your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not follow that line.
The object of these radio programmes is not to preserve a separate ghetto mentality but to communicate information which will aid the process of integration and to preserve those cultural aspects of Bangladeshi or Pakistani life to enrich our community. This is one aspect of the much wider problem of the integration of minority communities. We have not spent much time on that subject during the past few months and I urge that we do so before the House rises for the recess.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Before the House rises for the Summer Recess it is essential for me to raise two matters which affect the peace and the wellbeing of Northern Ireland.

2097
I wish first to express my heartfelt sympathy with those who have been bereaved as a result of terrorist activity in the early hours of this morning which I wholeheartedly condemn. During six years of violence in Northern Ireland many people have died and many have suffered the anguish of losing loved ones.
Expressions of grief are not of much comfort to the bereaved if that is all that is done. I understand that a Loyalist paramilitary organisation has claimed responsibility for the killings today. If that be so—and only time will tell—there is a duty on all politicians in Northern Ireland to state emphatically that there should be a break of any link, direct or indirect, formal or informal, with any paramilitary organisation in the Province. I used those words about two months ago in the Convention in appealing to political parties to break any links they had with paramilitary organisations. I repeat them in the light of this morning's atrocity.
As elected representatives of the people, while pressing the Government to take effective steps to defeat terrorism, it is our duty to do all in our power to heal the wounds which weaken our Province. What affects one section of the community affects all sections. The sooner that is realised the sooner will Northern Ireland return to normality, peace and prosperity.
Today in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe the Russian leader, Mr. Brezhnev, stated that the reduction of arms and forces in Central Europe was the priority goal of his foreign policy. That is his contribution to détente, as well as to the dismantlement of NATO, which he wants. No one wishes to denounce détente, and we all hope that it will progress, but we should be foolish if we were not alive to the danger of a policy which can lull people into a false sense of national safety.
The United Kingdom is an example of that, and I mention it in the hope that something will be said by the Prime Minister to the Russian leaders at Helsinki. Overtures are made by Communist countries such as Russia and, while many people in this country are breathing sighs of relief that all is becoming peaceful on the Continent, Communist Governments are interested in
2098
exploiting the situation in Northern Ireland, to their advantage either immediately or in the long run.
An attempt was made to get arms, allegedly from Czechoslovakia, into the hands of the Provisional IRA, but clearly the authority and the direction to send arms to the IRA terrorists come from the Russian Government. The Prime Minister should mention this and demand from Russian leaders an assurance that no more arms will be sent to the IRA. I fear that Communists have infiltrated nearly every paramilitary organisation in the Province.
The prospect is frightening. While we place so much faith in NATO, the day may come when the threat—to NATO countries, particularly to the United Kingdom, and also to the Irish Republic which is not in NATO—from Communists in Northern Ireland may materialise in open or covert manipulation of terrorists.
In six years of violence in Northern Ireland, 1,200 people have died. Each week more are dying violent deaths. We are told that a cease-fire is in operation in Northern Ireland, and that tends to give people in the rest of the United Kingdom a false impression. No one in Great Britain would tolerate the obscene killings which are inflicted on the long-suffering people of the Province for five years, for five months or even for five weeks.
The other matter to which I wish to refer is agriculture. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) will in a later debate be talking about the green pound and the price differential between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, so I can deal with the matter briefly.
There is great concern among the farmers of North Down and throughout Northern Ireland that the meat farmers are not being given a fair price for their cattle and that the meat plants in Northern Ireland are making a mint of money. The farmers are getting something like 3p per pound less than at Smithfield. The farmers cannot afford to keep cattle until the beginning of next year. With the dry weather and the poor hay harvest, farmers are anxious to sell their cattle now. The meat plants have too many cattle. The announcement by the

2099
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after the Common Market—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to relate his argument to the length of the Adjournment and the date of the Adjournment.
Mr. Kilfedder: I am grateful, as always, for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raise this matter briefly because it is of grave urgency. We must have an answer from the Government before the House rises because it may be too late when the House meets again on 13th October.
Cattle are being brought from Eire into Northern Ireland for slaughter, to draw the slaughter premium, and they are then taken back into the Irish Republic. That is not the end of the saga of deceit, because animals are then exported to Great Britain where they draw another slaughter premium.
The final matter which I wish to raise with the Leader of the House concerns milk. The 2p per gallon announced by the Minister is insufficient to maintain milk production in the Province. It is possible that in the long run the United Kingdom will have to import milk. To encourage producers to stay in business and to expand, there should be an increase of 10p per gallon. For these reasons I urge the Leader of the House to take effective action for the farmers.
5.49 p.m.
Mr. David Watkins: Before the House rises for the recess, the Government should make a statement about British membership of the Central Rhine Commission. I hope that that statement will be to the effect that membership is to be ended.
I notice looks of puzzlement on the faces of hon. Members. I am not surprised, because I have found that hardly anyone knows that this country has appointed commissioners to that body since 1920, under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, and that twice a year our two commissioners attend meetings of the commission in Strasbourg. One of the things that we do not know is the timing of the meetings. I am taking the opportunity of raising the matter because I feel very strongly that it involves a waste of national resources, and that if there is to be a meeting of the commission during
2100
the recess, now is an opportune moment to raise the matter.
The commissioners are appointed for an indefinite term. There are no criteria for their selection. They discuss matters —and may well be discussing them during the coming recess, which would be undesirable—which are of only remote importance to this country. For example, in a recent Written Answer I was told that among the matters that they discuss are complaints arising from the application of the revised Convention for Rhine Navigation, which was signed at Mannheim in 1868, as amended in 1963, and the water level of the river. I was told that this is of benefit to British interests, although these are at present relatively small, but growing.
I have put further Questions to ascertain the extent of British interests. I also wonder how much they are likely to grow during the recess. I asked yesterday how many British barges had navigated the Rhine in the past 12 months and was told that none had done so. If British interests are as small as that after 55 years of assiduous membership of the Commission, how many more years will it be before they are of sufficient significance to justify all the expenditure during the first 55 years? That is relevant to the question how much they will grow during the recess.
I am told, again in a parliamentary answer, that the estimated cost of our membership in the current financial year is £26,705, 88 per cent. of which is for the salaries of three international civil servants and 14 locally recruited staff. I presume that they are staff recruited in Strasbourg, where the headquarters of the commission are situated.
I have also been told that we should continue our membership because within 10 years the River Rhine will be linked with the Danube. When I tried to find out the advantages of that, I was told that there would be new opportunities for trading, but that the advantages would depend on new conditions, which would be a matter for negotiation. I find that unacceptable. I do not think that the House can rise for the recess until we have had an explanation in greater depth.
That answer seems to me to weaken rather than strengthen the case for continued membership. On the basis of that

2101
thinking, there seems to be a stronger case for appointing German or French members to the Thames Water Authority or the Port of London Authority, because, in the present state of our economy, the indications appear to be that the growth of the flow of their goods on to the Thames and into London will be greater over the period in question than the growth of the flow of British goods on to the Rhine.
When the answers to the questions to which I have referred are put together in sequence they read rather like the story line of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. That is perhaps not inappropriate in this centenary year of the first great Gilbert and Sullivan success. Our membership of the commission is a nonsense. It is not related to the requirements of this country, and the expenditure of national resources on it is not justified. It is unnecessary expenditure, because it brings no advantage to this country that we should not gain anyway if we were not members. The House cannot adjourn until the Government announce the end of this expensive and profitless exercise.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Robert Adley: I apologise to the Leader of the House if I am unable to be here for his reply, but I hope to meet some constituents tonight. However, I hope to be able to complete my engagements in the House and with my constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) spoke about unemployment. I should like to speak briefly about unemployment, inflation and the national situation. The House should not adjourn until we have had a further statement from the Government of their intention to try to control those matters.
You have chastised one or two hon. Members during the past few minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for raising issues that you consider might be more suitable for an Adjournment debate. Therefore, I hope that I shall be forgiven if I stick to one theme, which I believe to be crucial—nothing less than the survival of democracy in this country. The path on which the country is treading is very dangerous.
The time is approaching when the Government will need more than passive assistance from more Members than
2102
merely most of those who support them. They are not likely to obtain that necessary assistance until they are prepared to put the interests of the nation above the interests of the Labour Party and its manifesto at the last election. If the Government want to obtain from the Opposition the assistance that they say they need, which should start this week if possible, it is unreasonable of them not to recognise that they must consider dropping some of their proposals, which the Leader of the House has told us again this afternoon he is determined to ram down our throats before the Session is finished.
On the same subject, I want to put a point to the Leader of the House—again, I hope, in not to contentious a manner. We had from the Secretary of State for Industry this afternoon a statement on yet another situation in which the hopes of members of the public, working people, were raised by the statements and actions of the Government—not just the present Government, but successive Governments; and I accept the point made by the Secretary of State. Those people have been let down today with a monumental bump.
Millions of people now believe that the Government have introduced an effective counter-inflation policy. Again, there is a danger that in a few months' time the harsh realities of our situation will cause further massive disappointment and disillusionment among the people. It is essential that before the House rises for the Summer Recess the Government undertake a soul-searching exercise and face themselves and the people with the truth about our economic situation. We heard about NVT, today and yesterday we heard about Court Line. We have had discussions about unemployment. Yet this afternoon, in all the discussions about NVT and the Japanese motor cycle industry, I heard no hon. Member make the simple proposition that unless the people are prepared—if I may use a phrase used by a member of the Royal Family—to pull their collective finger out, the nation faces a desperate future.
Work is a four-letter word which seems to be used infrequently in examining our national problems. Unless the Government change their present complacent attitude towards inflation and unemployment, massive disillusionment will set in. The nation will be destroyed. Before we

2103
rise for the recess the Government must seriously consider taking practical steps to cut their tendentious programme. They must cut out the continuing attempts to fool themselves, the House and the public and instead get to grips with the task of providing the nation with a genuine programme of national recovery.
6.1 p.m.
Mr. Les Huckfield: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) except to say that I agree with him that work is an important four-letter word. The trouble is that many of my constituents canot find enough of it. In view of the serious unemployment problems currently affecting my constituents, I want to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend and the Government Front Bench generally the situation which is now facing the British car industry, upon which we ought to have a detailed and definitive statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade before the House rises for the recess.
In reply to a Parliamentary Question at the beginning of this week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade advised British people to buy British cars. He said that he was conscious of the fact that decisions to buy British cars were based upon thousands of individual and personal factors. The trouble is that those thousands of individual and personal factors and the decisions flowing from them have led to a situation when two out of every three private motorists are buying foreign cars. I leave to one side the fleet purchaser and the company car purchasers.
Because this is such a serious situation for the British car industry we ought to have a detailed statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or, if it will help—because I recognise the pressure on ministerial time—from the Secretary of State for Industry on the situation now confronting the British car industry.
At the beginning of the year many of us thought that the situation for our car manufacturers would improve. We thought that because we believed that there was not the non-availability problem from which manufacturers
2104
had suffered last year. We thought that, because most models produced in this country were at last available, British purchasers would have a genuine choice between buying British and buying foreign and would buy British. The supply situation in this country was much more adequate than it had previously been. Many of us also thought that since the Government were injecting large sums of fixed and working capital into British Leyland—our only domestically owned manufacturer—the situation could be expected to improve.
Despite the optimism of those of us representing car manufacturing constituencies, I have to say that the half-yearly figures recently released by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders give us cause for a great deal of concern. We see that for the first six months of the year imports of foreign-produced cars have risen by 50 per cent. while exports of British-produced cars have risen by only 19 per cent. If we take the 12-monthly figures from June to June we find that imports have risen 19·4 per cent. this year compared with last year's figure whereas exports over the same period have dropped 22 per cent. Japanese imports are up this year by 80 per cent. I wonder whether, since Datsun has said that it did not foresee any growth of sales to this country, because it has already sold in the first six months of this year as many cars as it sold in the whole of last year, it will be sending no more cars to this country.
If the sales curve of Datsun, Toyota, Fiat and some of the other foreign manufacturers continues at the same level during the recess—and this is why I believe we ought to have a statement before the recess—we could reach a situation before the Houses reassembles for the overspill period, as it is fashionable to call it—when foreign manufacturers will be supplying between 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. of our domestic market. I am told that when the new "P" registration letter begins tomorrow there is every possibility, as a result of delayed purchases and so on, that foreign producers could show an import penetration into the domestic car market of about 40 per cent. Within that 40 per cent. it could be that Japanese producers have captured about 20 per cent. The position has certainly deteriorated since the

2105
beginning of the year and will almost certainly deteriorate further before the House reassembles.
It is not just the import situation which is affected. There is also the future of the Government's holdings in and policies for British Leyland. I say this meaning no personal reflection upon my right hon. Friends, but since we debated the injection of public money into British Leyland there seems to have been some kind of assumption that because we have made this declaration that we shall put public money into British Leyland, the situation will be OK.
I do not accept that, just because we have committed ourselves until 1982 to spend £3,000 million to provide fixed and working capital for British Leyland, the situation will be OK. We must have a statement enunciating Government policy. The situation has changed dramatically since the beginning of the year. All of the rosy conventional wisdom we heard about the future of the car industry then is now giving way to serious concern. If we are to believe reports by such people as Terry Dodsworth in The Financial Times—and I have every reason to suspect that his sources are accurate—we may reach the position in August when registrations will show that importers have captured 40 per cent. of the British domestic car market. I hope that my right hon. Friend will convey to the Ministers responsible my concern about this matter. We want to know what the Government intend to do in the light of changed trading circumstances.
The country, the House and those representing car manufacturing constituencies want to know what the Government intend to do bearing in mind the optimistic market predictions which have been made for British Leyland. Are we to assume that British Leyland will recover all its market? I would hate to find ourselves in two or three years' time facing a market collapse for British cars of the kind that we have been discussing in connection with NVT motor cycles in North America.
I recognise that one of the great difficulties which confronted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry was the near collapse—at least on a short-term basis—of the North American
2106
market for NVT motor cycles. I hope that a similar situation will not confront the smaller end of the range of British car manufacturers.
My constituents are very concerned about the present position. That concern is shared by those who represent car manufacturing constituencies. This is not a situation that will wait. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will convey to the Secretary of State for Trade and the Secretary of State for Industry that we should have a definitive, detailed statement of exactly what the Government intend to do in the light of the changed circumstances which I have enumerated. We want to know what the Government intend to do before we rise for the recess.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) are not in the Chamber as I want to back up what they said about the gross overloading of the programme of the House in recent months. It has been a scandalous overloading of our programme.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that he is unable to say who is to blame. I believe that it is perfectly clear who is to blame—the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has allowed so much legislation to come forward that the House has been unable to debate matters of great importance to the country that it should have debated. One such matter which we customarily debate in Government time before the House rises for the Summer Recess is foreign affairs. We have not had a foreign affairs debate since March, and that debate was devoted mostly to a discussion on the Common Market negotiations. Therefore, other parts of the world received very little attention.
It is not as if there is any shortage of important matters on the international scene for us to debate. The problem of Cyprus, for example, is of very great interest to this country. There are also the problems of Rhodesia and Southern Africa. The situation in Portugal, even closer to home, is of equal importance. If the Helsinki Conference means as much as the Prime Minister claims, we

2107
should be debating it next week instead of some of the Government's legislation. We have a crumbling situation on the whole of the southern flank of NATO. None of these matters have we had a chance to debate in a serious manner since March. Indeed, for the reason I have mentioned we have, in practice, had no opportunity to have such a debate during the whole of 1975.
The reason for this situation is that the Government, and notably the Leader of the House, have overloaded their programme. They give the impression that while they are prepared to take time to put through the legislation which they believe to be important—for example, the reorganisation of our domestic economy—they think that they can opt out of the world. That is a serious and dangerous error to make. I trust that the Lord President will be able to give the House an assurance that the lack of a foreign affairs debate this summer is to be no precedent for future years.
There is one particular matter on the foreign affairs front which I hope is cleared up before the House rises for the recess. Last Monday the Minister of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs answered a Private Notice Question and gave the impression that he was in a state of considerable confusion about the situation of British subjects and British property in Angola. The right hon. Gentleman was unable to give the value of British property in Angola and was unable to say what country had assumed responsibility for our interests in that country. He promised a statement to the House before we rise—at least I hope he meant before the House rises.
By now the right hon. Gentleman should be able to say what country has assumed responsibility for the protection of British interests. I hope that when he speaks to the House he will be able to reassure us that the protection of British affairs and British persons' property overseas is in better hands than the impression he gave when he answered the Private Notice Question on Monday. It is possible that in the next two and a half months events will occur in other parts of the world endangering the safety of British subjects and British property.
2108
The second subject I wish to mention concerns the problems of the glasshouse sector of the horticulture industry. It is important that before the House rises we should have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about his policy towards the glasshouse sector. The glasshouse growers are seriously affected by the increase in the price of oil since 1973. I believe that they are more affected than any other industry although I realise that the fishing industry is seriously affected too.
Mr. John Lee: By the Comon Market's policy.
Mr. Blaker: The glasshouse sector is worried about the future. It wants an assurance that it will be given conditions in which it can fairly compete with its opposite numbers in other Comon Market countries. So far it has not received that assurance. That is not because obstacles are being put in the way of the Government by the Community. Indeed, the Community has made it clear that it would like to see the British Government help the glasshouse growers as regards the price of oil. This could be done without any extra demands on public funds—namely, by reducing the subsidies on food and providing the modest sum that is necessary to give the glasshouse growers the assurance that their future is safe.
It is known that the Belgian Government are giving a subsidy to their growers. A recent answer from the Department discloses that the Dutch are supplying natural gas to their growers at a price substantially below that which is charged to industrial users. So it appears that there is a form of subsidy in Holland.
The glasshouse growers in this country want an assurance that, given the help that is being provided for their competitors in other Common Market countries the Government will put them in a position in which they can compete. They are not asking for a privileged position. What they want is fair competition. I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will come to the House next week to make a statement that he accepts that proposition.
6.19 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I rise to add my voice to the concern which has

2109
been expressed by other Northern Ireland Members about the proposed Adjournment and about what is liable to happen in the two months that the House is in recess. There is every possibility, although one hopes it will not be so, of a deteriorating political situation.
This afternoon many Northern Ireland Members, like myself, have been very anxious and concerned about the events which took place yesterday and in the early hours of this morning. I have been watching the tape and awaiting further developments. Many hon. Members appear to be more concerned with the cricket score.
Those Members of the House who will be most affected by the Adjournment will be the Members with Northern Irish constituencies. Throughout these days we shall be concerned about the safety of the lives and limbs of our constituents. I hope that any developments will be treated urgently by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There have been occasions in the past five or six years when it has been necessary to recall the House because of happenings in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will not be necessary on this occasion, but I urge the Secretary of State and those who support him in the Northern Ireland Office not to forget during the two months' recess that Northern Ireland is still in a fluid situation. I hope he will make whatever arrangements he can to ensure that at all times while the House is in recess there will be a Minister in Northern Ireland. It is essential that the lines of communication must be kept open.
I can assure the House, on behalf of colleagues and, indeed, political opponents, that Northern Ireland Members will not look forward to taking their holidays during the Summer Recess. The full responsibility for representing constituencies in Northern Ireland will devolve upon those of us who are Members of this House. We shall carry that responsibility throughout this perilous period.
In the past few days serious atrocities have occurred in Northern Ireland, at the cost of many innocent lives. Members of the RUC, the British Army and innocent citizens have lost their lives during this period. I hope that despite the conflict and tragedy the Secretary of State
2110
will still insist on carrying out his intention of bringing detention in Northern Ireland to an end as soon as possible.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has announced a Christmas deadline, and we hope that during the period of recess there will be further releases from detention in Northern Ireland. Even though horrible crimes have been committed in the past week, I suggest that this should in no way affect the Secretary of State in his objective of bringing detention to an end. In view of the tragedies that have occurred, I hope he will use every endeavour and all available resources to ensure that those responsible for the violence are brought before the courts. He must resist the temptation to resort to the signing of detention orders. In the past detention has proved to be a disaster. Even if we face escalating violence in Northern Ireland, the prospect of detention without trial will be no answer.
During the period of recess my constituents, on top of the violence and tragedy, will face a severe economic problem. We are well aware of the imminent closures in industries large and small in Northern Ireland. By the time the House returns many people will have lost their jobs and will have no prospect of obtaining other jobs in the foreseeable future.
I urge the Secretary of State during the period of recess to keep open his lines of communication to hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. The elected Members for Northern Ireland constituencies are entitled to the same priorities in respect of information as are now being given to members of the Provisional Sinn Fein in the secret talks which are now being held. In the final analysis it will be for the politically-elected representatives of Northern Ireland to use all their endeavours to bring back some hope of political stability and security in Northern Ireland. I urge the Secretary of State to listen to representations made by those elected Members and at all time to keep a close eye on developments in the situation, which we all hope will remain static until the House reassembles after the recess.
6.25 p.m.
Mr. Hector Monro (Dunfries): There are a thousand and one reasons why we

2111
should not adjourn for the Summer Recess, but in the few moments at my disposal I shall mention only two.
I should like to have debated the monumental mismanagement of business in the House this Session when the Government have pushed through far too much legislation—and it is legislation which is quite remote from our economic problems. I should not like the House to adjourn without asking for a further statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Employment on the serious unemployment situation. Every constituency can tell a tale in this respect. This certainly applies to Dumfries, where the unemployment figure in the last year is up by 500. That is an increase of 40 per cent. under a Labour Government in one year. It is unacceptable and it is important in regard to future confidence that the Secretary of State should take further steps. He should make a further statement in the House before we rise. He should do more to give encouragement to school leavers in the problems which face them.
When the Secretary of State announced that the unemployment figures had topped the million mark, there were few Members in the House who thought that his proposals went anything like far enough in present circumstances. I appreciate that an upturn in the general economy is probably the only hope. However, it will arrive only if there is a much firmer confidence in the future for industry. The Secretary of State has not given that confidence. It is only by announcing further steps that we shall achieve expansion and an increase in production which will bring down the unemployment rate. I hope that the Lord President will give the Secretary of State for Employment the message that we are deeply concerned with these matters.
The second point is to emphasise that the important debate which we held last week did not produce the results which the agriculture industry required from the Government Front Bench. Many views were put by hon. Members on both sides of the House and many were unanswered. When back benchers put points to Ministers in important debates, they should expect those points to be dealt with in Minister's replies to debates or at least in writing. I refer, for example, to the
2112
important issues of hill farming and to the sheep and lamb trade and the situation regarding slaughterhouses and France. Those matters should have been taken up much more energetically than has been the case during the past year.
People in agriculture are far from satisfied with the present position of livestock or of dairy farming areas. Therefore, before we adjourn, the Minister should make a further statement about how he sees the situation in the industry in the coming year. His White Paper has stated the position as he sees it but has given no financial encouragement to farmers, and there is a lack of confidence for the future. These are two points of grave concern which should be dealt with before we rise.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. John Peyton: I very much hope that the Leader of the House will call the attention of his right hon Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the remarks which have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and those made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). There is widespread concern and anxiety in our agriculture and horticulture industries. On the Opposition side we very much fear that the Government, in their short-term anxieties, will neglect the long-term importance of sustaining home food production and thus cutting down a wasteful and expensive import bill.
I am somewhat surprised that, after all the careful research done by the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) into this country's continued membership of the Rhine Commission, and the importance of settling this matter before the recess, he is not in this place to hear what will no doubt be the very interesting, long and considered answer which the Leader of the House will be ready to extend to him. The hon. Member's conclusions that this country should forthwith leave the Rhine Commission are not one which I would support, but he is not the only one to engage in long and detailed study and then to reach the wrong conclusion. I now welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place.
Mr. David Watkins: I apologise for my late arrival, and I am extremely sorry that I missed part of the right hon.

2113
Gentleman's speech, which I am sure was up to his usual standard.
Mr. Peyton: I am grateful for a splendid example of good manners and courtesy—not emulated by everybody else who has taken part in the debate—and I now gladly acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's presence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), who has already taken his place—a very distinguished thing to have done in this debate—raised three important points. First, he called attention to the report, which has been gathering dust too long in the archives of the Procedure Committee, about European secondary legislation. My hon. Friend, if I may say so, produced an excellent pattern for a speech in this Summer Adjournment debate by raising very shortly three points which ought to be settled. I hope that the Leader of the House will give his very serious attention to this matter, which is yet another of the disagreeable facets of parliamentary business at the moment and one which must be dealt with.
A second interesting point raised by my hon. Friend concerned Written Answers and the growing practice of Ministers to answer a Written Question with the words "I shall write to the hon. Member". The intelligence of most Members of the House of Commons extends to the point that if they want an answer from a Minister they know that they can write to him, and usually, granted average civility and efficiency on the part of the Minister—one ought not to take these things for granted, I know—they can count upon getting a reply. I hope that the Leader of the House will use his not inconsiderable influence with his colleagues to check this rather scruffy and shabby habit to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield), who is very much a bird of passage when it comes to debates of this kind—he comes in, makes his speech and goes away—asked about the motor car industry, which concerns all of us very much. He seemed to be asking what the Government will do to protect that industry from competition. The rough, cruel question that we all have to ask in this country, when we live by overseas trade, is how we are going to
2114
win. It is no good whining when we are worsted and asking that we should be protected by artificial means. If we pursue that course we shall soon find an increasing number of markets closed against us, and the woes of people like the hon. Member for Nuneaton will only be multiplied.
It will not have escaped the notice of the Leader of the House that two main points were raised in the debate. The first concerned Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) gave the House a poignant reminder of the situation in Northern Ireland when he said that though other hon. Members had raised matters which concerned the comfort of their constituents, he was concerned with the continued prospect of life of his constituents.
The effect of the hon. Member's speech was, very properly and rightly, to draw attention to the way in which we seem increasingly in this country to pay little attention to those matters which do not immediately affect us. I should only like to say, on behalf of those who sit on the Opposition side, that we share the misapprehensions, miseries and agonies of the hon. Member's constituents and hope that somehow common sense, decency and mercy will reassert themselves against the bullies, thugs and murderers who habitually use force and show nothing but contempt for those who use civilised argument.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to give to the hon. Member for Antrim, South—and also to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—some assurance that during the coming recess their problems will at least be in the mind of the Government.
The other subject of considerable importance raised in the debate was the overloading of the House of Commons. On certainly no less than 13 occasions in recent months—I have had some researches done lately—this has been a source of complaint on the Floor of the House. On many occasions it has been the source of complaint and high discontent in Standing Committees, the business of which has been grossly frustrated by the ineptitude with which business has been handled and by the lack of papers, without which it is virtually

2115
impossible to transact the business of a debating establishment.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) very rightly chose as an example a matter of which he had personal and painful experience. He referred to the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill—a messy measure, messily handled, but by no means the only measure deserving that sort of description. I ask the Leader of the House to give careful attention in future not just to the volume of legislation—which comes to us, as it were, by means of a tap that has got out of control—but also to the quality of the legislation.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Renton Report and of his own undertaking, given in May, that we would have a debate on this subject. I hope we shall get back to it, because it is a very important subject. Increasingly the judiciary, the legal profession as a whole and the accountants—the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland drew attention to this—are facing an impossible task of attempting to assimilate and understand the meaning of legislation.
I can recall myself on a number of occasions standing at this Dispatch Box and reading at random little quotations from a Bill which was under consideration and asking the Minister handling the Bill whether he was capable of explaining what the words meant. Of course no Minister can stand that kind of challenge, because he is likely not to be a genius and is also likely to be virtually certain that the material is beyond comprehension.
We have been passing through this House legislation which does violence to the English language and which quarrels again and again with common sense as well as with justice—
Mr. Lee: So do you.
Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman's interventions from a sitting position do him full justice, but I think he would do well to refrain from making them.
One of the constant choruses sung here is the denunciation of management. We have had some of it this afternoon. The motor-cycle industry especially has been under the lash. But I wonder whether 'we cannot ask Ministers to exercise just
2116
this degree of imagination. When they put on paper their legislative wishes—no one can describe them as anything more precise than that—could they give just one or two minutes of thought and contemplation to the burden which they place upon those engaged in management who, at the same time as they are trying to run their businesses, have to understand these random hurdles and obstacles which what is described as government is putting in their way? I endorse wholeheartedly everything said by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
Having said that, I pass to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). First, perhaps I might get one little matter out of the way. He suggested that the present Government were certain of survival because there was no serious competition from the Opposition. I realise entirely why the hon. Gentleman felt constrained to put that in: otherwise he would not get any prospect of saving himself from the embarrassment of my approval and endorsement. But so broadminded am I that a little thing like that will not stop me.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that he could not remember a bigger shambles in July in 25 years. I have been here only 24 years—sometimes I think that that is quite enough—but I, too, cannot remember a bigger shambles in July. The advice—
Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman is stuck now.
Mr. Peyton: I was just savouring the common sense and trenchancy of the hon. Gentleman's advice. He went on to say that the Government should not be overambitious in their legislative programme. Then he made the most astonishing rediscovery of recent parliamentary history. He announced that this was a debating Chamber and that it should be so employed. What a splendid idea! I do not think there is anyone among my right hon. and hon. Friends who will not endorse absolutely the idea that, at a time when the country faces dangers and perils which it most imperfectly understands, the House of Commons is denied the opportunity of performing what is perhaps its most important function, that of public discussion of these problems, dangers and perils. I hope very much that the Leader of the House listened

2117
with careful attention to the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central.
Tomorrow's Order Paper will carry an Early-Day Motion in the name of a number of Privy Councillors. It begins with the words:
"That this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government should so use its majority as to treat Parliament as no more than a servile instrument of the Executive.…"
It goes on to detail the counts of a fairly fierce indictment.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, as I said to him on the business statement earlier, that in his role as Leader of the House he stands between the ambitions of his colleagues and the House of Commons. In my view he has to put up a very much tougher defence against the intrusions and encroachments of the former. These men are greedy and ambitious. They are ruthless in their desire to put through divisive policies regardless of their expense. The right hon. Gentleman must use every atom of influence that he can command to save Parliament and the parliamentary institution from being literally suffocated by these people.
The complaint which we are making was not merely brought by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, representing the Liberal Party, and the hon. Member for Fife, Central, representing the Labour Party. It was referred to also by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries
If the Leader of the House were to conduct a careful, detailed personal inquiry throughout the ranks of the House of Commons, he would find a concern—even a disgust—which was unanimous and very deep about the way in which the House of Commons has been confounded by an excess and superfluity of ill-digested, ill-conceived and ill-thought-out legislation, the volume of which is large enough to match the evil of its quality.
6.47 p.m.
Mr. Edward Short: I shall not attempt to reply to the ridiculous comments of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr.
2118
Peyton)—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has been absent for most of the debate, so please let us have no comments by him from a sedentary position.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) and the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) both referred to the business of the House. We heard a great deal about what was described as "a shambles". The plain truth is that the right hon. Gentleman has moved so far to the Right that he has become almost unrecognisable these days. The whole truth is that the right hon. Gentleman does not like the Labour Government's legislation.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil talked about the volume of legislation. Anyone would think that the Government had hogged all the parliamentary time this Session. Let me give him the facts. There have been 175 days in this Session. Of that total, 59 have been devoted to Government legislation. Exactly the same amount of time—59 days—has been devoted to Supply, which is entirely in the hands of the Opposition, and to back benchers' time. Exactly the same time as we have devoted to Government legislation has been given to the Opposition and to back benchers. I should have thought that that was generous and fair. In addition, there have been back-bench motions.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South spoke about foreign affairs debates. How many foreign affairs debates have the Opposition had? There have been 29 whole parliamentary days for general debate in the hands of the Opposition, but as far as I can recollect not one has been devoted to foreign affairs.
Mr. Blaker: The right hon. Gentleman's recollection is very poor. Either this month or last month we had a debate on the security conference.
Mr. Short: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman is asking for a general debate on foreign affairs. The Government gave time, but the Opposition have not devoted any of the time they had available to foreign affairs. Let us have less humbug about this.
We have heard a great deal about Committee sittings. I shall compare 1972-73 with 1974-75, and to be fair I

2119
shall do so to 1st July of both years. In 1972-73 there were 271 sittings of Standing Committees. In 1974-75 there were 265 sittings of Standing Committees. Therefore, the number of sittings this year is less than when the Conservatives were in office. Let us have less nonsense and less humbug.
We are debating now a motion to enable hon. Members to go on two and a half months' holiday, and yet there has been talk about being overworked. I have never heard such nonsense in the whole of my life. What would the public say about this?
Mr. Peyton: As far as I recollect, the word "overworked" has never been used. What I and other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have been complaining about is the congestion caused by the legislation and its very poor quality.
Mr. Short: That is exactly what it is all about. The right hon. Member does not like legislation brought forward by a Labour Government any more than we liked the legislation his Government brought forward. Let us not muddle that up with a debate about the business of the House.
Mr. Lee: Although I dismiss contemptuously the nonsense that is coming from the Opposition because they do not like our legislation, I wonder whether the time has not come when we should have a more reasonable phasing of the sittings of the House. Why is it necessary for the House to sit bewitching hours of the night on so many occasions and then to adjourn for over two months?
Mr. Short: That is a very sensible point and exactly the kind of point I hope we shall consider at the beginning of the new Session when we make a radical survey of the way in which we carry out our business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) raised the personal case of Private Davidson. I have made inquiries about this matter. I have discovered that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army wrote to my hon. Friend on 10th June and explained that the matter was sub judice. I understand that that is still the position, because the coroner's inquest which had stood adjourned pending the outcome of
2120
criminal proceedings has still not been reconvened. I can assure my hon. Friend that when these proceedings are completed the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army will immediately write to him.
Mr. William Hamilton: There are two different issues, the criminal and the medical. Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries about why the Minister has not kept me in touch? Can he also explain why a cheque for £138 has been sent to Mr. Davidson? What was it for? I do not know. Has any progress been made on the question of alleged medical negligence which led to the boy's death?
Mr. Short: I cannot answer the second point raised by my hon. Friend. However, on the first matter I have asked specifically that my hon. Friend be informed about it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) raised again the tragic question of Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement today on the latest appalling incident. The hon. Member for Antrim, South raised again the allegation about a commitment by the British Government concerning the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Molyneaux: With respect, I suggest that the Leader of the House may be confusing my remarks with some other contribution. To the best of my recollection I did not make such a statement.
Mr. Short: I understood that that was what the hon. Member for Antrim, South was saying. Perhaps he should read the beginning of his speech. However, if he did not say that, of course I apologise. I must make it absolutely plain that the Secretary of State has made it clear to Parliament on a number of occasions that his commitment is to the people of Northern Ireland. There has been no deal whatever with the Provisional IRA. The Government have repeatedly explained that Provisional Sinn Fein is free to pursue its political aims by peaceful and legitimate means.
The cease-fire in Northern Ireland continues despite sporadic incidents of Provisional IRA violence. Overall, so far this year there has been a substantial

2121
reduction in the violence attributable to the PIRA. However, it has not ceased completely. Particularly in South Armagh shooting and booby traps have continued, though less frequently and less successfully.
Despite the reduction in PIRA activity the violence has continued, but its nature has changed. Although there have been relatively few attacks on the security forces compared with recent years, sectarian and inter-factional murders have continued and at times increased. These have illustrated the great difficulties in eliminating violence altogether when it has become endemic among a population polarised by deep and conflicting loyalties and aspirations.
The level of violence and the policy of detention are related. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West raised the question of detention. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, in reply to a Question on 24th July, said:
"Policy on detention will continue to be related to the level and nature of violence prevailing "—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 760.]
He also said that although he could not commit himself to a specific date, he hoped that the situation would progress sufficiently to enable all the detainees to be out by Christmas. He went on to say that under the terms of the law he has to make a judgment on each individual case in the light of the right of the community to be protected as well as the need to consider the right of the individual to his freedom.
Since 22nd December 1974 the Secretary of State has released 305 detainees. During this period the commissioners and the appeal tribunal have released another 25, making 330 in all. There are now 246 detainees left. I repeat, especially in view of the specific question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, that the policy will relate to and continue to he determined by the level and the nature of violence.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised again the question of devolution. Obviously I cannot say how long a Bill on devolution will take in terms of time on the Floor of the House. The Bill has not yet been published and, indeed, has not yet been drafted. It is quite impossible for me to
2122
say. It is correct that the Bill will be a constitutional Bill and that at any rate the greater part of it will be taken on the Floor of the House. Of course my hon. Friend has changed his views about devolution considerably, because he will recollect that only nine months ago he and I stood on the same platform in West Lothian advocating to a very enthusiastic audience the sensible devolution of Scotland. Therefore, he has changed his view on this matter. The White Paper will be published in about the second week of October and it will deal in great detail with the EEC matters that my hon. Friend raised. I agree that this is an important matter.
The Commission cannot be responsible for every comment by every official. The report which appeared in the Scotsman on 28th July is certainly not the considered view of the Commission. The Commission would undoubtedly say that it has no role whatever in advising member States on their national representation, but I give the undertaking that the White Paper will deal fully and in detail with this rather difficult question.
Mr. Powell: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that the Commission could not be held responsible for the public comments of its servants?
Mr. Short: I understand from the hurried inquiries I have made that this was likely to have been said by a very junior member of the commission. Technically I suppose that the commission can be held responsible, but it cannot impose censorship on every word uttered by every junior official to every reporter who talks to him.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) called attention to unemployment, particularly in his constituency. I share his concern. As I pointed out recently, two factors are responsible. One is world recession and the other is the level of inflation in this country, and there is the uncertainty which flows from them. The best way of combating unemployment is to combat inflation. If we achieve the objectives in our anti-inflation policy and if the upturn in world trade which we expect next year takes place, we can look forward to a deceleration in the rise in unemployment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a statement next week during the Report stage

2123
of the Employment Protection Bill on the temporary employment subsidy and will give details of how it will work. I hope that that will be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman and others. In the autumn, if necessary, my right hon. Friend will be announcing more comprehensive measures to assist in the fight against unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), who referred to the very human problem of people who live around Spaghetti Junction, raised the matter of compensation for the loss of value to house owners in his and other constituencies as a result of planning developments. Assessing compensation payable in any particular case is a complex process dependent on the rules embodied in the Land Compensation Acts of 1961 and 1973. I cannot comment on the particular claims mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to what he said. All decisions about compensation under the Acts are subject to appeal to the Lands Tribunal, which is an independent body.
The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) asked about a debate on the Select Committee on Procedure regarding European matters. Certainly there will be a debate, but not before the recess. I have already given an undertaking that there will be a debate in the spill-over Session.
I agree entirely about the development that has taken place regarding Written Answers. I shall try to ensure that that process is stopped. This wholly unwelcome development has been building up for some years. It is not new.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) raised the interesting question of the integration of immigrant groups into the community. He referred to programmes in their own languages on the BBC. I am sure that the BBC will take careful note of what he said. Indeed, I shall call its attention to my hon. Friend's comments. However, it is for the BBC, on the advice of its Asian Programmes Advisory Committee, to determine the priority to be accorded to programmes for immigrant communities bearing in mind available resources and broadcasting time.
2124
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) made a number of points about Northern Ireland to which I shall call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have already replied to two of those points.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised the question of farming. On 24th July my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced a further reduction in the green pound. I referred to that matter on Tuesday. I know that many producers hoped for a larger reduction. Nevertheless, this was the third readjustment in less than a year. It means increased returns to producers estimated at about £100 million in a full year. That is a great amount of money. In the current situation, when curbing inflation must be of paramount importance, the Government's decision struck a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of both the producer and the consumer. We should remember that the consumer has an interest as well. The Government will continue to keep sterling's representative rate under review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) raised the enthralling question of the Rhine Commission, about which I learned a good deal a few months ago but had almost completely forgotten it. Perhaps I might enlighten the House on that matter. There are reasons why we feel that the United Kingdom should reserve its membership of the Central Rhine Commission. The Rhine Convention guarantees freedom of navigation and freedom from navigation charges. The reasons for the United Kingdom's involvement are primarily political, but they are also deeply rooted in maritime and trading traditions. The Central Rhine Commission, of which the United Kingdom is a member, is an intergovernmental organisation to ensure that the principles enshrined in the Rhine Convention are applied. My hon. Friend looked forward to the time when the Rhine would be linked with the Danube and, indeed, the Rhone. In looking forward to that time, however, it will be necessary for the countries concerned to work out the trading conditions on the enlarged European waterway network. It is certainly desirable that the United Kingdom should have a voice in the discussions between the Rhine and

2125
Danube Commissions on the lines proposed in a resolution on transport which will be the final resolution at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe which is now taking place in Helsinki. We believe that in view of these developments there are good grounds for Britain retaining its association with that body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) mentioned his fears and those of other hon. Members about the situation in the car industry. Indeed, the figures for the last six months give some cause for concern. I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade the points made by my hon. Friend, and his specific point about British Leyland I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to reply to those points today—indeed, he said that he did not expect me to do so—but I will pass them on.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South asked about time for a debate on foreign affairs, to which I have already replied. Had the Opposition not frittered away their 29 whole days on trivia, we could have had a debate on foreign affairs. Indeed, it was only constant pressure from myself every Thursday which finally persuaded them to have a debate on agriculture. However, they have not had a debate on foreign affairs as such.
Mr. Peyton: The right hon. Gentleman has now described all the subjects chosen by the Opposition for their Supply Days as trivia. Will he particularise? Does he regard the self-employed as trivia? Does he regard the nationalised industries as trivia? Does he regard the teachers, the police and so on as trivia? The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that kind of blanket condemnation. He must be more particular.
Mr. Short: If the right hon. Gentleman looks through the list, he will see what I mean. There have been calls for major debates on agriculture and foreign affairs but none has been forthcoming from the Opposition, who have a responsibility in the matter. Parliament has put 29 whole days into their hands, but we have not had a single day devoted to a debate on foreign affairs. Indeed, it was only after great pressure from me that they had a debate on agriculture.
Mr. Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Short: I have given way about 20 times already, but I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so.
Mr. Blaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he saying that the Government have no obligation to provide time for a debate on foreign affairs? Are they not interested in the matter?
Mr. Short: The Government have given time for a debate on foreign affairs. All I am saying is that the Opposition have not. In our very restricted time we have given a day, but the Opposition, who also have an obligation in the matter, have not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, to whom I have already referred, asked that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should not during the recess forget the serious situation in that Province. Knowing my right hon. Friend, I can say that there is no fear of that whatsoever. My hon. Friend asked whether at least one Minister would be on duty at all times during the recess. I can assure him that there will always be at least one and that more often than not all the Ministers will be on duty. The whole country will share his hope that this continuing tragedy will be brought to an end.
My hon. Friend also asked about detention in the light of the appalling incident we heard about this morning. I can only repeat what the Secretary of State has said on this matter: that his policy with regard to the ending of detention must be related to the level and nature of violence. I am sure the whole House shares my hon. Friend's hope that stability will return to this unhappy Province. We hope that from the Convention will emerge a viable system of government and that Northern Ireland will leave behind this unhappy chapter in its history and emerge into a chapter of stability and peace.
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place, and claimed to move. That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Dr. Alan Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it is not normal for this debate to be closed until Members have had an opportunity to raise constituency matters such as aircraft noise.
Mr. Speaker: The closure motion was moved and has been accepted by the House.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House at its rising on Thursday next do adjourn till Monday 13th October.
Dr. Glyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rose before the Government Deputy-Chief Whip.
Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry, but there it is.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL)
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

  GREEN POUND
  7.12 p.m.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: I wish to raise the question of the green pound and its impact on agriculture in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. The term "green pound" is not one that endears itself to many representatives of Northern Ireland because green is the colour of Republicanism and in the eyes of Unionists is associated with all the false claims made by Republicans over the Northern Ireland territory and our jurisdiction over the people of Northern Ireland. We associate the Republican movement with deceit, and the term "deceit" could fit the green pound.
  The green pound as a representative rate was conceived in the hope of levelling out farmers' incomes during a period when the currencies of the Common Market were on a fixed parity. Now we have floating currencies, and the situation has changed drastically against the interests of farmers. If sterling were strong, most of the ill effects of the green pound would disappear, but sterling is weak and has sunk like a waterlogged hulk in the world markets. It has sunk even faster than the reference rate has been reduced by the Minister of Agriculture.
  The present disparity between the green pound and the real pound is a great help to consumers because food is cheaper than it otherwise would be. Food is being sold below its true value in the world markets. This is denying to the British farmers benefits that should be accruing to them through the floating pound if the representative rate were lowered along with the pound sterling. I think this is an attempt to buy popularity by depressing the price of food, but when this is done someone has to pay. Food has to be paid for, like all other products

  2129
  of human endeavour, and in this case the unfortunate farmer pays by having only a very low level of personal spendable income. The country will not get the level of investment in the farming industry that is needed for the future, and that will mean less food being produced.
  During 1974-75 the net farm income in the United Kingdom was £1,133 million, but it must be realised that of this sum about £400 million was contributed by subsidies of various forms paid to farmers to depress the prices at the farm gate.
  If the green pound were devalued to parity, prices to the consumer would rise, but not only to housewife consumers. They would also rise for farmers in respect of feeding stuffs, but we would know exactly where we stand and would have a true picture of the profits of our farms. It would cause further difficulties for those parts of the industry where a lot of feeding stuff is bought and it might not be very popular to talk about increases in the price of food, but the era of cheap food is over and has been over for a very long time. It is no good this Government or any other trying to mask that fact.
  Efficient production means there have to be efficient and able men in charge of the production. That costs money, and the machines they use cost a lot of money. If this money is not forthcoming, the means of production will disappear and the able men will go elsewhere seeking employment in other industries. In the long run, the country will suffer because of the loss of food.
  Between 1920 and 1925 and between 1951 and 1955, the price of food as a proportion of the income of the average family did not decrease very much—by only about ½ per cent. In the period since 1960 it has decreased a very great deal. Between 1951 and 1955 an average of one-third of expenditure was spent on food. In 1974 it was 18 per cent. I realise that it is only natural that food should take a lesser amount of the total family expenditure. This is a sign of increasing prosperity and rising standard of living, and the House must welcome that fact. But food is being produced by fewer people and with more efficient farm machines and much greater sums are being spent on the processing of packaged goods and convenience foods that housewives now buy. In these circumstances,
  2130
  given the pressing difficulties within the farming community and the long-term Common Market policy that everyone should pay the true price of food, we must assume that there is room for some expansion in the amount of national income spent on food. If we do not get that, we shall have a shortage of food.
  When the United Kingdom and Eire first decided to devalue the green pound last September, Eire devalued it rather more than did the United Kingdom and a 4 per cent. gap appeared between the representative rates. The gap between the real value of the £ sterling and the green pound in the two countries is 14 per cent. in the United Kingdom and 11 per cent. in Eire.
  Many problems arose in the border areas of Northern Ireland through the smuggling of pigs and, later, the smuggling of cattle and the illegal exportation of store cattle to and from Northern Ireland. To some extent some of the problems in the pig trade, though by no means all, have been solved, but at very great cost in terms of employment, output and income in the farming industry. The ancillary industries, especially the Northern Ireland bacon factories, have suffered a severe cut-back in employment.
  From all that has happened, it is clear that the green pound, which started life as a sincere attempt to produce equity among the farmers of the EEC, has instead been used in this country to depress prices to the farmer, and it has been used by Eire to give its producers and its ancillary industries an advantage over their counterparts in Northern Ireland. Because of this we have no great love for the green pound. The Minister of Agriculture told me today that he could not say when the gap between the two representative rates would be closed since the rate in the Irish Republic was primarily a matter for the Government there.
  When the policies of the Eire Government cause hardship to my constituents and the farming community in Northern Ireland, that becomes very much a matter of concern to me. It also becomes a matter of concern to this House, and, specifically, to the Minister of Agriculture. It is up to the Minister to apply such pressure as is needed to see that the inequities from

  2131
  which the farming community in Northern Ireland suffers vis-à-vis the Irish Republic are eradicated. We are glad when the Minister gets something for the farmers, but often he does not get what they need, and we are asking him to redouble his efforts in this direction.
  The various problems which have afflicted Northern Ireland over the green pound would never have arisen if the British Government had made it their business to see that Eire did not get away with the throat-cutting operation they have employed against our farmers and ancillary industries over the last 12 months. In short, therefore, this device is disliked and distrusted by the farmer and the farming community. In Northern Ireland we like to talk about the "farming community" because the welfare of the farm worker is dependent upon the income that the farmer can get from his land. If the farmer does not make a reasonable living his employees cannot expect to be reasonably paid.
  I have lived in a farming community all my life and I know of the low incomes of the farm worker and the farmer. We should make every effort to correct this deplorable situation. Farming is no longer a profession for the poor, the foolish or the stupid. Farming demands the very best of our people. It needs intelligent and able men who can work on their own initiative. They run the risk of danger from animals and machinery to an extent which is not normal in most industries. If we are to attract the sort of men we need into farming we must pay them the right sort of money, but we cannot do that if the price of food is unreasonably low.
  The green pound is disliked and distrusted by the farmer. It is to some extent used to deceive the consumer about the true cost and value of the food. It masks the effect of our entry into the EEC and it is a foolishness that we would be better rid of as soon as possible. It was born a lusty and, its progenitors probably thought, a beautiful child, and that may have been the case when there were fixed parities and when everything in the garden was rosy. With floating parities, however, it has become a gross and misshapen child which we could very well do without.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This extraordinary institution or contraption which has acquired the popular name of the green pound has been much too little investigated or discussed either in the Press or in this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has performed a service, assisted by whatever powers there be that determine the order and the subjects that are discussed upon the Second Reading of this Bill, in raising this subject at this early stage in the debate.
  Perhaps it is some compensation for the sepulchral stillness of the Chamber on this annual occasion that hon. and right hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland are almost, if not actually, in a majority in the Chamber. I cannot say whether that is the future casting its shadow before it, but I am fairly confident that it is in anticipation of the time when there will be not 12 but 20 Members from seats in Northern Ireland forming an integral part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend was correct in designating the green pound as one of those peculiar deceptions with which the Common Market and its procedures are festooned. It is not unlike the method of stopping the clock, of pretending that the day is not what the day is, that 13th January is really 31st December in the year last past. In the same way the green pound is the method whereby, for the purposes of the common agricultural policy, we pretend that the relative values of the respective currencies are not what they are today but what they were five, 10 or 15 years ago.
  It is no wonder that we maintain a bureaucracy if ingredients so fertile of bureaucracy as this are being fed into the system. We might be prepared to tolerate this institution with a certain detached and amused contempt if this was a mere pretence which had no practical effect upon the life of our own people. Unfortunately, the clock, so to speak, has not been stopped at the same day for everybody. It is not 13th January for everyone under the green pound system. For some it is 20th January; and for others it is 11th January. This is carrying the propensities of the EEC for self-deception to a quite intolerable point.

  2133
  I want to protest this evening, and I hope that my endeavours will result in a concrete reply from the Minister, not against the system itself—its absurdities can look after themselves—but against the inequity whereby a different green pound is prescribed for two countries which have the same rate of exchange. After all, this is quite indefensible. The purpose of the representative rate, of the green pound, is to offset the effect of a movement of the exchange rate. Now, the exchange rates of sterling and of the Republic's pound, as they are tied to one another, must by definition move together. The one thing therefore which one would have thought would be impossible—which is impossible in any justifiable scheme of things—is that there should be a substantially and lucratively different representative rate for the Republic's pound and for sterling.
  Here, it is worth pointing out that the reduction by five points of the Republic's green pound and the sterling green pound has, as will be arithmetically evident, widened the real disparity and thus the damage which this inequity brings about.
  It is entirely the business of the Government of the Republic whether or not they link their pound to the pound sterling. I shall continue in this context what has been my invariable custom over the years, in that I have never offered any public criticism—nor any private criticism for that matter—either of the Irish Republic or of the policies and behaviour of its Government. Never by one word have I done that, and I am not criticising them now in anything that I say. The Government of the Republic have decided, for reasons which they think good and sufficient, to tie the value of their pound to the pound sterling. It is not a decision of Her Majesty's Government. It is a decision taken entirely, as they are entitled to take it provided they bear the cost, by the Government of the Republic.
  However, as these two currencies are tied together, we are entitled to demand that the representative rate applied to the two currencies shall be the same. I ask the Minister to admit candidly that there is no justification for this discrepancy or, alternatively, to explain to the House what that justification is. He must do one or other of those things.
  2134
  Either he says that this is unjustifiable in view of the fact that the currencies move together—in which case no doubt Her Majesty's Government will accept their responsibility for bringing the disparity to an end—or he satisfies the House why two currencies, which are automatically of equal value and which, whatever happens, automatically move together, should have different representative rates attached to them. He will be treating the House with scant respect—I am only defensively and preventatively saying this to him—unless he can come forward with one or other of those replies.
  Let us consider a little further the consequence of this inequity combined with the tying of the two currencies. The Minister will probably point out that the British taxpayer and consumer have offset, by prices and payments, some, at any rate, of the effects upon the farmers of Northern Ireland—and not only upon the farmers, for the employees in the meat factories have also been prejudiced by this difference. We in this country have had to pay money—British taxpayers' money and British consumers' income—to offset those consequences.
  What is, in effect, happening is that we are paying part of the cost, which should fairly fall entirely upon the Republic, of their decision to keep their pound tied to the pound sterling. For what would be the justification put forward—if there were one—for the disparity between the two green pounds? It would be that the real value of the Irish pound is not the same as that of the pound sterling, but is lower, and that this equation—this tying of the two exchange rates—is therefore fictional. That is the only ground on which anyone can begin to justify a difference between the two green pounds.
  However, in that case the cost of maintaining a currency at a false level—something of which this country has had costly experience over the past 25 years—ought fairly to fall upon the government which decides to do it, and that is the Government of the Republic. Because of the setting of the green pound within the framework of the EEC, we in this country are bearing the burden of the false assertion which underlies the parity of the Republican pound and the pound sterling.

  2135
  I repeat that this is not the fault of the Republic.
  I do not accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry was told—that the representative rate is a decision of the Irish Government. It is not. It is the decision of the EEC. I am not blaming the Irish Government, any more than they have any justification for blaming us for our representative rate. These representative rates are fixed and imposed upon us by the EEC. Therefore, the Republic, although in a sense a beneficiary, is totally guiltless. I am offering no criticism whatever of the Republic and its Government in this context. What I am saying is that the disparity in the green pounds piles fiction upon fiction. It piles upon the fiction of the whole system of representative rates the fiction of an inequality between the Irish pound and the pound sterling which does not correspond with the facts, and it imposes the cost of those fictions first upon the farmer, then upon the consumer, and then upon the taxpayer in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  I turn to the question of what is to be done about it. The Minister of Agriculture returned from Brussels a week ago, as he always does, almost irresistible in his bonhomie. "You cannot", said he, "do anything but overwhelm me with garlands." Whenever he comes back from Brussels he says "Look what I have done for you." There he was, asking for credit because he had actually got a five-point increase in the monetary compensation amount, although, as the Republic received the same increase, the disparity was not merely maintained but, in practice, increased.
  I ventured on 24th July, in the middle of all these rejoicings, to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had taken
  "the opportunity to correct the anomalous and indefensible difference between the sterling green pound and the Irish Republican green pound and if not, why not."
  Now, that is not the sort of question which the Minister of Agriculture ever answers. One of the methods by which, to the delight of us all, the right hon. Gentleman has survived so long, has been a member of one Cabinet after another, has occupied one distinguished office of State after another, is to adopt the
  2136
  invariable rule of never answering a question. Indeed, it is a great safety and protection against making mistakes; and so endearing is the way in which the right hon. Gentleman does it, that we find it comes hard to do what I do now, namely, draw attention to the fact that he has not answered the question. It is the question which will be answered from that Box in a few minutes by the Minister—whose colleagues, however, from their gaiety do not seem to be entirely sure that he will make it.
  I should like, however, just to quote the non-answer I got from the Secretary of State. It is very typical. He did not answer my question, "Did you try to correct the anomaly?". He said
  "I believe that the move that we have made will help."
  In other words—"Rejoice! Look what I have done for you. I shall not answer your question. I shall invite you to praise me for what I have done."
  "I believe that the move we have made will help"—
  the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I accept that Northern Ireland is in a special position, with the possible problem of smuggling because of the differential."—[Official Report, 24th July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 796.]
  It happens on a vast scale every week, so he is certainly right in saying it is "possible". I must agree with the right hon. Gentleman there. What can one do with a Minister who admits that there is an unanswerable case against him, who agrees with those who put it, who declines to answer their question, and then—and he is never disappointed—asks for the praise of the House?
  Well, that was the answer I got from the right hon. Gentleman. However, this matter goes far beyond the green pound and agriculture; it goes to the nature of Britain's membership of the Common Market. What we have never been told is whether the right hon. Gentleman and the Government tried to get this anomaly put right and failed. If they did not try, they are greatly to blame. If they tried and failed, we know whom to blame. But we must be told.
  It is one of the almost inconceivable anomalies of the EEC—inconceivable to us in this House—that its legislature, the Council of Ministers, debates and legislates in secret; for the fact is that

  2137
  5 per cent. put on the green pound is a law, and we are bound by it. The EEC's laws emerge from the womb of secrecy. Apart from an odd leak from the French member of the Council of Ministers to the French Press in Brussels, we are never privileged to know who said what, what case was put forward on our behalf, who opposed it and on what arguments they opposed it.
  Just think of the analogy if this House were to promulgate laws and then, when the citizens inquired "Was this the idea of the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, and did our representatives in Parliament vote for it or not?", they were told, "You are not to know that. You just obey the law and like it." We should not be long without a revolution. That is a real analogy to what happens in the Council of Ministers, and what happened in this case.
  I shall invite—with slightly less confidence—the Minister who is to reply to the debate to be a bit French, to take a leaf out of the French book. Just let us have a leak. There are not many people around. Let us have a disclosure. Let him chance his arm.
  Mr. John Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Powell: Just a moment—this is not my peroration yet. Naturally, if the right hon. Gentleman, who understands perfectly well the damage that is done to all interests in this country by the disparity between the two representative rates, has asked that it should be eliminated and the Council of Ministers would not do it, we shall know where we stand and whom to blame. But until we are told that, I am afraid that we shall have to assume, we must assume, we are invited to assume, that the right hon. Gentleman who has agreed to this thinks it is right—that, despite the right hon. Gentleman's words, he is satisfied that there should be this injustice and disparity, and that 5 per cent. was all that he went to Brussels to ask for.
  So there is another alternative to be resolved by the Minister when he comes to stand at the Dispatch Box. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask for this to be put right or did he not ask for it to be put right? Did he say "Five per cent. on ours and 5 per cent. on that of the
  2138
  Republic, that is OK", or did he say, "This is an intolerable unfairness and we want it removed"?
  Mr. Lee: The only point I wanted to make was to reinforce what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. That is that there is yet another reason for belated candour, and that is that the referendum is safely out of the way.
  Mr. Powell: Yes. We had hoped that there would be more improvements than there have been, once that fateful landmark was passed. However, we still have the power, although degraded in this assembly, at any rate to address ourselves to the second-class Ministers of the United Kingdom who go to Brussels from time to time to negotiate and to accept the best that they can get there. What we are saying in this debate is that what they have got in the matter of the green pound is not good enough. It will not satisfy the people of this country and it will not satisfy the people of Northern Ireland. In this debate we give notice of that fact.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Before I comment on the green pound and its effects on the agriculture industry, I think I may be forgiven tonight, being a hill farmer myself—and here I declare my interest—for indulging in some congratulation and praise for the agriculture industry.
  I do not believe that I am in any way prejudiced when I say that agriculture is one of the most efficient industries in Britain. It is generally accepted that it has a dedicated and knowledgeable work force. There are few jobs that give more satisfaction to the participants, be they employer or employed, than farming. When weather conditions are against us—which is often enough—and when we fail to get the right price for the products which we have worked so hard to produce, we are often tempted to give up. In the end, however, the majority of agriculturalists realise that farming is a way of life and provides such deep satisfaction and enjoyment in many ways that we stay on, despite the green pound. Another factor that keeps us on the land, despite the green pound, is the realisation not only that we are efficient and hard working but that our industry is absolutely essential to the well-being of the nation.

  2139
  In a recent White Paper entitled "Food from our own Resources" the Government have encouraged us to make every effort to increase production so that we need to import less and so improve the national balance of payments situation. Britain now depends on the farmer to deliver the goods, and he has a certain pride, I am sure, which will spur him on to greater effort. More than ever the industry needs capable and well-trained young entrants. Production methods are becoming more and more sophisticated, and it is important that we should welcome all the bright young men and women who possess the up-to-date knowledge to supplement the wisdom and experience of those already in the industry. I believe, for example, being a hill farmer, that production on hill land could be improved by at least 100 per cent. with the latest scientific help and the knowledge that we have. This is especially important to Wales.
  During the last few years we have lost a great deal of our work force. Many of the young people have left the land.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is creating some difficulty for the Chair. It seems to me that so far his speech has been a recruiting speech for people to become farm labourers or farmers. I do not see that he has related it in any way to the subject matter under consideration.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely on a Consolidated Fund Bill it is in order to speak in this House on anything, and it is only by procedures in the House and precedent that the subject before the House is adhered to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. What we are discussing is the green pound differential—Class III Votes 3 and 7, Class XV Vote 4, Subhead B1. That is the subject under discussion. I am sure that the hon. Member knows what is contained within the limits of the item I quoted. I do not think that we should start a general recruiting campaign for farmers.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Agriculture is covered in the item you quoted.
  2140
  Therefore the hon. Gentleman can roam as far as he likes on the subject of agriculture.
  Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The reference to the class in this paper is an indication that the subject in question is within the totality of what is covered by the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I submit with great respect that it cannot limit what an hon. Member may say, however inconvenient for others, within the scope of the convenient compartmentalisation of these debates, although I am sure that we all hope to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman on the subject of the green pound.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I agree with the right hon. Member, who strikes the right note when he says that it is for the convenience of others if there is to be a wide-ranging debate dealing with the advantages and joys of being a farmer, when we are discussing the green pound. However, if hon. Members wish to continue in this way, let them do so.
  Mr. Howells: The green pound has a great deal of effect on young entrants into agriculture. The nation's survival depends on the amount of food we produce from our land. Since 1960 the farming labour force has declined from 505,000 full-time workers to 233,000. That is a decrease of 50 per cent. That makes me wonder why we are not allowed to speak on the important subject of agriculture on this occasion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are not discussing agriculture. We are discussing the green pound differential. Perhaps at some point the hon. Member will take a sniff at which is being discussed.
  Mr. Howells: Perhaps I shall now baffle you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with figures concerning the green pound such as the 5 per cent. change and the effect of the devaluation of the green pound on agriculture.
  The green pound is the exchange rate between sterling and the EEC's notional currency and is the unit of account for agricultural purposes. Hitherto the rate has been fixed at 1·96178 units of account. The effect of the 5 per cent. devaluation, which has now been agreed, reduces the rate to 1·86369 units of

  2141
  account to the pound. To put it the other way round, one unit of account is now equal to 53·66p.
  The new rate affects all the agricultural aid arrangements given in terms of the unit of account. My main interest is the EEC hill farming directive. The effect of the new rate will be to increase the value of the 50 units of account per livestock unit from £25·50 to £26·83. As for the purposes of the directive, a sheep is regarded as 0·15 of a livestock unit, this will have the effect of increasing the maximum allowable payment from £3·83 to £4·02.
  I turn to the production grants directive on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain less favoured areas. The directive will allow annual payments up to a maximum of 50 units of account. Before devaluation the relevant figure was £25·50. The figure is now £26·83. Bulls, breeding cows and other cattle over two years old are treated as being one livestock unit. A ewe is defined as 0·15 of a livestock unit. Therefore at the current level of the green pound the maximum payment per ewe is now £4·02. However, if devaluation had taken place at 10 per cent., the hill farmer would be entitled to a maximum of £4·25. Such a degree of devaluation would not be unreasonable. If the hill farmers of Britain were entitled to that extra money, it would help to increase production from the hill land of Britain.
  Last week I tabled one Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and another to the Secretary of State for Wales. Unfortunately, I was told, Welsh milk producers receive less for their milk ex-farm than do their counterparts in the rest of Britain. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter, as Welsh dairy farmers are entitled to a price which is comparable to that paid to other milk producers in the United Kingdom. Other marketing hoards do not allow any disparity in the prices paid for produce coming from the north of Scotland, the south of England, Northern Ireland and Wales clue to extra administration and transport costs.
  I asked the Minister to say whether British milk producers would receive less for their milk ex-farm when compared
  2142
  with prices paid to EEC milk producers. The Written Answer stated that ex-farm producer prices for milk in the United Kingdom were on average lower than in the rest of the Community, although up-to-date official statistics for the Community as a whole were not available. Now that we are, for better or for worse, full members of the Community, farmers should be given the right incentives and the same prices for their produce. I believe that there is a great future for agriculture, and I am proud to be a farmer.
  The President of the Farmers' Union of Wales wrote to the Minister of Agriculture on 29th July 1975. I am sure that he expressed the view of all farmers' unions leaders in Britain, when he wrote:
  "As President of the Farmers' Union of Wales, I have to convey to you the anger and anxiety felt by farmers in membership of my Union at the inadequacy of the measures recently negotiated at Brussels for revising the 'Green Pound' representative rate. To the same end, I have already written to the Secretary of State for Wales."
  The anger and anxiety felt by Welsh farmers arise from three causes. In the first place, there is a strong awareness of the injustice of the disparity between the returns received by them and those received by their counterparts in other member States of the EEC, which is compounded by the availability of large subsidies to those European producers who wish to export to Britain and thereby undercut the British farmer's market. For instance, cattle prices in West Germany are about 50 per cent. higher than "guaranteed" prices in Britain; the difference is about £12 per live cwt. Rubbing salt into the wound is the fact that the same amount of subsidy is available to those who export cattle from West Germany to Britain, of which £7·07 in the current week arises from the fact that, by the mechanism of the "Green Pound", Community prices are translated into British currency at a completely artificial rate of exchange.
  In the second place, farmers had been led to believe by the publication of the White Paper "Food from our Own Resources" that the Government genuinely desired to see British agriculture fulfilling its economic potential by expanding its production of several important commodities. As recently as

  2143
  the Royal Show, the Prime Minister seemed to be reaffirming this intention. The recent Brussels determinations, however, would seem to indicate that the Government, in its justifiable anxiety to attack the scourge of inflation, has mistakenly decided that its proper course of action is to give absolute priority to keeping food prices down in the short term, whatever economic penalties may have to he paid in the next few years."
  I do not want to bore you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I could continue for a long time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member is certainly not boring the Chair. I have decided to become a farmer.
  Mr. Howells: To continue with the letter:
  "The Minister of Agriculture and the officials of his Ministry must know perfectly well that such a policy is mistaken, and ultimately destructive. Agriculture is Britain's largest production industry, and the country's prosperity depends almost entirely upon the amount that is produced on the farms and in the factories, and upon the amount of energy that is produced."
  I should like to refer to the comment of the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, Sir Richard Trehane, as reported in the Western Mail:
  "… milk producers are disappointed that the 2·2p rise from September—equal to only 1·19p averaged over the whole year—will not regenerate cash reserves or confidence and will not halt the flow of producers out of the industry."
  It seems that the only hope that Sir Richard and the union leaders can hold out is to persuade the Government that the 5 per cent. reduction is an interim measure which must be backed by further action in the autumn. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to milk, beef, lamb and other producers in Britain that they will not be neglected now that Britain is a full member of the Community.
  8.3 p.m.
  Mr. Mick Buchanan-Smith: I agree with what the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) said, but I should hate you to be under any illusions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Under the present Government and the policies they are following I
  2144
  humbly suggest that it would be very dangerous for you to become a farmer. If you read carefully the proceedings of the debate, and contemplate them over the weekend and possibly during the recess, you will realise that the outlook is not rosy. If you have ambitions to enter the farming industry, I recommend you to wait until there is a change of Government.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for giving me that advice. If he is here this weekend I shall have a general discussion with him before I become a farmer.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should not like to sit silent throughout the debate feeling that you were contemplating putting your hand to an enterprise which you might later regret.
  This has been a useful debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) on raising the subject. When we debated agriculture on 14th July many hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Londonderry, raised the subject of the green pound and the relative currency values of the Common Market countries in relation to agriculture. The timing of that debate was appropriate as it was just before the Minister of Agriculture went to Brussels. We hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would go to Brussels strengthened by the feelings that had been expressed in the House and knowing that hon. Members of all parties backed his resolve to return with a deal that was right for agriculture. But, unfortunately, he did not come back with a deal that served properly the interests of agriculture. The debate today gives us the opportunity, soon after the Council of Ministers' meeting, to comment in more detail on the results of that meeting. I know that I can rely upon the Parliamentary Secretary to report to the Minister how strongly we feel.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he was more concerned with the consequences than with the system of the green pound. I, too, am concerned about the consequences. The green pound system is not wholly inappropriate, in that when

  2145
  changes occur in currency levels it is important for agriculture and for the consumer that there should be a traditional period of adjustment to the changes. What worries the right hon. Gentleman—it certainly worries me—is whether that opportunity for a transitional period is being used as an excuse for making the system permanent for completely different reasons. That is what is wrong, and to that extent I criticise the Government for a misuse of the green pound system and relative currency values. However, it is to the consequences rather than to the system that I shall address my remarks.
  I ask the Minister to reflect on the difficult position in which the Government have put the agriculture industry by the very small movement they have made in trying to adjust the currencies and remove the disparity of the green pound. Agriculture is the only industry in the country which has had to bear the full effects of devaluation of the pound sterling and all that it has meant in the increased cost of imports, fuel, fertilisers, machinery and so on while at the same time the prices which the producer gets and the support he receives have been held down at an artificially low level. That has put the producer in a unique position.
  Given the artificiality of the green pound and the Government's inability to tackle inflation which has led to devaluation, the responsibility lies fairly and squarely at the Government's door. The remedy lies within Government hands. If they are prepared to agree to an adjustment of the green pound, that will help immediately to remedy the situation.
  It is true that the Government have gone a certain way towards that, and I suppose we must be thankful for small mercies, but I beg the hon. Gentleman to realise that the Government have not gone far enough. My great worry is that this disparity is in danger of becoming a permanency. If it becomes a permanency, long-lasting damage will be done to agriculture. If agriculture is damaged in that way, not only the producer but the consumer will suffer. If the inadequate returns to producers cause supplies of home-grown food to be reduced, consumers will be held to
  2146
  ransom because of scarce supplies on the world market. At the same time, if we have to buy more imported food that will put a strain on our currency reserves. Not only the consumer but the whole economy will suffer as a result.
  Having pointed out the difficulties in which the Government have put the industry and the consumer by their failure to make better adjustments in the value of the green pound, I accept that they faced a difficult choice. Unfortunately, they did not have the courage to come to the right decision. They have been split in two on the issue. They wanted to keep the fiction of the disparity, because that helped to keep the price of food to the consumer down to an unrealistic level. But one of the effects of that is a lower price to the producer.
  I beg the Government not just to consider the short-term arguments. At a time of economic difficulty it is wrong to look at only one side, to look only at the short-term interests of the consumer. The Government are deceiving the housewife and the majority of voters if they suggest that by taking short-term action to appease the consumer they are serving the long-term interests of the consumer. If they persist in their policy, the consumer may well benefit now but will pay in the future. The responsibility must rest on the Government.
  The debate on 14th July served notice on the Government that we expected the Minister to do rather better when he went to Brussels to try to deal with the fiction concerning the green pound. The objective must be total parity eventually. We are not asking for a great deal. As a transitional arrangement, this system has something to commend it. We are not asking that we should immediately go the whole way to parity, but a more realistic step should be taken. Movement towards greater parity might take place over a longer period, because of the effect on the consumer and so on.
  Right hon. and hon. Members referred in this debate to the consequences for the producers. What the right hon. Gentleman achieved with his 5 per cent. was a pittance for producers. The right hon. Member for Down, South said that the Minister of Agriculture never answers questions and as a result never makes a

  2147
  mistake. Perhaps that lesson should be spelt out to the Secretary of State for Energy, who might find life slightly easier that he will find it over the next seven days.
  I particularly ask the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question put to him by the right hon. Member for Down, South on precisely what his right hon. Friend tried to achieve at Brussels. The House deserves to know whether the fault for not achieving what is right for the consumer and the producer rests with the right hon. Gentleman or with the Common Market. A mistake has been made, and we want to know how to apportion the blame. Does it lie with the British Government or with the Council of Ministers?
  My information is that if the Minister had been prepared to ask for a bit more he would have got it, and that most of the Ministers of Agriculture of the other countries no more like the disparity and fiction of the green pound than we do. I believe that that is true of Eire as well as other countries. They no more want this fiction continued than we do. I believe that if the Minister had been more pressing in Brussels he would have found himself pushing at an open door and would have been able to obtain a great deal more than he asked for.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the representative from Dublin would have been happy to give way on something that has been to the enormous financial advantage of the farmers in Eire. It may be true of the other representatives, but it would not be true of the representative from Dublin, who has wiped the eye of the British Government on this issue.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is precisely what worries me. The British Government are getting the thick end of the stick. If they had been prepared to stand up for our interests, we could have seen very different results. Therefore, I hope that we shall have an answer to the one direct question that has been put to the hon. Gentleman, to which the House deserves an answer.
  I wish to speak next particularly about my own interests in Scotland, to try to drive home to the Government just how
  2148
  serious have been the consequences of their failure to achieve a proper adjust. ment of the green pound. The hon. Member for Cardigan quoted from Sir Richard Trehane, Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board. In his forceful statement Sir Richard also said that the Government
  "must realise that if it is to get the extra milk and dairy products it asked for in its White Paper 'Food from our Own Resources' —milk which the country desperately needs —then a further substantial award must be made well before the winter sets in."
  That underlines the inadequacy of what the Government achieved. After the Brussels meeting, the President of the NFU of Scotland, Mr. Fraser Evans, said of the closing of the gap in the green pound by 5 per cent.:
  "it is a totally inadequate, shortsighted, foolish decision which will further damage the national interest at the precise moment when this country so urgently needs to build up the productive capacity of efficient industry."
  What he said has been repeated in the same tone by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, and by the chairman of the milk committee of the Scottish NFU, Mr. Christie. Similar words have been used by farmers' leaders throughout Scotland. England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  I would refer briefly to the situation in the beef industry. That worries me most of all as it affects Scotland. I am sure that it worries the hon. Member for Cardigan, who represents a hill area, and producers in Northern Ireland, who rely to a great extent on the production of store stock. I am sure that the Minister, with his farming background, and having been brought up in a store-producing area will be sympathetic to what I have to say. The prices at the autumn store sales are the only source of income for many farmers during the year. If they have the hammering—I use that word advisedly—that they received last year, the consequences for them and their families will be appalling in the coming winter. If prices are not adequate, many of them will have to go out of production and lose their livelihood in the next 12 months. That is why it is particularly important that the price of beef shall be at a proper level. Those in areas fortunate enough to have the food to fatten the animals should give proper prices to our store producers.
  Here I do not quote from the NFU or those looking directly to the industry

  2149
  for their livelihood. I wish to read from a report in the Scotsman yesterday of the announcement by Professor Hall, Professor of Agriculture at Glasgow University and Principal of the West of Scotland College of Agriculture, of the financial results of the two hill farms operated by the college. Those results are a fair reflection of what happened in the hill areas in the past two years. These are large firms operating on a large scale.
  In the Scotsman yesterday Professor Hall is reported as saying that in 1973 those two farms produced a profit of £11,000. He admits that the figures were boosted by inflation. They were very good figures from well-managed farms. Between 1973 and 1974, that profit was turned into a loss of £3,000. This demonstrates the tremendous down-turn in fortune. Professor Hall says that the conseqeunce of this down-turn was due not so much to what was happening in the sheep market but to what was happening in the beef market. He went on to say:
  "The college are now seriously reconsidering the place of beef cattle on the hills".
  When organisations like the West of Scotland College of Agriculture are considering taking their cattle off the hills, how many more smaller farmers will have to do the same thing? If they do it throughout the country, it will be the housewives who will find that supplies of beef are short and that the price of beef will rocket. We shall have to import more from abroad, with all the adverse consequences that that will have on our foreign exchange dealings.
  We gave the Minister of Agriculture the benefit of the doubt on 14th July. We hoped that he would go to Brussels strengthened by the resolution of the House of Commons. He returned with far too little. As the right hon. Member for Down, South has said, for far too long the right hon. Gentleman has not answered our questions. For far too long he has tried to palm us off with a lot of worthless platitudes, saying that he understands the industry, and what we need in the industry. He talks about meaningful action.
  I wish that the right hon. Gentleman were here tonight. Far too often he has used phrases like "I am looking at this"
  2150
  or "I am watching that. I agree with the hon. Member". We would all wish him well in the House and away he would go. He returned full of pleasure with what he had achieved. But he has obtained far too little for the industry. He has not fulfilled his promises. Instead of looking and watching, he should give us some leadership. He must give the industry the returns and conditions under which it can operate profitably in the in the interests of the nation.
  During the period while the right hon. Gentleman has been negotiating in Brussels we have seen the industry move from a mood of expectation to exasperation. We have seen the industry drift and sink from doubt to despair. In the face of the strong feelings on all sides of the House, the Parliamentary Secretary should tell his right hon. Friend that in future, if he is to satisfy the House, he must do a much better job in Brussels than he has so far done.
  8.25 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) for raising the problem of the differential between the United Kingdom green pound and the Irish green pound. I agree that serious practical problems emerge from this disparity. I do not think it is surprising that some hon. Members, in particular the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) should have used this debate, which is basically about the differential between the two green pounds rather than the general position of the United Kingdom green pound, to express their views on the settlement that my right hon. Friend brought back from Brussels and to comment on the adjustment which he secured in the United Kingdom green pound—or the representative rate as it is more frequently called in the Community.
  I begin by seeking to explain as precisely as I can how the present situation has arisen. The common agricultural policy provides for prices to be fixed in units of account and for these to be converted into national currencies at fixed conversion rates, known as representative rates or green currencies. Any difference between the actual market rates and the representative rates has to be bridged by

  2151
  the application of monetary compensatory amounts in trade. The market rate for the Irish pound is, of course, the same as that for sterling. From the date of our entry into the Community until October last year, the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic also had the same representative rate. There was, therefore, no need for monetary compensatory amounts in trade between the two countries, though both the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom operated monetary compensatory amounts as import subsidies and export charges on trade with other countries.
  In October 1974 the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom both made downward adjustments in representative rates, the Irish by rather more than ourselves. This required for the first time the introduction of monetary compensatory amounts on trade between the two countries equivalent to a net subsidy on imports into the United Kingdom from the Trish Republic of about 3 per cent. Further changes were made in February this year which increased the net subsidy to about 6 per cent. The decision taken by the Council last week to make a further 5 per cent. adjustment to both rates has made very little difference to the situation. From 4th August the net monetary compensatory amount subsidy on imports from the Irish Republic will be about 5·6 per cent.
  I may say in passing to the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns that the green pound is not simply part of the transitional arrangements.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not say that.
  Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman said on two occasions "The green pound as a transitional arrangement has something to commend it".
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: May I correct the Minister? I was not using the phrase "transitional arrangement" in the specific sense in which it is used in the negotiations. I was using it to deal with the situation when values change. I apologise if I misled the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Strang: I am grateful for that clarification. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that the representative rate should be adjusted at intervals to keep
  2152
  the market and the representative rate close—I presume to within 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What I am saying is that as currency values change, whereas in relation to other commodities the change in the values takes place immediately for reasons of good production and so on, these changes should be cushioned over a certain period. I was criticising the Government for allowing the transitional arrangements in this period of devaluation to take far too long.
  Mr. Strang: That is helpful. The representative rate will always be with us for as long as we have a common agricultural policy which fixes its prices in units of account.
  I come now to the first direct question which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put to me. As I remember, the question was whether this was something which had been planned and had been deliberately arranged for some laudible reason—that is, the discrepancy between the Irish and United Kingdom representative rates. My answer is simply that in a rational world, with sensible and rational arrangements prevailing in relation to trade between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, there would be no discrepancy. It is not a sensible arrangement on rational grounds in terms of the geography of Ireland and in particular in terms of the fact that there is one market rate for both currencies.
  Indeed, in Brussels we have regularly pointed out the inconvenience to farmers, traders and the customs authorities of monetary compensatory amounts in Anglo-Irish trade. These problems are greatest, of course, on the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. There is an incentive to take advantage of the different internal price levels each side of the border.
  Before I turn to the practical problems which were of particular concern to the hon. Member for Londonderry, I shall try to explain the situation that arises in practical terms. In practice we have a situation in which adjustments in the representative rate in Brussels are made on the basis of the effect they will have, on the one hand, on farm prices in the member State concerned and, on the

  2153
  other hand, on consumers. The considerations which the Irish Minister has in the Council of Ministers concern his consumers and his farmers. Similarly, the considerations of my right hon. Friend are his consumers and his farmers. If one tries to develop this theme, it will be seen that there are a number of ingredients.
  One ingredient is the balance which the United Kingdom Government have decided to draw between consumers and producers. Inevitably we must draw that balance. Secondly we have the balance which the Irish Government have decided to draw between their consumers and producers. Thirdly we have the natural desire of the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Government to avoid the differential, subject to the other considerations. In addition, the Commission itself has a point of view.
  It is worth pointing out that the Commission has a vested interest in reducing the disparity between sterling and the representative rate. It is the Community which has to bear the cost of the subsidy which is payable on imports into the United Kingdom. There are other reasons which might be called European ideological reasons. It is natural that a European bureaucrat will not like the idea of sharp differences as a result of the differential between market and representative rates. I refer to the sharp additional differences between the prices for agricultural commodities in the different member States.
  I move on to the practical problems to which reference has been made. Those problems include the Irish difficulties which have arisen because of the differential. The problems have been most marked in respect of pigs and beef cattle. For those commodities the introduction of different representative rates was a new complication in an already difficult market situation. There had been a severe cutback in the Northern Ireland pig breeding herd as a consequence of the low level of returns, particularly during the first half of 1974. The level of employment in pigmeat plants in Northern Ireland has suffered as a result. For beef cattle, throughput and employment in the processing plants was also under threat because of the possible pull of higher market prices from the Republic.
  2154
  The House will know that the Government took special action to maintain employment in the Northern Ireland meat plants by providing special payments to bacon curers. Payments have also been made to beef producers between April and July of this year. These measures have been successful in preventing any further deterioration in the employment situation in the Northern Ireland meat plants.
  I might say in passing that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Londonderry for recognising that we have succeeded in solving some of the problems of the pig industry. We are keeping the situation under close review. The hon. Gentleman referred particularly to the smuggling of cattle from South to North and then back into the South. This is a very serious problem. Anyone who understands what can be made out of the smuggling will realise what I am talking about. The Government are actively considering the matter so that they can take steps to reduce its seriousness, if not completely to eradicate the problem.
  Basically, however, the geography of Ireland presents problems. There is not only the disparity between the two relevant rates, although I would be the first to acknowledge that the advantages to be gained from smuggling across the border will be enormously removed in the long run when we move to full EEC prices in the United Kingdom. Closing the gap between the United Kingdom and the Irish green pound will go some way to solving the problem. It will not solve the problem completely, as indicated by the various beef support arrangements. A big incentive to smuggling is the variable premium. This was a problem before we joined the Community, but it still remains even after the representative rates have been equalised between the two countries and the rest of the Community.
  The level of the Irish green pound is primarily a matter for the Government of the Irish Republic. As regards the United Kingdom representative rate, we have said that we remain ready to consider further adjustments should these be necessary to assure our agricultural industry of a full return.
  In the meantime we are working urgently to see what measures can be introduced to help to mitigate the

  2155
  problems. The present situation is unsatisfactory, although by introducing last April the special aids to safeguard employment in the meat and bacon factories we did much to avoid some of the more serious effects.
  I turn to the more general questions which have been raised about the green pound. The hon. Member for Londonderry, the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns concentrated on this aspect. I know that farmers would like to have seen a greater reduction than that announced by my right hon. Friend in the United Kingdom green pound following last week's meeting of the Council of Ministers. This was not an easy decision. The Government's attack on inflation is of paramount importance. If we can curb inflation, it will be of major benefit to farmers as well as to all other members of the Community.
  It was therefore difficult at this juncture to change the green pound because of the effect of that change on food prices. At the same time we recognise that some increase in producers' support and market prices was needed for the sake of our future food supplies. A balance had to be struck. The 5 per cent. change should mean an increase of over £100 million on producers' returns in a full year, the largest benefit going to the milk sector. This is a very substantial increase. It is a midyear increase on top of the considerable improvement in support levels as a result of the 1975 annual review, the new beef regime and the 1975–76 common price package.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Minister mentioned an extra £100 million return to farmers. Will he also say to what extent costs will rise in the period since the last increase? To get the matter in perspective it should be looked at in respect of the wage award, but can the hon. Gentleman say what effect it will have on the net returns of farmers, which is what matters?
  Mr. Strang: I agree that we should examine the matter not only in terms of wage awards. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that workers' costs are rising substantially too. There is nothing peculiar about farmers in terms of the
  2156
  cost-price spiral. There is no dispute between us about profitability and the difference between a farmer's costs and his income. It is only by increasing the net return and his profitability that we shall achieve the investment which we need in order to secure expansion. There is no difference between us on that point.
  I felt that the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns was a little unreasonable. It does not help the farmers' case to describe what we have achieved as "a pittance". if we look at the whole package, we see that beef more than any other sector is the area which has benefited. It has done so because we have been able to announce the target prices to February next year.
  Last week's announcement of the monetary scale of beef target prices has shown producers that there is the clearest prospect of returns of £26 to £27 per live cwt next spring. The hon. Gentleman's pessimism is not fair in those circumstances.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I mentioned Professor Hall.
  Mr. Strang: I have great respect for Professor Hall. I did not read the Press report but I presume that he was commenting on the returns of the past year from the farmers.
  Let us look at the prospects. The critical matter in regard to store cattle—with which many constituents of the hon. Member for Cardigan are concerned—is store prices. That is why we were so anxious, first, to load the increase in the price on to next year for beef, and secondly to be able to announce target prices which would bring confidence into the beef sector at this critical time.
  We have never been able to fix store prices. They depend on confidence and on what the fatteners think they will make out of the animals. That is why we are hopeful that these very significant increases in target prices, continuing into and through the spring, will help to ensure that those concerned with store cattle, who took a hammering last year, will secure prices commensurate with their investment and with their costs.
  In talking to any of these beef fatteners or store cattle producers it is clear that not one of them will want the variable

  2157
  premium taken away. They recognise that fatteners now have, in effect, a guaranteed price which has completely transformed the situation, and for which my right hon. Friend deserves more credit than he has been afforded from the Opposition. In addition, there is the level at which the guaranteed price is set. That is why we have announced these very significant increases from next spring, and we hope that they will will be reflected in firm prices in the store markets in the late summer and autumn of this year.
  As to the difficulty which any Government have in striking a balance between producers and consumers, we recognised that some increase in producers' support and market prices was needed for the sake of our future food supplies. The increase which we have secured has, in our view, struck the right balance.
  It must also be pointed out that the combined effect of the green pound change and the stronger market rate for sterling has not yet been fully appreciated by the agriculture industry. These two changes are reducing monetary compensatory amounts very substantially. Next week the monetary compensatory amounts should fall to 8·6 per cent. I ask hon. Gentlemen to ponder that, because a disparity of over 20 per cent. was reached about a month ago. As a result of the adjustment which my right hon. Friend secured in Brussels, and also because of the firming of sterling, we have now got it right down to 8·6 per cent.
  The hon. Gentleman, not unreasonably, went on at length about how this fall in the value of sterling had increased farmers' costs, and of course he was right, but he must also recognise that, on the same argument, the strengthening of sterling is helping these same costs of farmers.
  The nub of the problem for producers is not so much the relationship between the representative rate and the sterling rate. It is the real prices they receive for their products. The reason why they concentrate their attention on the green pound, quite rightly, is that this is the most obviously, the quickest and the most direct way, in the context of the Community, to secure a real increase in prices. That figure of 8·6 per cent. is lower than the monetary compensatory amounts have been since last November. it is
  2158
  much less than half the level of only a few weeks ago.
  Perhaps I might now comment briefly on the points made by the hon. Member for Cardigan about the hill farming directive. He was right in what he said about the consequence of this adjustment being not simply higher end prices and intervention prices and changes in the target prices for beef. It also affects the maximum amounts payable under the lessfavoured-areas directive. I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject of Welsh milk producers' returns. He will recognise that this is a specialised point in relation to Wales.
  Mr. Geraint Howells: I hope that when the Minister is writing to me he will bear in mind the fodder shortages in some parts of Wales. Straw is very expensive these days. I paid £40 a ton for a load of barley straw last week and £68 for best quality straw. Will the hon. Gentleman consider lowering the qualifying weight for fat cattle, especially suckling calves, from 6½ cwt. to 5 cwt. so that they may qualify for the beef premium this autumn? That would help store farmers and especially the single suckled herd.
  Mr. Strang: I shall want to look at that. There are other implications following from it. But the hon. Gentleman is right about fodder. I am sure that even the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns will recognise this.
  There is very little that the Government can do about the fodder situation. If we do not have the reflection in store prices that we hope for as a result of these increased target prices, part of the reason may be the fodder position. But I hope that the difficulty will not be exaggerated. We are getting information all the time. The agricultural Press shows that we do not yet known what the fodder position will be by the autumn.
  I make one last point about what the hon. Member for Cardigan said. It is the case that British milk producers receive less than producers in other member States of the Community. This arises partly because of the differential between the representative rate and the market rate for sterling. But it also arises from the transitional arrangements which were negotiated by the previous Government. Inherent in the package for entry into Europe was the provision that there would

  2159
  be a transition between United Kingdom food price levels and Community food price levels. We are working through that transition. It will not be until we reach the end of the transition that we shall be in a position where the returns of United Kingdom producers are comparable with those in other member States of the Community.
  I turn now to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South. I have answered his first question directly, but I am afraid that I shall not answer his second question directly. These decisions in the Council of Ministers are taken in secret. When a regulation is fixed, it becomes the law of the land. If it is a directive, it becomes a matter to which the Governments of member States respond. That is inherent in the Community as it stands, and it is not the practice of British Ministers—I doubt whether it is the practice of Ministers of the other member States—to discuss the details of the negotiations in the Council of Ministers. Every Minister has to win.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Why?
  Mr. Strang: Because that is the nature of the game. Every Minister likes to be able to point out to his member State that what he has secured is fair and reasonable. In practice it is not an unreasonable claim. That is one reason why the meetings go on for so long and the clock has occasionally been stopped. Inevitably there is great argument and interests conflict.
  If we examine the problem of the decisions being taken in secret and try to work out a means of changing the system, we begin to strike at the fundamentals of accountability in the context of the Community. One way of doing this in theory would be to seek to exercise that accountability through the Parliaments of member States. The more one examines that prospect, the more one sees how hard it is to achieve it. In principle it means that if a decision is taken in the Council of Ministers, it will have to be endorsed by every Parliament to ensure full accountability. Therefore, if one is for democratic accountability one is forced to go down the path of democratisation of the Community looking at the relationship between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament.
  2160
  It would be better if hon. Members on both sides of the House who supported our remaining in the Community were more forthcoming on this matter. I believe that we have had a useful debate and that the right hon. Member for Down, South was right when he said that the question of the green pound, and in particular the differential between the United Kingdom rate and the Irish representative rate, should be subjected to full parliamentary scrutiny.
  We recognise that at present agriculture is in a difficult position. Just as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns recognised that the agricultural industry suffered from inflation, so he must recognise that when a Government come to take decisions on agricultural policy they cannot take them in isolation from other, broader considerations.
  In many respects it is unfortunate that the major decisions on "Food from our own Resources" have to be taken at this time, because the Government's maximum concern must be to get the rate of inflation down not only for the benefit of consumers, but for the benefit of all industry, including agriculture.

DEVOLUTION
Mr. Norman Buchan Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrewshire, West)rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Stewart.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Donald Stewart: My hon. Friends and I welcome the opportunity to be able to discuss devolution. We have heard some disquieting stories with evidence to support them, of strong opposition to any degree of devolution, especially from Labour Members. Some of the opponents are Scots and others are senior Ministers.
It is sad that Scottish Members of the Labour Party, with a few exceptions, should be foremost in opposing the right of their own country to make its own decisions. It is also sad because the initiative in the past for Scottish self-government, before the Scottish National Party was founded came from such members of the Scottish Labour Party as Tom Johnston, James Maxton, James Barr and George Buchanan. I am sorry to say this, but looking at the Scottish

2161
Members of the Labour Party today, I cannot find four men of the same calibre.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman could not find one.
Mr. Stewart: Opposition from English Members is less surprising. Some are indicating that they will not vote for devolution even if it is decided in this House, but that will be the Government's worry when the situation arises.
The Labour and Conservative Parties in Scotland are split on this issue. It is knocking them to pieces. I shall not lose any sleep worrying about that situation. My party knows where it is going and it is taking the Scottish people with it.
Some of the ostriches in the Tory and Labour Parties in Scotland are still not aware of the tremendous tide which is flowing. They should think about what Victor Hugo said—that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come. The time for Scottish self-government has come now.
The opponents of devolution are bringing forward all kinds of odd arguments. One is that Scotland will be over-governed. It ill behoves the Tories, who are the main runners of this hare and who set up the regional council idea, to bring that argument in.
I served in local government in Scotland, as did many hon. Members on both sides of the House. We never demanded the reorganisation of local government on the scale which has been carried out. It was done to suit central Government, and it was originated by the Conservative Party.
Some hon. Members, particularly Labour Members, claim to be worried about the costs of a Scottish Assembly. In the first place, government in Scotland by Scots would be a lot cheaper than our contribution to Westminster. In any case, the cost is irrelevant. What would the Labour Party have said if Mr. Attlee, as he then was, had told the Indians in the late 1940s, "You cannot have self-government for India because it will cost too much to run your own affairs"? What a ridiculous argument. Whatever the grounds for opposing devolution in Scotland, surely that is one argument on which it is ridiculous to waste time.
2162
We have heard various conflicting statements from the Government. On 3rd February the Lord President, in the devolution debate, said that there was a possibility of publishing another White Paper setting out the plans in more detail towards the middle of this year.
On 12th February the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), said that the Government hoped to keep to the timetable, but warned that it was the Government's intention to get the matter right and indicated that it might take a little longer than expected.
On 27th June, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), the Lord President stated that a further White Paper would be published in the autumn. I welcome the announcement today that the White Paper will be published in the second week in October.
We read of the Chequers meeting in January when the hardliners tried to throw out the Government's plans. I warn the Government that any double-crossing on this issue will be dearly bought by them.
In fairness and to avoid misunderstanding, I should say that I have no doubt of the sincerity in support of the principle of devolution of the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth, or of his personal intention of adhering to the timetable. I can say the same for the Minister of State, Privy Council Office.
I wish now to bring in a matter related to devolution but on a somewhat narrower basis since it concerns my constituency. I hope that in the plans for the various functions to be devolved to the Assembly the position of transport on the West Coast of Scotland will be the responsibility of a Minister in Scotland.
Only today David MacBrayne Ltd. has announced that after the end of October, it is to discontinue its cargo boat services between Glasgow and ports in the islands in the Inner and Outer Hebrides. That service is an essential part of the freight system in the area. The alternative offer of carrying goods by road haulage is unacceptable considering the type of freight carried on

2163
the vessel and the enormous costs involved in carrying them by road. This is a serious blow to the economic life of the area and I shall be asking the Secretary of State for Scotland to institute an inquiry into the decision of the Scottish Transport Group to take this action.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I am just wondering whether the hon. Gentleman is introducing something which is not relevant to the work of the devolution unit. He has spoken for about eight minutes so far and I have not heard any reference to the unit within the office of the Lord President of the Council. I do not think that references to the transport organisation in Scotland have anything to do with the heading we are discussing.
Mr. Stewart: With great respect, all I have said until the last few sentences has been concerned with devolution and the work of the devolution unit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All I heard was an attack on the Labour Party.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for you, as guardian of the interests of the House while you are in the Chair, to defend the position of the Labour Party with which you are not connected while in the Chair? In connection with this point of order, is it not correct that it is a function of the devolution unit to prepare a plan for devolution which the Scottish Assembly will operate and that one of the functions will be to consider the transportation in the Western Isles?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard when it is published tomorrow to see what the nature of the debate has been so far. I did not make any reference to the Labour Party at all. I was only commenting on what was said during the debate. If I have made a mistake I will apologise, but I know what I have heard. The question of the future of Scottish transport has nothing to do with the work of the devolution unit.
Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would like to defend the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). I think
2164
there is a case for discussing all these matters. Transport is a very important function which may be devolved and I want to discuss the devolution of coal, gas, electricity, education and universities. I shall take a considerable time to develop my arguments. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a ruling that we can discuss every subject which is now under United Kingdom jurisdiction and which, under the devolution proposals, can be devolved to an Assembly in Edinburgh. The hon. Member for Western Isles has told us that his party knows where it is going. We want to hear where the members of his party are going and to tell them where we think they ought to go.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not going to respond to the hon. Gentleman's request for a ruling about how far the debate should wander at this early stage. I am asking hon. Members to show some regard for others who want to take part in the debate and to try, as far as possible, to stick to the subject chosen for debate.
Mr. Stewart: With great respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my remarks were directed to the subject of the debate. I was here for the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and I think you are taking too restrictive a view of the purpose of this debate.
Earlier this year, the Scottish Office announced that it would subsidise the services on the West coast with about £2½ million. This is to be welcomed since it had proved impossible to make these services pay their way. I have advised local people not to have a bad conscience about such a subsidy because transport in London receives a Government subsidy and the railways are to have backing to the tune of £2,000 million in a package deal over five years. So difficult are the costs of living and development in my constituency that the Islands Council has secured approval for agreement with the NJIC to pay a weighting allowance of £3·50 per week to its workers.
The devolution unit should take account of the latest report of the Highlands and Islands Development Board in which it is shown that Lewis and Harris, unlike the rest of the board's area, except Sutherland, has suffered a

2165
decrease in population. The board produced an excellent document making out a case for a "road equivalent tariff". Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Scotland will not accept this proposal, which would have given new hope to the West Coast islands.
Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. I originally had some sympathy with the hon. Member in his argument, but if we are to have a debate on the work of the devolution unit consisting of reciting the problems of all our constituencies I do not see how we shall ever get on with the debate. I would have suggested that it was totally out of order to discuss the individual difficulties of one constituency as opposed to Scottish problems generally.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that point, but I do not intend now to give a firm ruling on this subject. This must be a matter for hon. Members. If hon. Members wish to wander about in their speeches I do not intend to make a ruling limiting them. I do not want misinterpretation of any kind.
Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for that ruling and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) sought to restrict the form of the debate.
The proposal by the HIDB was not accepted by the Secretary of State. I resent the attitude of Westminster Governments to transport problems in the islands. Financial assistance is given on the basis that it is some generous handout to which we are not really entitled. The underlying suggestion is that if we want to live in that part of the world we must bear the full cost. Yet subsidies to rail and road transport in the rest of the United Kingdom do not suffer from this impediment.
In Norway the communities living in the far north receive a far more sympathetic deal from their central government and they are able to enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Presumably the Government would defend us from an attacking Power, and we have the same right to be defended against economic forces.
It is shocking that a Government who claim to care for people should base their transport philosophy for the islands on the material capitalist attachment to the profit system. I hope that the devolution
2166
unit will accept as a high priority the need for fair shares in transport on the West Coast of Scotland.
9.8 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and I asked for a debate on the costs of an Assembly. We were turned down by the Public Bill Office and by a distinguished and ever-helpful senior Clerk of the House. The Public Bill Office further told me that there was no way of raising devolution issues on these Estimates. In the form in which the inquiry was put to it, that was right, and I understand that we cannot discuss legislation as such on this occasion. I say that not in complaint but simply to protect myself from the charge of muscling in on a debate which has been begun at someone else's initiative, and I hope that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) will take that into account.
There is a further, more serious, charge that I should like to meet head on, whether it is made by Opposition Members or by my own colleagues, and particularly since this matter was raised by my right hon. Friend the Lord President, earlier this evening. It is that from August 1974 until shortly after the General Election I accepted the party policy of a Scottish Assembly and that therefore I have performed some kind of U-turn. It is true that I was among the slain at the August 1974 conference in the Co-op Hall in Glasgow when the Scottish Labour Party accepted the idea of an Assembly. It is also true that I agreed with a journalist a few days after the election at a Press conference of Scottish Labour MPs that an Assembly should have teeth and that a phoney Assembly would be the worst of all possible worlds.
I contend that a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since last autumn. We now have the regions and we have had the symbolic episode of regional officers' salaries. We have had the economic situations and—I say this, not in a hectoring spirit because I shall return to it—the SNP conference. There have been clear indications that some Members of the SNP regard an Assembly as a stepping stone and as a means to an independent Scotland. This alters the situation as I see it.

2167
To be candid and blunt, I had assumed that some of my colleagues, who were the most ardent protagonists of an Assembly, had thought out their ideas more carefully than they had. I ask my colleagues to accept that some of us, rightly or wrongly, last autumn were firmly under the impression that once a Labour Government, who were committed to an Assembly, were re-elected, the regions would be frozen. This did not happen. Like it or not—and I do because I believe that the West of Scotland's problems are basically different from those of the Lothian Region, and different again from Grampian and the Western Isles—we have the regions and they are a fact of life.
I sincerely believe that the work of the devolution unit and the energies and talents of my right hon. and hon. Friends in that unit should be directed towards the devolution of decision making to the regions.
One of the most serious problems that we face, for example, is that of youth unemployment. Let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, in his forthcoming measures, give the maximum possible power of decision making and financial control to Strathclyde and, perhaps, the Tayside Region where the problems occur. Indeed, it is positively better to direct available cash to these two regions than to a Scottish Assembly where each of us would be squabbling for our own share, regardless of need.
As a Lothian Member of Parliament I believe that the Department of Employment should concentrate its resources by devolving the power of decision making over those resources to Strathclyde to use as it thinks fit in Lanarkshire, Renfrew-shire and parts of Ayrshire, where the need is greatest. I ask the devolution unit to take this matter up with the Department of Employment.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman is advocating devolution of power to the regions. Will he not agree that events over the past few months in relation to regional government in Scotland indicate that the basic decisions made in the regions are essentially made by officials for officials, and that the councillors elected to these regions are absolutely powerless to take
2168
any measures that might be constituted as being in the best interests of the ratepayers who elected them?
Mr. Dalyell: This is tricky ground. It is related to the trouble that has arisen over regional councillors receiving comparatively little remuneration in relation to the jobs that they are expected to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central mentioned this. If this is a problem, one of the answers is to make it financially possible for regional councillors to spend more time on their regional duties.
I do not want to prolong this speech and if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me I shall not pursue the matter further.
For example again, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) is for ever telling us what a scandal it is that the Clayson Committee Report has not been debated or implemented. Let us be blunt. The reason for this is not that the wicked English have denied us parliamentary time. They have done nothing of the kind. It is that the Secretary of State and a number of my West of Scotland colleagues take a dim view, as indeed I do, of some of the proposals. It is surely not beyond the wit of Government, considering that we have had dry areas in the past, to devolve decision making over licensing to the regions. Indeed, I would argue that it is positively better to do so, since what suits the Lothian Region is unlikely to suit the Western Isles.
Will the devolution unit consider for a moment the spirit of the motion in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) and myself, which is on the Order Paper? I know that there may be legal difficulties but I am convinced and advised that they can be overcome.
As an aside, might one observe to those who are impatient about Clayson that they would achieve their objects years more quickly if such power were devolved in the next Session than if we waited for an Assembly to be set up and then waited for that Assembly to get around to discussing the licensing laws.
I intended to interrupt the hon. Member for Western Isles, because the question of the Island ferries is surely better

2169
dealt with by Strathclyde and the Western Isles rather than in Edinburgh. I should have thought that a very good example of where the Strathclyde region —certainly it was the philosophy of the Royal Commission, as I understood it—should deal with that kind of thing.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to distort the record. In order to get the record straight regarding the position on Clay-son, may I say that this is a matter which comes under my Department and that we had a two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee, so it is not correct to say that the matter has not been debated. The report, published in 1973, was circulated to a wide range of bodies to get opinions. My hon. Friend should be a little more accurate, because there was a Question about this matter on yesterday's Order Paper. Had it been reached and had we been in a position to give an Oral Answer, I would have been saying on behalf of my right hon. Friend that he will be in a position in the not-too-distant future to make a statement on this matter. Therefore, the Clayson Report and its contents, and the background and discussion, ought to be properly reported.
Mr. Dalyell: In no way do I quarrel with that. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will excuse me if I do not comment on it because I do not want to prolong my speech. However, of course I accept what he says.
As an aside, I ought to add that if I am charged with getting votes under false pretences, I would just comment-1 hope that the House will take it in the spirit in which it is meant—that concerning West Lothian, anyone to whom the creation of a Scottish Assembly really mattered has voted for Billy Wolfe, certainly since 1966 and probably since 1962, if they were of an age to do so. Whereas people may vote on steel, on unemployment and on all sorts of other things, they do not vote on an Assembly. I suspect that the forms of Government are not a major consideration in voting patterns. On the whole, most people vote for other reasons.
I come on to a subject which is crucial for me—cost. I think that we are in a different ball game. Once the regions
2170
have been established, jobs allocated and contracts signed and sealed, one cannot dismantle without enormous costs. We have to face the fact that the price of change and upheaval in local government is one major reason why our inflation rate is higher than that of other developed countries. That is why again and again I have asked the Lord President, to his mounting irritation, to publish a financial appendix to his White Paper. Indeed, I think that he is under a compulsory moral obligation to do so. Certainly, we shared a platform in Whitburn, and he was a great success.
But, every fourth Monday morning since November we attended, either at Congress House, Transport House or in Parliament, meetings between the TUC, the Cabinet and the Parliamentary Labour Party to discuss the economic situation. The Lord President heard the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer talking to trade union leaders about public expenditure. He heard Mr. Hugh Scanlon pleading in public and in private with the Government to recognise that manufacturing industry in Britain could not carry any greater burden of public administration.
The unchallenged TUC figures are alarming. Since 1961 the number of those employed in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom—I could not obtain the separate figures for Scotland—has fallen from 9,200,000 to 7,900,000. That is a decrease of 1,300,000. In the same period the number of people working in public administration rose from 5·8 per cent. to 6·9 per cent. of all employed people.
The devolution unit must ask whether adding yet another tier of government will not make the position worse. In the debate on the economy the Prime Minister said that in one year local government costs exceeded 30 per cent. of the estimates, and that it exceeded 50 per cent. of the estimates in a two-year period. We must think of the total amount in terms of inflation, which is the central issue.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Does my hon. Friend accept, apart from the question of inflation, that this is a diversion of human resources away from more profitable enterprise?
Mr. Dalyell: That question may be of equally great importance.
The devolution unit must ask other questions. It must ask what the officials responsible to an Assembly will be paid compared with the pay of officials responsible to a region. Officials responsible to an Assembly cannot be paid less than the others. However, I shall not join in the all-too-easy pastime of slamming the latest salary awards in the Lothian Region.
The devolution unit must give its mind to the question of the leap-frogging of salaries, as, sure as fate, come an Assembly, regional officials will apply for Assembly jobs before the ink is dry on their existing contracts. It would not be human nature if they did not do so. It is no good the Lord President saying that it is too early to discuss salary structures. The attitude of
"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof"
has caused too much trouble in recent politics.
I present another scenario. It requires no crystal ball, but it is a matter to which the devolution unit should pay attention.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): On a point of information, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which may be helpful to the House, I should point out that there is no such body as a devolution unit. It does not exist within the office of the Lord President. Two Ministers in the Privy Council Office have responsibility for devolution. There is a Constitution Unit within the Cabinet Office but there is no such body as a devolution unit.
Mr. Dalyell: I had better raise an eyebrow and pass on for time reasons.
I present this scenario. We may come to a clause in a devolution Bill on a steamy July night in 1976. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary may be away celebrating the 200th anniversary of American Independence. The House of Commons will be tired and bad tempered. Some of my hon. Friends sitting below the Gangway will be bubbling with anger about economic measures and cuts in cherished projects. Ministers will discuss a clause suggesting that the 140 Assembly men in Edinburgh should
2172
be paid what Members of Parliament are paid. They cannot be paid much less because many of them have to keep two homes going and they incur many of our expenses. I leave my colleagues to imagine this scene.
How does the Government Chief Whip, the Chairman of the London Labour Party, covering a population of 6½ million, explain to the Greater London Council, the members of which get only expenses, that the Scottish assembly men are to get the salaries which Members of Parliament get? How does the Chancellor of the Exchequer go to Leeds and tell Sir Karl Cohen's successors that the Scottish assembly men will be paid out of Leeds' taxes? What do we say to the regional councillors nearer home who run our own great regions, such as Strathclyde, or at least those who are not themselves elected to the Assembly? Now is the time to think of those problems not when we have made commitments in the Queen's Speech.
Supposing the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) and Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) get their way and the regions are abolished? That is a possible option which has to be taken seriously. How much would it cost to disentangle all the contracts and how is duplication to be avoided between the Assembly and the regions? I have read the hon. Lady's speech, and it has to be taken at its face value and seriously. I put it in the form of a question to my hon. Friend who must equally be worried about duplication.
Mr. Iain MacCormick: Is it conceivable that the hon. Gentleman is saying that because we have created this silly monster Strathclyde it must be with us always? Would it not be much more sensible and cheaper to get rid of it and give some of its responsibilities to the Scottish Assembly and some to the district councils? Would not that be a much more intelligent way of tackling the problem?
Mr. Dalyell: I just gently say that the costs of changes and upheavals are massive and inflationary. I also ask the moral question whether politicians can ask local government officials at regional and district level once again to endure the kind of upheaval that has made many of them burn the midnight oil.

2173
We cannot go on chopping and changing. It gives conscientious officials ulcers, besides being costly.
Mr. MacCormick: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that prior to the February 1974 election we asked the Government which the hon. Gentleman supports time and again to postpone or think again about the proposal. The Government went on with it. Why could not they have postponed it and reconsidered the proposal?
Mr. Dalyell: I took the trouble to say at the beginning of my speech that some of us were under the impression that the plans for the region would be frozen in October or November. To be fair to the Secretary of State, by that time many contracts had been entered into, and one cannot muck people around. It is not right for us by a wave of the hand to agree to yet another change in this decade. But I rely basically on the question of expense.
Again I ask, what will the devolution unit do about higher education? I hope that it does not take too much notice of the contribution made by Professor McIntyre at The Times Educational Supplement Conference which I and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East attended. He wanted to give the impression that he had been struck on some road to Damascus into giving higher education to the Scottish Assembly. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to interrupt? I do not wish to be personal, but it is a fair comment that it is no accident that Professor McIntyre is a Professor of Scottish Theology, a subject that is not part of the general United Kingdom university pattern. May I have the assurance that the devolution unit has asked—would my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castle-ford (Mr. Harper) like to interrupt me?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman asked that. His hon. Friend is making no effort to interrupt him.
Mr. Dalyell: May I have the assurance that the devolution unit has asked, or will ask, Sir Brian Flowers, of the Vice-Chancellors, Professor Norman Hunt, of the UGC, and Professor Sam Edwards, of the Science Research Council, for their
2174
formal views on education devolution to a Scottish Assembly, and that such views will be made public?
Mrs. Margaret Bain: On the basis that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the opinion of one man should not be considered as the summation of all attitudes within universities, does he agree that rather than the picking out of one or two individuals within the university system there should be a general meeting with everyone within the universities, including members of the staff further down the scale, those who are not at professorial or vice-chancellor level? When the AUT conducted its study it did not consult the university lecturers.
Mr. Dalyell: As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) says, some of us have taken a great deal of trouble about this matter. In Glasgow and Edinburgh the AUT was overwhelmingly against the breakup of the UGC.
Mrs. Bain: When the AUT issued the statement it said that it was the result of very hurried consultations. It had not consulted all its members.
Mr. Dalyell: My understanding, from what I have been told by George Hammersley, secretary of the Edinburgh AUT, and Brian Ribbons, secretary of the Glasgow AUT, is that the AUT is overwhelmingly in favour of the UGC's remaining intact.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Does the hon. Gentleman know that he is dead right? I have also asked George Hammersley, and I know that what the hon. Gentleman says is completely true. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) does not know the first facts about the matter.
Mr. Dalyell: I am not making a speech in that kind of spirit, and I hope that I shall not be tempted to do so. I must cut out some of the things that I was going to say for time reasons.
There is another change since my right hon. Friend the Lord President was kind enough to come to West Lothian. This relates to the SNP conference. I am not concerned with cheap points, but am I wrong to have the impression from the

2175
television and from talking to people who were at the conference that the SNP sees an Assembly simply as a stepping stone to Scottish independence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and that more specifically that once an Assembly is established, more people will come to think that independence is credible? I do not think that I distort the SNP's position.
If one believes that independence, and the consequent break-up of Britain, is bad for the people of Scotland, is it wise to vote for an Assembly? I have always seen a situation in which every ill, real or imagined, will be ascribed to the fact that the Assembly has insufficient powers.
Mr. MacCormick: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is any particular level of devolution which is suddenly all perfect, and the only thing that will ever do for us? Is he saying that whatever measures the Government place before us will be right for all time, and must not be changed?
Mr. Dalyell: No. I simply think that the talent of—I was going to call it the devolution unit, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has corrected me so I will say "of my right hon. and hon. Friends"—should be directed into thinking of every possible decision that can practically be given to the regions of Scotland and which it is sensible to give them. I yield to no man in believing that decisions should be taken as locally as is practically possible.
The devolution unit must make a political calculation as to how long a Bill to set up a Scottish Assembly will take on the Floor of the House. In some quarters it has been said that six days will cover it—Second Reading, Committee stage on the Floor of the House, Report stage and Third Reading. I argue that this is dreamland. It would not be surprising if the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) took three days on his own. As one who heard him during the time when I was PPS to the late Dick Crossman, at the time of the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, I know that this would be more than possible. No one can shut the right hon. Gentleman up since a guillotine motion on a constitutional, devolution Bill—if any-
2176
one were sufficiently ill-advised to introduce it—would not be passed by the House. I recommend my hon. Friends to add to their no doubt considerable reading list during the recess Janet Morgan's book on the study of the House of Lords under a Labour Government. I read from page 214:
"The long days and ghastly nights of the Committee Stage were the despair of the Government Whips."
Far more realistic is the opinion of the Government Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that a devolution Bill would take 28 days on the Floor of the House. I hope that Ministers concerned with devolution will make it clear to every Cabinet Minister—the Chancellor with his Finance Bill, the Secretary of State for Social Services with her pensions and social measures, the Secretary of State for the Environment with his rents legislation, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection with her counter-inflation legislation and all other Ministers who have cherished Bills and indeed, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who is interested in urgent legislation for the ports—that at least half of the 58 days available to a Government for legislation on the Floor of the House will be taken up with devolution legislation.
I hope, before any commitment is made in the Gracious Speech, that this will be made abundantly clear to every member of the Cabinet committed to legislation outlined in our manifesto and arising from it. I am not as negative as I sound. I believe in the devolution of decision making. Now that we have regions, let my right hon. and hon. Friends use their considerable imagination and energies to see that they work out for the good of the Scottish people.
9.38 p.m.
Mr. Iain Sproat: I congratulate hon. Members on the Nationalist benches on providing us with the opportunity to discuss this matter, although I am afraid that, as they will expect, I cannot congratulate them on very much else. I agree with them that this is an important matter which cannot be discussed too much. This is a good occasion to discuss it, although I must say that the Minister of State has rather

2177
thrown us into confusion by revealing that a devolution unit does not exist. Perhaps for the purpose of the debate we can use that phrase to cover whatever does exist.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: There has been long discussion in the hon. Gentleman's country about the Loch Ness monster. There is no evidence that it exists either. We should not, therefore, feel inhibited tonight.
Mr. Wyn Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you explain to me, as an interested party in this Consolidated Fund Bill debate—I have item No. 10 dealing with education in Wales—how we can continue to discuss the work of the devolution unit in the Lord President's Office when such a unit does not exist, as the Minister of State has confirmed now and in an earlier intervention?
Mr. Speaker: I have taken advice on this matter and am advised that it is in order.
Mr. Sproat: Perhaps I should make it clear to those who do not know that I think it is time to think again about the way in which we approach the matter of the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. We must be cautious about what we promise the Scottish and Welsh people, otherwise we could find ourselves saddled with a monster.
I put to the House two propositions which I believe to be indisputably true and damaging. The first is that the Assembly idea, in both the Conservative and Labour parties, arose mainly from a fear of what the SNP was doing in Scotland. If we look back at every Scottish Conservative conference where this matter has been debated, it can be seen that it is a widely held impression among supporters of the Conservative Party in Scotland that a rejection of the Assembly concept will lead to the success of the SNP. That is a fear which we should not feel. It is the sort of fear which does not produce the best attitude of mind in which to construct a policy.
The second indisputable proposition which I put to the House before going any further is that there is no doubt that within the Conservative Party, and within the Labour Party, there is considerable confusion about what is wanted. I see
2178
no reason for shame in admitting that. We are seeking to find the best possible solutions to the problems of government in Scotland.
I am not ashamed to say that I disagree with certain of my colleagues on questions of balance. We have already heard about such disagreement from the Labour benches. I hope that we do not allow this matter to become a party political dog-fight. I hope that we shall reject the cheap political slogans which the SNP may try to direct at anyone who disagrees with its point of view, which no doubt it will direct to hon. Members on either side of the House.
The result of the confusion is that both major parties have said "We shall set up an Assembly." The trouble is that they said it before they decided what should be done by the Assembly. That is indisputable. It is a very unsatisfactory position from which to start such a momentous constitutional move. I have a great respect for the Ministers who are concerned, but I very much fear that the tone of the White Paper and the manner in which the House approaches devolution could be adversely affected by whether the SNP does well or does badly.
I undertake that if in the week before we began the debate the SNP was massacred at a by-election, many hon. Members would approach the question in a different frame of mind. That is why I say that we have adopted a dangerous approach. There is the danger of over-reaction to the threat of the SNP as differentiated from the search for better government for Scotland, on which we all agree.
The element of fear and emotionalism has played too great a part in what has happened so far. If that is not so, how can we explain why we committed ourselves to a concept before we had time to define it? I fear that we are in danger of paying too much attention to tactical matters and not entering into long-term strategic thinking. We are in danger of over-reacting to a temporary phase in the political situation in Scotland. We are in danger of letting that approach gravely damage the longer-term constitutional position.
I believe, in common with all my hon. Friends, and no doubt in common with some Labour Members, that we should be

2179
searching for ways in which to devolve power away from London. I have repeatedly given credit—perhaps I can do so again tonight—to the Labour Party for siting the headquarters of the Offshore Supplies Office in Glasgow. Perhaps that shows that I am trying my best not to be biased. I give credit to the Labour Government for deciding that the headquarters of the BNOC should be situated in Scotland. I agree with that decision. This is a meaningful devolution of power away from the centre, and it is an excellent move.
I look for more ways in which that can be done. It may be that the answer lies in some kind of Assembly. I am not against devolution or, indeed, against any form of Assembly, but we suddenly find ourselves facing the most extraordinary notions which are becoming wilder and wilder. We have heard proposals to the effect that the economic control of Scotland should be vested in a Scottish Assembly and that there should be a separate Scottish Civil Service and, indeed, a Scottish Prime Minister. We are being pushed further and further down the slippery slope.
Before the White Paper is completed, this is surely the time to inject into the debate far more common sense and less emotion. We are tinkering with some momentous matters which affect the whole constitution of the United Kingdom. This is not the occasion to over-react to the situation. I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in his place. I am sure he will agree that there are many Tory voters in North Aberdeen who at the last election decided that they would vote for the SNP not because they wanted that party in power but because they thought it was the only way to get the hon. Gentleman out. I think that they were mistaken, but we all know that in various parts of Scotland the ranks of the SNP were swollen. I know that the Government must take these matters into account, but I believe that the question of devolution is getting out of control for reasons which are not justified.
I see many dangers in what we are now considering, and no doubt there will be many opportunities to go into those matters in detail. I wish to mention a number of the dangers. I believe that the United Kingdom, particularly
2180
Scotland, is in grave danger of being over-governed and that this has dangerous consequences. There are five different layers of government with five separate levels of bureaucracy. I refer to district councils, regional councils, the Scottish Assembly, the Houses of Parliament and the European Parliament. We are in grave danger of being choked and stifled by bureaucracy, and, indeed, impoverished by its cost. We are also in grave danger of being over-taxed. The Scottish people in recent months have seen soaring costs in local government and corresponding increases in the rates which they have had to bear. These costs are quite apart from the extra sums of money which we shall have to find to pay for the new Scottish Assembly. In Scotland, and no doubt in the rest of the United Kingdom, saturation point has been reached in the payment of rates and taxes.
Let us take one large area of expense, namely, the cost of the Civil Service. We have heard in this debate that the SNP sees a Scottish Civil Service as a stepping-stone to a Scottish Parliament. We have read about leaks from the Government on the powers they propose for the Scottish Assembly. I have no means of knowing how true or otherwise those rumours are, but obviously what is envisaged is a Scottish Assembly with its own Departments of State. There are over 700,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom. I am speaking now of Whitehall. I am not including those in the nationalised industries or local authorities. On a pro rata basis it is very difficult to see how a Scottish Assembly, with powers over trade, industry and economics, could be set up without at least 50,000 civil servants to service it. That is how I see it on the basis of the leaks that come out, especially from the Scottish National Party. An extra 50,000 Scottish civil servants would be necessary.
There are those who ask whether a new Civil Service would be needed. If a Scottish Assembly were to be set up, it is quite impossible to imagine that the same Civil Service could serve the Secretary of State for Scotland and also a Scottish Assembly. The leader of a Scottish Assembly would very likely be a Labour man—I look forward to the time, incidentally, when we shall have

2181
a Conservative Secretary of State—but this question does not depend on party. I am sure that the present Secretary of State for Scotland would find it absolutely intolerable to have the same civil servants serving him as were serving a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, there would have to be a new and separate Scottish Civil Service.
The cost of those 50,000 civil servants, on the basis of Whitehall, would be an extra £150 million a year on the overburdened taxpayers of this country for salaries alone. There are also many other costs to consider, especially those of running an Assembly. It costs £8 million a year to run the House of Commons. If we added up all these extra sums, the resulting burden upon the people of Scotland would, I am convinced, prove to be intolerable.
Mr. Hector Monro: My hon. Friend is taking the extreme case in his argument. Will he consider taking a more practical line and envisage an Assembly which would basically deal with most of the legislation which we would like to see going through this House in relation to Scotland? Would he not feel that that was more practical than his present theory?
Mr. Sproat: I was dealing not with my hon. Friend's ideas which may be very good, but with those emanating from the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman, and from Labour Members and SNP Members. If their ideas were to be put into practice, a separate Civil Service would be required.
I take my hon. Friend's point, but I do not find that the extra burdens in this House are caused by extra Scottish legislation or that this is what makes my life here so congested. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned the Clayson Committee. The reason why its report has not been debated more fully is not that we have not the time to do so but that, as has been said, people have different reactions to it. Similarly in the case of Scottish divorce law, in regard to which I have been campaigning, the difficulty has not been in making time for it but because for various reasons the Government do not believe in what some of us are trying to do.
Though I do not agree with it it is perfectly valid to say that there ought
2182
to be Private Members' legislation. I do not accept the argument, though it is a serious one, that the weight of Scottish legislation in this House is a formidable factor here. One of the findings of the Douglas-Home Report was that the amount of Scottish legislation going through this House was much smaller than people thought. I think that the figure was 150 Bills since 1945—most of them very trivial. I do not consider this to be a major factor in the equation, although I take my hon. Friend's point.
My third and last point concerns the dangers that I see. The proposals being put before the people of Scotland at this stage constitute, in my view, the slippery slope to separatism. For the first time in more than two and a half centuries, I believe that we are in grave danger of seeing an independent Scotland, and this is very serious. [Interruption.] It is typical of SNP Members to laugh at a statement like that. It is not a matter for amusement whether Scotland is independent or remains part of the United Kingdom. It is the most serious constitutional matter that we have discussed in this House for many years. But the laughter of SNP Members is typical of the hysterical and shallow approach that we see from them too often. Whether or not we are Scots, it behoves us to take a matter of this kind very seriously.
In my view, the policies of the Scottish National Party are based upon greed, selfishness and wilful misrepresentation. I use the word "greed" because it wants all the North Sea oil for Scotland. When it comes to the Selby coalfield, however, it does not say that all the coal there should remain in Yorkshire.
I ask the Minister of State to think very seriously about this matter. Those who want most desperately to achieve independence are those who believe most strongly that a Scottish Assembly ultimately will achieve that independence. There are other countries which run perfectly happily with a federalist system. A good example is Bavaria. But there is the world of difference between Bavaria, which is part of a country with all the drive that we have seen since the German states were united and where the political dynamism has been towards the centre in a country which is prosperous, expanding and confident, and giving away devolution in a country like the United

2183
Kingdom, where unfortunately we are not expanding, not prosperous and not confident. It may be that 20 years ago we could have done it much more easily than now. It may be true that in 20 years' time it will be possible to do it, but this is no time to be considering rash experiments in devolution.
I believe, too, that the future of the United Kingdom depends very much on what we can achieve in Europe. I want to see the United Kingdom remaining in Europe, with the maximum effort of our 55 million people going there. I do not want to see the United Kingdom divided in a way which will diminish and dilute our influence in Europe and in the wider world. We should be very anxious about this matter, especially because it is my own political belief that at the next General Election we shall see the Scottish National Party massacred.
9.58 p.m.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I wish to turn to the subject of Wales. For that reason I shall not take up in great detail what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, save only to say that had the Conservative Party given serious thought to this matter, as he suggested just now, when the Crowther-Kilbrandon Commission was sitting, and had it given serious evidence and thought out the situation, its members would not now be trying to scratch round for a policy at the eleventh hour before this eventuality comes about.
As for Wales and devolution, there has been a saga in recent years. The Labour Party has wasted no opportunity recently to point out that it has supported the concept of devolution since 1955. Some Government supporters will recall how in distant years their party supported full self-government for Wales. That was when they were only aspiring to power. The concept disappeared rapidly afterwards. Since 1965, however, in the modern era of the Labour Party in Wales, its members have supported the concept of an elected council for Wales. Between 1966 and 1970 there were discussions about this in the Cabinet. The Labour Party gave evidence to the Crowther Commission and later to the Kilbrandon Commission supporting the idea of an elected council for Wales. The party went into the 1974 election giving assurances that
2184
the necessary work was in hand. It gave pledges in the October election to the effect that the Labour Party stood for bringing real and meaningful devolution to Wales and intended to give Wales a National Assembly with real powers that would have an impact on the life of Wales.
What has happened since then? Since last October all the promises and the momentum that was built up over six short months when there was a certainty of an early election have suddenly fizzled out. There has been little movement since the White Paper was brought out shortly before the election. We do not know what the Government's intentions have been over the past 16 months, and we certainly do not know what they have accomplished in terms of work. We had a discussion document, a White Paper, and I understand that another White Paper will be brought out in October. We have all the discussions and all the talk, but the substance of devolution seems just as far away today as it was 16 months ago.
I ask the Minister why the White Paper that is promised for October was not brought out before the Summer Recess. If his right hon. Friends have had 16 months to work on it as a Government and 10 years to work on it as a party, surely by now they have sorted out the essential details. Surely their constitutional experts have sorted out the intricate problems which are taking so long to be rationalised. All the matters that are pertinent to the White Paper could have been published now. We should have had the summer to discuss the White Paper and then the legislation could have been brought forward in October or November. Instead, we shall suffer further delays.
If the matter is as complex and as detailed as the Minister says, requiring a great deal of time, shall we not then hear the argument that we shall need weeks and months to have discussions and feedback on the White Paper before we have the legislation? Is this not just another step in the slower and slower process towards an eventual goal which I do not believe the Government have any intention of achieving?
I submit that a White Paper could and should have been published this month. This is a political delaying tactic. In the

2185
unlikely eventuality that the White Paper will appear on time in October, I wonder whether we shall have legislation through during the next parliamentary year and whether the Government will commit themselves—given the deep division on their own benches, not to mention the divisions in the Conservative Party—to getting the legislation through Parliament during the next Session. Or is it the fact that in their hearts they know—this is the reason for the delay—that they do not have the confidence or the solidarity of a party determined to put this issue into real substance? I suspect that the truth is that the Labour Party is so split on this issue that it knows that it cannot carry it through this House and, therefore, it is trying to play for time until the next election.
The sooner the next election comes, the better it will be for Wales and for the people of Scotland, because then they will have an opportunity to give their judgment on the delays that the Government have shown with this measure.
The Labour Party won the last election, and indeed the previous one, with a pledge on devolution. It makes one wonder what Labour's words mean now. We have witnessed U-turns in Europe and U-turns on wage freezes and industrial policy in Ebbw Vale and Shotton. Is this yet one more somersault? Is this another broken promise which the people of Scotland and Wales will have to suffer? The tragedy is that in all matters affecting Wales the Assembly could be playing a meaningful role if it had the necessary powers to get stuck into the problems. We have economic problems as well as problems of unemployment and low wages. There are problems facing the steel and agriculture industries in Wales. We need an Assembly to tackle and solve those problems. We do not want it as an airy-fairy ideal. We want it as a tool to do the job, because the job needs to be done.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I should like to raise a question of importance which concerns all hon. Members who are trying to take a constructive part in the debate. The Scottish National Party wants to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. Is it the policy of Plaid Cymru to take Wales out of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Wigley: It is the policy of my party to give Wales the maximum possible degree of self-government. We need that self-government. [Interruption.] It means going further than the devolution about which we are talking today. We have never tried to hide that.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: Would the hon. Gentleman define the maximum possible degree of self-government as what most of us would call independence?
Mr. Wigley: I personally reject the term "independence". I do not believe that any country today is totally independent.
Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)rose—
Mr. Wigley: The United Kingdom is determined to have its own Parliament and process for passing its own laws at Westminster. That does not mean that it cannot play a role in the international sphere at the United Nations or in such organisations as the EEC. That is not necessarily a separatist policy.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wigley: No, I will not. It is not a separatist policy. The United Kingdom is part of an economic unit called Europe. It is not economic separatism to retain a Parliament in London. The same applies in the context of a fully-self-governing Wales or Scotland. Those two countries can also be members of a greater economic unit. If Labour Members cannot see that point, they have more thinking to do than they have done on this issue.
In all things to do with Wales at this time, the Government have created delay after delay. We have had delay with the annual report of the Welsh Office on affairs in Wales. We are still waiting for it. We have had delay in the taking of action on the Daniel Committee's report which is in the hands of the Secretary of State. It still has not been published. There has been delay in the implementation of the Bowen Report. That was published two years ago, but there has been no action on it.
There has been delay on the recomendations of the Crawford Report. We are still waiting for the Government to take

2187
action. In all directions we have had delay. We have had plenty of empty words but no action. This is a Government of inaction, of platitudes and of procrastination. They will grasp no nettle and will not seriously hold to any problem.
The Government's policy in this context is cosmetic. This is a cosmetic exercise not only in the lack of powers which have been proposed but in the timescale. I believe that, however well-meaning Ministers may be, they are tied down by the soft belly of the Labour Party at Cabinet level. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for the Environment are slowing down the process. They do not want to be tied to the promises given by the Labour Party at the election. If we had an election in Wales now, I believe that the false prospectus which they issued at the last election would cost them dearly.
The Government are doing a disservice to everyone because of the uncertainty regarding devolution. This is a disservice to local government in Wales which does not know which functions might be taken from it. The intention of having a Welsh Council, not a Parliament, will inevitably lead to some centralisation as well as decentralisation.
There is uncertainty about the Welsh Development Agency. What will be its relationship with the Assembly? No one knows.
There is uncertainty about the democratisation of the health service in Wales. That is greatly needed. There is uncertainty about the implementation of the Water Act. We need real changes in the water industry.
All this delay is costing Wales valuable time. The people are suffering because
2188
they do not know when there will be any real action and what that action will contain. It is a tragedy for Wales because London, due to its economic bankruptcy, is incapable of sorting out our economic problems. Yet we shall not be given the power and the responsibility to get on with the job ourselves. If London cannot do the job, the least we ask is the power to have a go at doing it ourselves. I am sure that we can do no worse than is being done now.
It has been said that decentralisation by central direction is a contradiction. I suspect that central direction is the background to the delays in the programme for devolution. I do not believe that the Government have their hearts in devolution. They do not want to see this transfer of power from London to Cardiff and Edinburgh. Wales will get only a modicum of meagre crumbs of self-determination when the Labour Party has suffered the dire electoral consequences which it deserves to suffer for delays over this issue.
There are signs that this is already happening in Wales. The local elections in Glamorgan and Monmouth have shown losses to Plaid Cymru. That pattern will continue and be reflected at the next General Election. Wales has been faithful to the Labour Party for far too long and the disillusionment it suffered from 1966 to 1970 is being repeated. Once again a Labour Government are going back on promise after promise. A Labour Government are following Tory policies, and it is no better for us in Wales to have a Labour Party with such policies than it is for us to have a Tory Government. We have no interest in keeping in power a Government of words and not action. If there is no change in this outlook, the best solution for Wales and Scotland would be the earliest possible General Election and a new Government.
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I would only say to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley)—better cosmetics than the ugly face of separatism which he and his fellows represent.
He was clearly in difficulties when trying to define the constitutional position of his party in relation to Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. In fairness to him, he is not wholly a member of the folk-lore wing of his party. He has had some experience in industry, but his party has talked recently of separatism for Wales with the country having all the trappings of sovereignty including seats at the United Nations and in the EEC and as many of the trappings of an independent State as feasible. The hon. Member for Caernarvon has said that delays would not be acceptable. I believe that delays would not only be acceptable but desirable, if anything produced to this House had the possibility of developing into the sort of Assembly that the hon. Member for Caernavon and his hon. Friends would like to see. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would want delay if there were any potential in the Government's proposals for development into that sort of Assembly. I have every confidence that there will be no such potential.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon said that Wales had been good to the Labour Party. It is fair to say that the Labour Party has been good to Wales. The hon. Member gave the Labour Party credit for recent constitutional developments in Wales. We established the office of Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, fulfilling an election pledge, and the distinguished first holder of the office was Mr. James Griffiths. There have been successive additions to the powers and responsibilities of the Secretary of State with the process developing by trial and error. Additional responsibilities have been given as the Secretary of State and the Civil Service have appeared capable of taking them on. These developments were continued to some extent by the Conservative Party and this evolutionary process continued on 1st July this year when the Government handed over additional industrial and economic powers. All this has been a natural development
2190
in accordance with the normal way the British constitution has developed.
Some of us fear that the Welsh Assembly, which may have responsibility over a whole range of the Secretary of State's present responsibilities, may be a totally new dimension and outside the sensible process of development which we have seen since the inception of the Welsh Office in 1964. Such developments would be wrong and unwelcome.
I was born and brought up in Wales and I represent a Welsh constituency. There are two broad approaches to the question of an Assembly. There is one starting point, which is that Wales is a nation. It must have all the attributes of statehood, a separate Parliament and a seat at the United Nations, which the hon. Member's colleagues talk about. It seems that this is somehow necessary because of the inherent nationhood of Wales, whatever may or may not be the benefits to the Welsh people of that starting point.
There are others whose approach is radically different, whose concern is rather with the better governance of Wales and who ask themselves under which constitutional system the well-being of the people in Wales would be best preserved and enhanced. The answer to that second question may be some form of Assembly, and I think that it is. But the responsibilities devolved upon that Assembly, and the growth potential within that Assembly derived from the second approach, will be radically different from the first.
Let those who, possibly for romantic reasons, dally with the separatists beware. They remind me in some way of those liberal French aristocrats before the revolution about whom one percipient observer said, "Those who are playing with the flames will one day be devoured by them", and they were, and mightily so.
The relationship of the separatists with those romantics who sit with them is rather like the relationship of some people in the so-called Popular Fronts who dally with members of the Communist Party but who know very well that at the first practical opportunity they and their policies will be ditched. That is a risk

2191
of which people should be very well aware.
My fear is that for some—the SNP has said this openly and frankly—the Assembly is only the half-way house on the way to separatism. Let those of us who do not believe in separatism take this fact to our own hearts and consider how far we are prepared to go along this road with them and co-operate with them, knowing that what they desire is radically different from our own aims.
There are more practical sides to devolution. I had not intended to participate in the debate, but seeing the serried ranks of separatists on the Opposition benches I thought that rather than permit a separatist feast it would be helpful to have a representative from a party which can claim to be the Welsh party, and not just from a party which did not have but 10 per cent. of the total Welsh vote in two General Elections in 1974 and which had its views on Europe radically repudiated in the referendum.
Mr. Buchan: So were the views of the Labour Party, I regret.
Mr. Anderson: Not the views of my Government or the views of the majority of moderate opinion in this country. In so far as one can draw any conclusions about recent political trends, I ask the hon. Member for Caernarvon to look carefully at his own county of Gwynedd and to see how the views of his party on Europe were so substantially repudiated by his own people in the referendum.
Mr. Wigley: The hon. Member may be aware that I was in some disagreement with my party on that issue. In my county of Gwynedd I recommended a "Yes" vote and a "Yes" vote was cast. No doubt the hon. Member will interpret that vote as a growth in the influence of Plaid Cymru in the area.
Mr. Anderson: It is always difficult to take up this issue with the hon. Gentleman. I do not want to embarrass him because I fear that he is not beyond redemption.
In relation to the reaction in Wales to the question of an Assembly, by chance I received a letter from my city council
2192
dated 18th July signed by the town clerk, Mr. Rees. It states:
"I am directed by my Council to draw to your attention their concern over the proposed setting up of a Welsh Assembly. The Council are critical of additional expenditure being incurred on these proposals during the present economic situation."
That sentiment, which I expect is held by both sides of my city council, will find a ready echo in all parts of Wales. I see that the spokesman for the Opposition agrees. Apart from the point made about priorities in Government time in the next Session and the need to accommodate all other Bills within that period, the concern of our people about escalating public expenditure both at central and local government level is one to which the Government should pay close heed at present.
My city council is concerned only with the present proposals of the White Paper for an executive Assembly in Wales as opposed to the legislative Assembly proposed for Scotland. The question has to be asked whether the executive Assembly as proposed for Wales is a real stopping place or whether there will be irresistible pressures by those who have an empire-building syndrome or who hold the view that all our problems can be solved by a Welsh Assembly to proceed to the next stage. I can visualise the arguments as the vested interests start arming and pushing us further along that road, possibly to eventual separatism.
Lack of enthusiasm has been mentioned, and a point has been raised about the cross-voting in Aberdeen. Certainly in a number of Welsh constituencies there was a degree of voting in favour of an anti-Labour coalition. The obvious example is Carmarthen, which distorted the Nationalists' success at the 1974 election. There is a danger that the Government will introduce proposals at a time after what appears to be a tide for devolution has passed and the Government's proposals will be stranded, as if on a sandbank.
In February this year the Leader of the House said that the great devolution debate was over and that he wanted us to discuss just the nuts and bolts, whether there should be dual representation, the size of constituencies and so on. It is sad that there has not been a wider

2193
debate in Parliament because of the constitutional implications involved.
The Leader of the House gave the impression, to me at least, that the Government had only just woken up to the complexities and the constitutional intricacies of the issues—they were sleep-walking in a constitutional minefield—and the impression was that while having this Welsh Assembly one could still preserve intact all the existing constitutional structures; we could have our Welsh Assembiy and still have Welsh local government in exactly the same form after reorganisation. There must be a large question mark over whether one can at the same time have a Welsh Assembly, the larger county councils after reorganisation, the district councils and the community councils. We must be prepared for yet another local government upheaval as a result of a Welsh Assembly. That is one of the delusions under which I fear the Government are currently labouring.
Another delusion is that this House can continue in exactly the same way following devolution to a Welsh Assembly. My view is that if the Assembly—first at the executive level, and later at the legislative level—takes over those areas of policy currently overseen by the Secretary of State, there will be relatively little left for the representatives of Welsh constituencies here in Parliament. Certainly what may be called the welfare rôle of Members of Parliament will be taken away—that is, those things which we meet every weekend in our surgeries, where the shoe really pinches on our people, health services, education and so on.
This Parliament will be pulled in two directions. On the one hand, the broad range of welfare functions closest to our people will be taken away from here and we shall find it more difficult to question the Secretary of State. On the other level, macro-economic and foreign policy questions may well increasingly flow to Brussels. So we shall have a two-way split, pulling power away in two directions.
There will inevitably be pressures for lower representation from Wales at Westminster. Conservatives may well welcome this. As a Socialist I find it an alarming prospect, possibly condemning England to
2194
eternal Conservative Governments. But it is clear that there are profound implications for this House and for the work of this House as the process of devolution continues.
One is bound to be reminded of the rôle of the Ulster Unionists in the House. When I was first in Parliament, from 1966 to 1970, they were neither fish nor fowl. They were clearly not accepted in Northern Ireland. They were swept away on a tide in the late 1960s and early 1970s. They were not accepted in this place. Indeed, their presence here was resented when there was a Government with a small majority and their votes appeared to have some importance. Not one Ulster Unionist attained any significant office during the whole time that I recall, although I think that Mr. Chichester-Clark was Minister of State at the Department of Employment. But no other Ulster Unionist achieved a high governmental office.
Hon. Members should contrast that with the rôle played by Welshmen in this Parliament over the ages. We have had our Prime Minister in Lloyd George. We currently have the Foreign Secretary representing a Welsh seat. We have a large number of Welshmen in the Cabinet, holding superior offices—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Mr. Speaker."] It was with a certain modesty that I thought I should not mention Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was just wondering where the expatriates came in.
Mr. Anderson: There must be an answer to that, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot think of it off the cuff.
It is clear that as a result of our integration into the United Kingdom we in Wales, at a personal level, have been able to play a most significant rôle in this Parliament. One has to ask whether the career structures and the possibilities for our own people will be the best that are possibly conceivable if the process of devolution continues. There is the personal level, but that is not the important thing from the point of view of the people of Wales. The real question is about the power when decisions are made which affect the well-being of Wales.
As a result of devolution and of more power flowing to Cardiff, will there be the real weight for Wales at Cabinet

2195
level, where for the foreseeable future the decisions which vitally affect our people will be made? On certain models of devolution, that weight will not be there and would be seriously threatened in the future.
I could continue. I was thinking of following the line taken by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and discussing transport policy and education policy in my constituency. Smokescreens have issued from the devolution unit, or constitution unit, which were alarming from the point of view of those who, like myself, prefer a more evolutionary approach. It has been said that the Government's proposals will be in favour of devolution at every turn. There is a danger that if education were devolved to Wales the decisions would be made on a narrow and parochial basis. The Welsh have traditionally trained more teachers than they need, although many of their people attended colleges of education outside Wales. If the education budget were under the control of a Welsh Assembly, there would be a danger that the Assembly would adopt a parochial view and endeavour to produce teachers simply for the needs of Wales. [Interruption.]
Mr. William Hamilton: Order. Let the man speak.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is for the Chair to call for order.
Mr. Anderson: There is a danger that if decisions were taken on a parochial basis there would be a more separatist outlook on education, about which such an attitude should not exist.
There are smoke signals coming from that devolution unit. However, I have every confidence in the Secretary of State and the Government. Those smoke signals do not belie the true facts. When the White Paper, or the White Paper with green edges, is produced, its proposals will follow the evolutionary tradition, which I favour. It would be unfortunate if the Government, like generals, looked over their shoulders and found that the troops were not following. I am sure that sensible proposals will eventually be produced, as the Government are aware—as are the people of Wales—that the
2196
important decisions will be taken in Westminster and Whitehall. The voice of the Welsh people must be heard strongly here. There is a case for an Assembly to bring under control the all-Welsh ad hoc bodies dealing with subjects such as water and health, which have proliferated in the past. On that limited basis many of us accept the need for devolution. Beyond that we have considerable doubts. The debate about the constitutional implications of devolution has not yet begun either in this House or in the country.
10.34 p.m.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Our Scottish colleagues must be a little worried by the evident absence of rancour which prevails between the Welsh Members of Parliament speaking on this issue. It is explained by the fact that, unlike the situation in Scotland, Plaid Cymru represents no conceivable threat to either of the two major parties, except possibly in a few rotten boroughs in the heart of Labour South Wales.
I propose to follow the two highly intelligent, if perhaps somewhat lengthy, speeches from Government back-bench Members in being unreservedly critical of the Gadarene rush towards devolution. My remarks concern only Wales. I shall not venture to express any views about devolution in Scotland, although many of my reasons for opposing devolution in the Welsh context must hold good for the United Kingdom.
Despite my earlier remarks, I have a high regard for those representatives of Plaid Cymru who are present in the House. They at least believe in what they say. In that they differ from the Labour Party, which in this matter has followed a most inglorious policy of flying from what is supposed to be a terrible enemy and is now in the humiliating posture of abject flight from something which it is not sure exists at all.
The Kilbrandon Commission was set up at a time when nationalism appeared to be an almost irresistible force. It seemed only common prudence to give some ground to it. The commission's report represents the confused reactions of a large number of highly intelligent men who, confronted with something which they reckoned had to be given way to, produced a series of uneasy compromises, none of which commanded any

2197
enthusiasm from the members of the commission as a whole and few of which have been received with enthusiasm by any organised group of people outside.
By the time the commission came to report, the steam was already going out of nationalism. By now the balloon is totally flat. It may revive, particularly if European union becomes a reality, as I ardently hope it will. If we had a European political union there might be a great deal more to be said for far-reaching, extensive devolution. Political devolution makes no sense in a political unit the size of the United Kingdom. It might make much more sense in a political unit the size of Europe. Whether we are talking of Europe or only of the United Kingdom, the one certainty is that the people do not want it.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden) put this and kindred issues very clearly in the remarkable speech he made in yesterday's debate on the Employment Protection Bill when he said that democracy was a matter of counting heads—one man, one vote. He went on to say that there was another view of democracy and that it is
"active participation by the concerned. Active participation by the concerned is a valuable asset, but it is not democracy—it has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. Often active participation by the concerned is the very reverse of democracy because frequently what the concerned want is not what the majority want."—[Official Report, 30th July 1975; Vol 896, c. 1855.]
That is true of the nationalist movement in Wales and perhaps also in Scotland. There has to be far more evidence than we have seen so far, and certainly far more evidence than is provided by a few by-elections in a few rotten boroughs, that people want devolution as opposed to telling the Labour Government what they think of them.
We need far more evidence that people are happy to bear the additional cost of the salaries of what in Wales are to be called senators, and the salaries of the officials who will be required to service this new body. We should like to be enlightened about this non-existent unit and to hear from the Minister the latest thinking about whether there is to be a separate Civil Service in both Scotland and Wales to service the Assemblies.
2198
We need more evidence that people are happy to bear the soaring costs of constructing what will have to be a purpose-built building to house the Assembly. It is clearly unthinkable that anything so radical, new and innovatory should be housed in an adapted building. Against all this expense—not a conjectural expense, but a certain, costed expense—must be set the alleged benefits of bringing government closer to the people, of getting people more involved, of getting the active participation of the concerned.
I do not think anybody can seriously argue that any of the half-hearted compromises put forward by the Kilbrandon Commission, and now being considered by the Government, will do anything to enlist the active participation of the concerned. I doubt whether anything short of the total independence which the Scottish National Party overtly, and Plaid Cymru are little more carefully, are demanding would do that. I doubt whether anything bringing in its train hardship, suffering and the need to stand together against a hostile world will enlist the active participation of the concerned. If it did, it would enlist it at a material price which few would be prepared to pay.
Mr. Buchan: The minority Kilbrandon Report approached the matter from a different direction, which might involve this kind of active participation without the necessity of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. That is the emphasis on democracy. That was the kernel of the minority report, and it impinges on what the hon. Gentleman is saying, as being the means of achieving active participation.
Sir A. Meyer: That is a valid point, but the minority report, although it put its finger on the problem very accurately, did not come up with a set of institutional answers which would have given material satisfaction to the feelings which it correctly identified.
The plain fact is that the people of Wales, as of the other parts of the United Kingdom, are hopelessly over-governed. There are already far too many civil servants, both national and local. As the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the proportion of

2199
administrators being carried by industry is reaching a level at which it entails serious inefficiency and a great deal of discontent. These civil servants, local and national, are being carried on the backs of the ratepayer and the taxpayer.
The situation has become considerably worse since the measure of local government reform, which was the worst mistake made by the previous Government. The new counties and districts, although bigger, are no more economical than the old. There is as much overlap between county and district as there was between the old counties and the old boroughs, nowhere more evident than in planning, where the lunatic decision was taken to transfer planning down to the districts.
The new councils, larger and allegedly more efficient, have spawned beneath them, in Wales at any rate, a whole new layer of community councils, each with its own mayor, chain of office and annual civic dinner, all to be paid for, directly or indirectly, by the ratepayer. On top of all this, it is proposed that we should have the new and even more expensive layer of a Welsh National Assembly.
If there had to be a change—and I would very much have preferred that there should not be—if it was really necessary to give institutional expression to nationalism, which is apparently so irresistible, I would have settled for the abolition of the new, enlarged counties and their combination into a single Welsh regional authority. That authority would have the powers now enjoyed by the county councils. At least administratively from the point of view of cost this would have been a tolerable solution, although I do not pretend for one minute that it would have gone any way to satisfy the urge for national expression.
At least it would have provided some kind of focus without actually breaking up the United Kingdom and it might, temporarily at any rate, have taken some of the steam out of devolution until such time as, as has now happened, devolution lost its own steam anyway. This solution has been rejected, but it may happen the other way round and we may find that if we set up a Welsh National Assembly and it gets into its stride it will be the county councils which will wither away and find themselves losing their functions to the
2200
Assembly at Cardiff. It is for that reason that the initial enthusiasm of some of the leading people in local government in Wales for the idea of a Welsh National Assembly has lately shown considerable signs of waning.
The ship of state is being launched on a wave which is already receding. It is not a swelling tide. If we commit ourselves irrevocably to this course of action we shall, I fear, be repeating without having learnt it the lesson so clearly set out by Professor Parkinson in that immortal work of his when he said:
"Examples abound of new institutions coming into existence with a full establishment of deputy directors, consultants, and executives, all these coming together with a building specially designed for their purpose. And experience proves that such an institution will die. It is choked by its own perfections. It cannot take root for lack of soil. It cannot grow naturally for it is already grown. Fruitless by its very nature it cannot even flower. When we see an example of such planning—when we are confronted with examples by the building designed for the United Nations"—
and no doubt later editions of "Parkinson's Law" will say:
"when we are confronted by the building designed for the Welsh Assembly the experts among us shake their heads sadly, draw a sheet over the corpse, and tiptoe quietly into the open air."
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: May I say on behalf of my hon. Friends on the Scottish National bench how much we welcome all those who have joined with us in this debate and discussed, however widely, the remit and functions of the devolution unit, whether or not it exists. Certainly we know that the office of the Lord President is entrusted with certain constitutional functions which are costing certain sums of money. It is therefore under that pretext, if I can call it that—a sound pretext—that we are considering the work of this unit.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: Can we clear up this terminological point? I do not want to be a bore but the Constitution Unit, which is the proper name, is in the Cabinet Office and not in the Privy Council Office.
Mr. Buchan: Why is Harold not here?
Mr. Wilson: I agree with the remarks so ably put by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). Unfor-

2201
tunately we cannot seem to tempt the Prime Minister into this House on any pretext these days. I am glad to hear that not only do we now have one body which is working on the constitution but that we apparently have two bodies. Perhaps it is because we have two that they have been twisted with each other and we cannot get anything out in terms of a definitive White Paper which says exactly what the Government intend.
This debate is not taking place in a vacuum. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) should be aware that in Scotland at least—I cannot speak for Wales—there is a substantial volume of opinion in all parties, including ours, in favour of the maximum legislative devolution. It is true that in some parties a split is developing on the nature of the Assembly and on whether there should be an Assembly at all.
I cannot understand why such a split should be developing within the Labour Party. As I read its manifesto, it was clear that it was committed to devolution in the form of an elected Assembly for Scotland. I would have thought that any Member elected on that basis would have grave difficulties in arguing himself out of the position adopted in the manifesto.
I do not think it is right for the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to suggest that all the votes representing devolution or self-government would go to my colleague Mr. William Wolfe, the chairman of my party. When considering devolution and self-government we must also bear in mind party loyalties. That has been reflected in the polls in the past. Leaving aside the position of the SNP in West Lothian, it is for the hon. Gentleman to establish his viewpoint in the light of the Labour Party's manifesto commitment, which he undertook to uphold when he became a candidate for the Labour Party at the last election. We must also bear in mind the comment which the Lord President made about the meeting he attended in West Lothian at which devolution was discussed.
As for the Conservative Party, I think that we have heard only the views of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), someone who is against devolution.
Mr. Sproat: I am not against devolution.
Mr. Wilson: We know that there are others in the Conservative Party who are in favour of a Scottish Assembly. Maybe we shall hear some contributions from them at a later stage.
In many ways the Conservative Party in Scotland tends to resemble a dismasted drifting hulk. All sorts of views emanate from the Conservatives at present. I am not sure whether that is because they are in a state of confusion or whether they are reconsidering their whole existence.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman will accept that a number of different views are held by those in the Conservative Party, but does he not accept that that is the position in his own party?
Mr. Wilson: I have not noticed any opposition on the part of my hon. Friends on this score. The hon. Gentleman should be satisfied with the divisions in his own ranks without trying to create divisions elsewhere.
I welcome the White Paper which is being promised for the second week in October. That is a small march forward. At least the Government are now committed to a definite date for a White Paper. I only hope that it will be much more solid in content and material than have been other productions from the Lord President's office, if I may steer my way through all the terminological divisions of the constitutional work that is done by Her Majesty's Government.
Certainly there has been much slow work. Many of the opinions being expressed within the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in Scotland on this issue would suggest a wish to restrict any powers that an Assembly might possess. There is a degree of disquiet developing among many folk about the Government's intentions. There are certain powerful figures in the Government who may be intent upon stultifying or negativing the work of the Lord President's Department. There have been enough reports in the Press to that effect, although I accept that we cannot trust everything we read in the papers. However, the frequency of such reports suggests that there must be a germ of truth in them somewhere. If the

2203
Minister can give some information to help the House to clarify the matter and to allay disquiet on the nature of the Assembly being proposed by the Government, that would be welcome.
I put two specific questions to the Minister relating to the functions which I hope he might see fit to have transferred to the Scottish Assembly. My first question concerns energy policy. Clearly Scotland occupies a position that is quite different from other parts of the United Kingdom in that it will soon be an energy-exporting country. The policies of energy-exporting countries are very different from those adopted by countries which have to import energy. I should like to see this aspect coming under the control of the Scottish Assembly.
With regard to coal, it is perfectly true that the Selby coalfield has been discovered in England, and we are perfectly happy about it on this bench. We would welcome the prospect of oil being discovered off the English coast, because we do not wish England to suffer, just as we do not wish Scotland to suffer. There is no reason why, from our surplus, we should not be able to buy coal from England at the market price, just as we could sell oil to England at the market price.
It is sensible for any country, in considering its energy policy, to deploy whatever investment capital is available towards alternative energy sources. There have been recent reports of fairly substantial coal seams extending under the Forth. These would have to be explored further and decisions taken on the nature of the investment which would follow. Were these seams to be as rich and worth while as has been suggested, I am sure that the Scottish Assembly would wish to devote funds to this development.
Mr. Dalyell: The Kinneil Valleyfield exploration underneath the Forth is exceedingly expensive. Frankly that kind of experiment has to be financed out of the proceeds of the English coal industry.
Mr. Wilson: If Scotland had resources from other forms of energy, and if it was politic to continue with experiments
2204
of that sort and to exploit the energy resources of Scotland in the long-term sense, it would be wise to do so. My point here is that in relation to that policy, whatever the political implications, it should be a Scottish Assembly that would look at the investment which might be made in relation to energy.
In the electricity industry there are two boards in Scotland which are presently under the control of the Secretary of State for Scotland and which, I suggest, should come under much closer scrutiny by the Scottish Assembly. I find myself quite frustrated frequently, in finding out information about the boards, that they are not always under parliamentary surveillance. This is a point which is made frequently. It was certainly made in the Committee considering the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, of which I was a member for some time. Members of Parliament want to be able to ask Questions on the nationalised industries more effectively than is the case at present. I hope that the unit, under whatever name it now has, will consider this question of energy in its full sense. It would be sensible for all these things to be co-ordinated.
I should like to see the nuclear generating capability of Scotland examined in greater detail, because I am rather worried about some of the present trends. I should like to have these matters debated and discussed, and the Scottish Assembly would be the ideal place for this.
The second function which I should like to see sent to the Assembly is the reform of domestic legislation. I recognise that probably the Government cannot make a statement on this here and now. When I questioned the Lord Advocate three weeks ago he gave an answer which was very cagey about the law reform possibilities of the Assembly, and I think I know his reason for it. He did not wish to step into territory which is the property of the Minister who is to reply to this debate. Will be now confirm, however, that in terms of legislation it is the Government's intention that law reform in Scotland on matters like those dealt with by Clayson, registration of title, which is vital, the conveyancing system, divorce, reparation, bankruptcy and so on would all be able to go to the Assembly and be processed there? I think it would be

2205
a natural extension of the functions of the Assembly that it should be able to deal with the indigenous legal system of Scotland.
I say a word about costs. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that the regions were costing a great deal of money and that he did not wish to see this form of profligacy repeated. I agree with him. I believe that the regions themselves should go. That in itself would lead to simplification. Unless I be taxed with the retort that this is a quick view of the Scottish National Party, I might point out that we have maintained all along that Scotland should be organised on rural and urban districts—allpurpose authorities. We opposed the building up of the regions because we could see the empire-building which was likely to occur.
Mr. J. Grimond: I am very interested in this. Is the hon. Gentleman say that it is his party's policy that the regions should go totally? This is very important. I am one of those who think that Scotland is hopelessly over-governed and that some tier has to go. But are the Members of the hon. Gentleman's party clear that it is the regions which have to disappear—lock, stock and barrel?
Mr. Wilson: Yes, and that is consistent with the view which we propounded to Wheatley. It is also consistent with the view which we put to this House more than a year ago that the new regions should not come into existence and that they should be frozen until the work of the unit had been completed. The way that the regions have developed and the way that costs and rates have escalated do not give us cause to change that view. We should have preferred to see more ad hoc bodies. Once structures are erected with rating powers, automatically they build up in manpower as well as in power itself.
We hear a great deal of talk about the cost of devolution and about the increase in the number of civil servants which will result. We should be thinking more not of building up new Departments in Scotland but of transferring them. Scotland already meets its share of the costs of the United Kingdom Civil Service. If central Government functions are transferred,
2206
that should lead to simplification and not to an increase in the number of civil servants. I for one would want to keep a keen eye on the effects of Parkinson's Law which says that offices expand to fill the opportunities available for them. Therefore, from the outset great care should be taken to ensure that in transferring real powers we do not go in for over-manning in the Civil Service.
When it comes to wasting money, someone should turn his attention to this place. I read a Parliamentary Answer today that the number of cars in the pool available for Ministers was about 220.
Mr. Grimond: No, it was 205.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Their cost was given at more than £1 million a year.
Mr. Grimond: The hon. Gentleman is wrong again. It was £1·25 million.
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman again. Then we have the garage downstairs. I used it for the first time this week. I had never penetrated it before. I was astonished to discover that it goes down five storeys—I hasten to add that I have not been that far down, but I notice that the lifts go down five floors. Unless the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) happens to know, I am afraid that I cannot say what the cost of that was. It must have amounted to millions of pounds. But such an edifice, if a massive hole in the ground can be called that, is a waste of money. I do not know what lunatic decisions were taken about it, but it was waste of the worst order.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: Does the hon. Member agree that even if his hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was not out of order in discussing during this debate the problems of MacBrayne's, he might be moving slightly out of order in referring to the lifts in this building?
Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who obviously seeks the chairmanship of one of the Committees of the House. I take the point, but time is moving on.
Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) will not complain if he finds that the playground

2207
of the Royal House is a bit small for all our cars.
Mr. Wilson: One of the advantages of Edinburgh is that walking might be appropriate. I either walk here or use the Underground. I am merely making the point that costs can escalate, and this must be borne in mind. If we have a Parliament which is overcrowded with business, as this one is, and where there are few controls over expenditure, we may waste a vast amount.
I turn to the EEC. In the few months left to it before it drafts its White Paper and comes back from its holiday, the unit must consider what the rôle of the Assembly will be with the EEC. Since the referendum the EEC has constituted an entirely new element in the political life of the United Kingdom as well as Scotland. Nothing will be the same again. As the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has rightly said—I am sorry he is not present this evening—it represents a transfer of sovereignty. There is a need for representation in the EEC, and this might include the Council of Ministers.
I was pleased to note in a reply from the Lord Advocate that he is playing a quite active rôle in Common Market matters concerning law reform. I hope that the Government will take into account the need for full Scottish representation on all Common Market bodies.
I wish to make an apology to the Minister because I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] I prefer to make an apology rather than slink off as some other hon. Members might do.
Mr. Rifkind: Why is the hon. Member not staying?
Mr. Wilson: Because I have to run some people home.
Mr. Rifkind: We all have to do that.
Mr. Wilson: I thought I was being polite to the Minister.
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Gentleman is an insult to the House.
Mr. Wilson: I shall look at the Minister's comments in the Official Report and study them with the greatest of interest.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I confess some surprise at the choice of the topic for debate, namely the work of the devolution unit. I hope that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and his colleagues will not think it remiss of me if I say that I did not think they were interested in devolution. As I understand it their policy, despite the difficulties which they sometimes encounter when the words "separatism" and "self-government" are used, has always been that they do not believe that devolution is an answer to Scotland's problems. If that is the case, they should not be surprised if I express some surprise that they should take such a close interest in the workings of the devolution unit.
The devolution unit is about devolution and not about independence. I am a little concerned about what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) said. I shall refer to him at this time because he may not be with us much longer. The hon. Gentleman continually says—he has done so on almost every occasion he has spoken, and certainly this week—that there is disquiet in the country and that the work of the devolution unit has been held up or slowed down for some reason or another.
My right hon. and hon. Friends the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Privy Council Office have repeatedly said over the past two or three months, or possibly longer, that the work of preparing the plans for devolution, the White Paper and eventually the Bill are on target and that there is no delay. Yet the hon. Member for Dundee, East, despite all the assurances that he is given, gets up and with authority—I do not know what his authority is, because he can presumably refer only to Press reports which feed upon his Questions to Ministers and statements—still continues to say that the work of the devolution unit is being held up. It is not being held

2209
up. The hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well. He is simply scare-mongering and trying to cause disquiet in the country.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: The hon. Gentleman may like to know that I intend to stay to hear the end of his speech. Did he not read the reports—admittedly in the Press, but that is the usual place where one reads reports—of the abortive conference at Chequers which was convened to discuss devolution? On the strength of those reports, does the hon. Member consider that the work of the devolution unit might have been impeded in the way I suggested?
Mr. Hughes: I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and other hon. Members appreciate that I am still bound by the Official Secrets Act. If I believed everything that I read in the Press concerning what happens either in this House or in the Government, I should be driven silly trying to make out what was going on. If the hon. Gentleman bases his authority on Press reports of what happens at Chequers, he is not doing his job properly as a Member of Parliament. He should base his authority not on anonymous or partly anonymous reports in the Scotsman, the Glasgow Herald or whatever paper it is, but on what my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench say on this question.
We must understand that the devolution unit has an enormously difficult task. For the first time in the history of this country, we are considering having a written constitution. Whereas one can re-write or make modifications to a written constitution, it is virtually impossible—not impossible, but difficult—to start to write a constitution. I am not aware of any previous exercise where a unitary parliamentary system has been changed into a devolutionary system with separate Parliaments, except following some cataclysmic event such as war, a serious uprising or other difficulty of that kind.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Norway and Sweden in 1906.
Mr. Hughes: They are not adequate comparisons.
We are beginning a serious constitutional matter of enormous complexity. Therefore, it is important to make up our
2210
minds where we are going. It is important, once we produce the plans, that the devolved Assembly should work. The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru must come clean with us on their approach to the Assembly. [Interruption.] I am not concerned about who is not here. I am concerned about the people who are here. If the hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) wishes to make a speech, I shall have the courtesy to stay and listen. Perhaps she will let me get on with my speech.
What is the Nationalists' approach to the Assembly? I apologise to the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) for missing his speech, but the approach of his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East was different from the SNP approach at elections and party rallies throughout Scotland. The Nationalists' close interest in what is happening in the devolution unit leads us to the conclusion that they believe that the Assembly will remain in operation for a number of years trying to tackle the enormous problems now facing Scotland. In the country, however, the SNP says that it wants independence and that nothing short of independence is good enough.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I must make this clear. We are faced with this conundrum whenever there is a debate on devolution. Our answer is quite straightforward and is on the record. We will take part in the Assembly and do our best to make it work. At the same time our aim is independence for Scotland, and we will be fully entitled to press for that even after the Assembly is set up.
Mr. Hughes: I do not think that answer is satisfactory. The SNP is denying what it fought the election on. SNP Members cast aspersions on my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) because he was questioning the wisdom of devolution. They say that they will work within the Assembly, but how long will they give it? They cannot answer that question because they know that the only way their policy can continue to command some support in Scotland is if they constantly denigrate and try to break up the Assembly. The more effective the Assembly proves to be, the less will people be concerned with

2211
independence. What is the Nationalists' policy? Will they stand on a bogus prospectus at elections and say that they will give the Assembly a chance to work?
What I find so reprehensible about hon. Members in the SNP is their suggestion that a major or minor constitutional change or the granting of independence to Scotland will miraculously and quickly cure all Scotland's endemic problems such as housing and unemployment. They know it is not true. An Assembly or an independent Government would need time to work. The SNP Members are the real enemies of devolution. They cannot afford to make it work. They should make clear to the people of Scotland where they stand.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) got into the same difficulties as did the hon. Member for the Western Isles to a lesser extent about the aims of his party. The hon. Member for Caernarvon used the expression "maximum of self-government". He found it difficult to answer when he was asked whether he meant independence or separatism. What he really meant was the establishment of a nation State. I am pleased to see that the SNP are all nodding in agreement. We must ask what it is about Scotland which needs the creation of a nation State.
Mrs. Bain: Because it is a nation.
Mr. Hughes: Of course the Scots are a nation, and no one denies that. It is a question of culture. There is no reason to suppose that nationhood automatically needs the creation of a nation State. In the United States the Red Indian tribes are ethnically, linguistically and culturally a separate nation. Does that mean that there automatically must be a nation State for those Red Indians? There was a long debate in the 1930s about whether the Negroes of the United States represented a separate nation and whether they should have a nation State of their own.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the hon. Member denying that the Negroes are Americans?
Mr. Hughes: Of course not. That is precisely the point. Because the Negroes in the United States are ethnically and cul-
2212
turally different, it does not follow that they are not Americans or that they should have a separate nation State. It also does not follow on that basis that the Scots should have a separate nation State.
The only country I know that operates on the basis of nation States is South Africa, where the South African Government take the view that each of the Bantu tribes is a nation unto itself because of its culture and so on, and therefore each should be a nation State. The practice, of course, does not always follow the theory. Curiously, they do not carry that to its logical conclusion because the culture, the language and, I suppose, the beginnings of the English-speaking people in South Africa are totally different from those of the Afrikaans-speaking people. No one in South Africa argues that there should be separate Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking nation States. There is not, therefore, this automatic equation between nationhood and the nation State.
I wonder exactly what a nation State of Scotland would be composed of. It could not be based on racial purity. As far as I know there are no racially pure Scots. It could not be based on language. To some extent, of course, Plaid Cymru bases its claim on language, but there is no Scottish language which is universal to Scotland. Therefore, I do not think that the question of nationhood is necessarily the basis on which one could plump for a nation State.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East made a most interesting speech. He began to describe, I think for the first time in this House, what sort of Scotland we should have. That has always been the missing part of the package. The hon. Member began to develop his ideas about local government. He said that the authoritative view of the SNP was that the regions should disappear, and I think he suggested that there should be more ad hoc bodies in which local government and other sectors would be represented.
I believe that we have far too many ad hoc bodies in Scotland already. They are not democratically developed and they do not have proper democratic representation. I would include in those the economic planning committees appointed by the Secretary of State. No doubt the Secretary of State makes the wisest possible choices in appointing these bodies,

2213
but my admiration for the Secretary of State does not lead me to the conclusion that those ad hoc bodies should continue.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman discussing these matters. They are important. In my remarks I was considering ad hoc bodies which would be performing joint local authority functons, whose members would be appointed from the district, would be elected councillors and could fulfil special task. I would differentiate quite substantially from other bodies for which the membership would be appointed. I agree that the membership of such bodies would be anti-democratic and I should not necessarily approve of that particular arrangement.
Mr. Hughes: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that. Although I am quite certain that the Secretary of State made an excellent choice in the appointment of area health boards, I would rather see the area health boards under some kind of democratic control than being appointed. There is a case for institutions like the Scottish Development Agency and the nationalised industries being responsible to some kind of democratic control, which would also include worker participation, but I do not want to be diverted too far from the particular debate before us.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It is too dangerous.
Mr. Hughes: The idea of having smaller local authorities working together on an ad hoc basis has been tried in the past when we had a joint planning committee composed of the local government from round about. I see the hon. Lady for Moray and Nairn nodding her head. She knows that the county councils that used to exist before regionalisation, and Aberdeen Town Council, had that kind of planning committee. I was not satisfied, although I was a member of that local authority, that these planning committees worked. If anyone were to tell me that the ad hoc way in which the previous local authorities conducted planning matters was a success because they were charged with strategic planning—and there has not been any proper strategic planning—I would say that ad hoc bodies are the worst possible alternative to choose.
2214
I do not want to debate the whole of local government reform with the hon. Member for Dundee, East tonight. However, he should think again about whether it is the regions or the districts which should go. Perhaps it has to be a combination of the two. However, that is something that the Assembly should decide; it is not something for us to decide.
A great deal has been said about the cost of the new regions, the great costs that they have had, the explosion of salaries and all the rest. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), who I am sure will read this debate thoroughly, has recently complained about the growth of the costs of the area health boards for Orkney and Shetland. He said that the establishment of these separate boards, which are small units, has burgeoned beyond all comparison. It does not follow that smallness is cheaper or more effective.
Finally, I turn to economics and the EEC. I become concerned when people say that we must establish independence in order to get a seat round the top table in Brussels. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has developed this theme over the past months, as indeed have the Scottish National Party Members. It started with the view that there should be separate Scottish Commissioners. The view was then expressed that we should be represented at the top table in Brussels. I do not know what that means. What worries me is that people seem to think that getting a couple of Scottish Commissioners, or even one Scottish Commissioner or representation at the top table, will somehow make the cure of the ills of Scotland easier. I wish that the problem were so easy as to be resolved by the mythical concept of being represented.
The trouble is that people tend to over-simplify. The one thing we must understand is that over-simplification will simply lead us into disaster. It may be argued that in what I am about to say concerning the development of the EEC I am perhaps over-simplifying. All I can say about that is that I honestly have not fully thought through exactly what the rôle of the United Kingdom should be within the EEC now that we are a permanent part of it or precisely what

2215
should be the rôle of, say, Scotland in the EEC, or the rôle of any of the existing nation States, such as Denmark or Germany, because it is too early to work this out properly.
It has been said that economics knows no frontiers. We have had the argument from time to time about multinational companies. I do not suggest that even in the EEC we could completely master the multinational companies, because they are international and not merely within the boundaries of the EEC. However, there is a case for thinking about whether the rôle of the Parliament of the Nine, as we now are, should be strengthened and whether we ought to have some supranational government.
I am sure that these are matters which have exercised the minds of hon. Members of all parties. Precisely how should this mechanism develop if it is to be a real union and economic community? Ought we to be thinking about breaking down the nation States which exist? Should we be having some supranational government? Whether that is directly elected or partly elected does not matter.
I do not believe that at present we ought to be thinking of setting up more nation States within the EEC. We ought to be thinking much more deeply and longer about the relationship between the countries which have been in the EEC all along and those which have now joined permanently—and we must accept that as a fact of life. We have much thinking to do on this matter. It is far too simple to say that one solution is the best solution. I have found myself thinking about whether in time what will develop is a supranational EEC with perhaps some kind of federated system within it. As I have said, I have not thought this through fully, but these are the implications about which we ought to be thinking.
The purpose of devolution is to have good government. The purpose of good government is two-fold: to make certain that decisions which can be taken locally are taken locally, and that they can be seen to be taken thus. That also begs the question whether within the United Kingdom we should always have the same kind of structure, be it in local govern-
2216
ment or otherwise, because we seek uniformity.
One of the tragedies of local government reform is that we applied a virtually uniform system throughout Scotland. The regions and the districts apply throughout—apart from the Islands, and there were reasons for that. I am not sure that at the end of the day the Islands will get the best of local government because of the structure that they have. Leaving that aside, however, the purpose of devolution is to see good government locally determined.
It is also a question—it comes down to this in the end—of economics. This does not mean simply the raising of taxes and the planning of industry. It boils down to who controls the economy of the country and to what uses it is put. It has almost become a cliché to quote Nye Bevan's phrase "the commanding heights of the economy". I believe, however, that for the people of Scotland, England and Wales, and even the people of Northern Ireland, unless we can get the ownership and control of the commanding heights of the economy, none of us will prosper and none of us will go on to see some kind of emancipation from poverty and from the poverty of choice. That is my basic quarrel with the Nationalists and the Tories—that they believe that by constitutional or structural change in administration we shall begin to cure Scotland's problems.
It is a basic change in economic structure that we need, which means that people will for the first time have the power of the economy in their own hands—real participation. Then we shall begin to move towards a really democratic society in which people's values will be important and they will have an important rôle to play in society. That cannot be done by narrow nationalism. The Nationalists are mesmerised by the romanticism of nation status, which is quite the wrong approach. They should begin to look away from that and consider the real problems of the people.
11.36 p.m.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I shall be brief and to the point. I am not in favour of political devolution. I hope that hon. Members will think carefully about this problem and that the people of Scotland and

2217
England will devote their attention to the matter. The partnership between England and Scotland has been one of the most successful in history. As a Conservative, I am not prepared to lend my name to anything which might lead to its break-up.
An Assembly is unwise and unnecessary it is a move towards complete separation. There would be constant friction between it and Westminster. I do not know what this constitutional unit, or whatever the rotten thing is called, is thinking about it, but I hope that it will address its mind to the question.
We have just had a vast local government reorganisation in Scotland. It might be a good idea to allow it to settle down before making any more moves and disturbing the population. I suspect that an Assembly will be vastly expensive, with the payment of members, staff, civil servants and the purchase and alteration of the building. We do not hear a word about the cost from this absurd constitutional unit.
What will such an Assembly do? We cannot devolve industry and commerce because they are intermingled throughout the United Kingdom. We cannot devolve agriculture and fisheries because they involve treaties with other nations. The Assembly could not handle labour relations or trade unions, because the unions are organised on a United Kingdom basis. It could do nothing about transport, because the railways and aircraft operate in the United Kingdom and abroad and not simply in Scotland. The Assembly would have nothing to do. At the moment, all these subjects are covered adequately by the Secretary of State and the local authorities.
The increased expenditure caused by local government reorganisation and the scandalous waste of money that has resulted in some instances, not to mention the duplication of work, would simply be repeated. I hope that people in England. Scotland and Wales will realise that adding another tier of government will simply worsen the situation in which already we are over-governed.
I am a Conservative and a traditionalist. I believe that many Government supporters are traditionalists. I ask that these matters, which affect our con-situation, be carefully examined and thought over. The Act of Union is likely
2218
to be involved if we push too far. I refer hon. Members to Section 3 of that Act. It would be highly undesirable to interfere with or to infringe the provisions of the Act of Union.
I request that the Conservative Party and its leaders review their attitude to devolution. There is nothing wrong or blameworthy about rethinking policies. It is often wise to do so. I believe that the majority of people, whether in Scotland or England, want less legislation. They want stability. They do not want constant chopping and changing about. They want to end all this nonsense. An Assembly will either be a ludicrous talking shop or a dangerous excrescence leading to further over-government, more taxation and an oppressive burden on the long-suffering people of Scotland.
11.42 p.m.
Mr. Hamish Watt: Although we are concerned about the slippage in the timing of the devolution Bill, we are even more concerned that the devolution unit or whatever it is called should get the package right. It is tempting to push on and fail to obtain the right machinery. The Assembly will quickly arrange its own affairs, but it will need a blueprint from which to work. The duplication of the Westminster system would be a tragic mistake. In setting up the Assembly we have a unique opportunity to correct some of the past mistakes and to rid ourselves of some of the unnecessary frustrations caused by the Government.
Meaningful devolution must mean that decision-taking machinery is transferred totally to Scotland. The devolution of 99·9 per cent. of the decision taking is not enough. It will not do. Unless there is 100 per cent. decision taking in Scotland, an excellent opportunity will have been missed. I look forward to the day when Ministers will stand at the Dispatch Box and say "This is not a matter for this House. It is a matter which must be dealt with in Scotland." If that happens, we will have arrived at the right situation. The world will know that Scotland has achieved meaningful devolution.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should use the right language, 100 per cent. devolution is not devolution. It is independence.
Mr. Watt: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. We need 100 per

2219
cent. decision-making power over those items which are devolved to Scotland. I do not want agricultural questions to be handled at Westminster. I do not want questions on matters devolved to Scotland to be answered from the Treasury Bench here.
Will the Minister take this opportunity to break up some of the abominations of Ministries which have grown up at Westminster? One of the worst is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There may be historic reasons for those functions being grouped together, but those reasons no longer apply. It is totally misconceived in the present day and in the context of the EEC for one man to represent both the producers and the consumers of food. I ask the Government to consider a complete regrouping of these responsibilities of the Assembly.
Rag-bags of Ministries have grown up whose functions are no longer clear. For example, many Departments are responsible for the various sections of the fishing industry—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Department of Trade and the Treasury. I ask the Minister to shake out the powers of the various Ministries and group them more realistically as we move towards the Assembly. It is essential to get the machinery right.
I did not take part in the preceding debate on the green pound. I should have liked to speak of the current malaise of the agriculture industry. But if the machinery of government is right, the Assembly will rapidly cure many of the ills suffered by the agriculture industry. I am most concerned that the mechanism should be right.
The Assembly will herald a completely new era for Scotland's agriculture and fishing industries. With a Department of Trade working specifically for Scotland, the export potential of Scotland's indigenous industries will be fully realised. The prospect is exciting and a challenge to which I look forward with enthusiasm. Scotland's past has been bleak, but with a properly set-up Assembly the future is bright. The return of a Parliament to Scotland is a fabulous opportunity in which this generation is privileged to participate.
2220
The Scottish National Party is as anxious as is the Minister to see the job done quickly, but we are equally anxious that he should not skimp the job. His efforts and decisions of the next few weeks and months may decide the pattern of a system which will have to be made to work for generations to come.
There is no reason why the setting up of separate Ministries with separate portfolios should lead to a proliferation of civil servants. As we shorten the lines of communication, so we shall cut the costs of government. By cutting out much of the travelling done by civil servants between London and Scotland we shall save money. I do not believe, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) believes, that the setting up of the Assembly need necessarily be costly. With the abolition of the regions and a proper balance of government, the administration can be profitable and efficient.
What is more, we shall give back to the people a feeling of belonging, because in the Scottish context we shall all be much more closely involved. The fishing industry especially suffers from a feeling of remoteness. The Minister has an opportunity to give back to the people of Scotland our Government and to bring back much closer to them the decision-making machinery that we in Scotland have lacked for so long.
11.50 p.m.
Mr. Norman Buchan: This is the first time that I have risen at nine minutes to nine o'clock and have started to speak at 10 minutes to midnight. I have not worked out how it happened, but it has meant that I have expected to speak after every other speaker for the past three hours.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) is one of my two favourite Scottish Nationalists. The other is the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart). The hon. Member for Banff fortunately knows nothing about Scottish nationalism and, therefore, talks some quite original stuff. The hon. Member for the Western Isles is not really a Scottish Nationalist but a West Highland patriot—and good luck to him. That is what his speech was about tonight.
I want to deal with the continual harping on the question of slippage. I do

2221
not know why this canard is being spread by the Scottish National Party. I do not know what it has to gain. I do not believe that its Members are gullible enough to believe all the things they read in the Press. I believe that they make a statement, the Press reports the statement and then they seize the report and put Questions to the Minister. It is a vicious circle. They have become masters at the art.
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) once said that the Government wanted to get the whole matter right and that this might cause some delay. I think that that is on the record in Hansard. He said it openly, and it was a fair point. To that extent our accusation has some validity.
Mr. Buchan: If that is the extent of the accusation, the Scottish Nationals should have said so. They have made continual attacks in the Scottish Press on the question of slippage being a deliberate policy. Now we hear that a Minister has said that the Government must get the matter right and that therefore, there might be some delay. The hon. Member for Banff also said that we must get it right. The Scottish Nationals know that they have been spreading a myth. The hon. Gentleman has made an admission of myth-making. That is a strong Scottish tradition, but we should not always use it in our daily politics.
The hon. Member for Banff said that we must get it 100 per cent. right, and that 100 per cent. of the matters devolved should be sent to Scotland. Why are the Scottish Nationalists so concerned with getting the package right when they have all said that they want to destroy it? They want to use it as a means of creating independence.
Mr. Donald Stewart: I am sorry to have to answer this question again. We do not want to destroy it. We shall make it work, but we are still going on to our aim of independence and going on to develop it.
Mr. Buchan: The Scottish Nationalists have made clear before, and they have made it clear again tonight, that that is not what they intend to do and that they intend to use it as a means of bringing
2222
about independence. That is surely the only honourable position that they could have. That makes sense. Why excuse themselves for it? There is no reason to do so.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: They want it both ways.
Mr. Buchan: They do. But that is not uncharacteristic of them. I was struck by the laughter on the Scottish National Party bench when one of my hon. Friends referred to the Indians of America being a nation. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) need not shake her head, because she was one of those who laughed. Perhaps they laughed because they thought themselves superior to the Indians, whom we hear about speaking with forked tongues. But they are very good at speaking both ways.
The hon. Member for Banff spoke of agriculture. I urge him not to pursue the idea of separate Ministries for agriculture and food. It sounds good and goes down well with a farming audience—just as the idea of having a consumer affairs and food Ministry separate from agriculture would appeal to housewives. The hon. Member nods his head to both propositions. The SNP believes its own myths. The great error made by the Government was in putting so much to do with food costs and pricing in a Ministry separate from agriculture. Food pricing must be part of an intelligent agricultural policy. We should bring back from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to the Ministry of Agriculture some of these functions. That is the only way to cope with the combined problem of the housewives and the producers.
The hon. Member for Banff wants a completely separate agricultural policy for Scotland, separately administered and with separate pricing and subsidies. As soon as he has got that, he must have a border, frontiers, customs posts and everything else. Again the SNP tries to do it both ways. It says that it wants a totally separate Ministry of Agriculture and at the same time it says that it does not want frontier posts and borders. There cannot be one without the other. However much the SNP tries to con its membership, it should not try to con the people of Scotland.

2223
The new situation in the EEC was raised by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). He referred to the U-turns obtained by the Labour Party. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) confessed that he had changed his views and to an extent could be accused of making a U-turn. Such a U-turn is as nothing compared with the Spaghetti Junction-type U-turns made by the SNP.
There is nothing wrong with deep divisions in a party as long as they are honestly held and argued. There is everything wrong with the same people enunciating the same deep divisions as policies. That is what is dishonourable. There should be deep divisions on this because we are dealing with a serious problem. Any problem that can make the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) make a speech for 10 minutes must be serious.
I want to examine some of the previous attitudes of the Labour Party and the Labour movement and see how we have arrived at our present situation. I say this as a long-lasting devolutionist. I believe in devolving power. I do not like power in the hands of a small group of people, whether they be in the board room or the Cabinet. I want to give power to the ordinary people. I want to do that whether they are black, brown or white, whether they are Scots or English. The only definition of a nation that I can give is that people are a nation when they feel that they are. We Scots certainly feel that we are a nation. We have our nationhood. We have a sense of nationhood in excelsis—some of us in extremis. But it does not follow from that that we should have statehood. That is a quite different thing. In this context reference has been made to the United States, but the same is true of virtually every country in Europe.
I remember the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn participating in the special debate that was held when Czechoslovakia was invaded by the Soviet Union. The hon. Lady said that that sort of invasion was what came out of multi-nation States. The hon. Lady called for the dismemberment of multination States, meaning the Soviet Union. It did not enter her mind that Czechoslovakia was
2224
a multination State. That was because she considered Czechoslovakia to be the innocent party and therefore it could not be multinational. Many of those who listened to her on that occasion felt that she was insensitive, but I did not. I took the view that it did not even enter her consciousness.
It does not follow that it is necessary for a nation to create the apparatus of statehood. Certainly I want to establish the sense of Scotland as a nation—indeed, Scotland's whole tradition has been towards that end—but I do not want to see the creation of the apparatus of statehood in an expression of nationhood. Perhaps I might say that it is appropriate that the devolution unit should be the responsibility of the Lord President rather than of No. 10. If responsibility had rested with the incumbent of No. 10, it would have been necessary for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to honour us with his presence instead of engaging in the Helsinki proceedings.
I have had thrown at me the thinking of Keir Hardy. I do not know how many people have studied him closely, but let me make it clear that he gave only a cursory glance to Scottish nationalism. It was a proposition that was accepted without the consequences being admitted. It was not appreciated that to create such a distinction was to cause a problem. He wanted both the one and the other. Similarly, John Maclean was concerned with a workers' republic in Scotland only in the last six or eight months of his life. It was Republicanism and Socialism that motivated John Maclean. He went for a separate Scotland merely because he objected to participating in the Communist Party on a British basis. His attitude was based on a narrow technical point. That is not something that should be thrown at my colleagues and myself.
It is true that one strand of the Labour Party has been Morrisonian, technocratic and monolithic in its attitude to the structure of society. Another strand derived from the bourgeois democratic tradition has been radical and anti-Morrisonian. That is the attitude that is now prevailing. The working population is now demanding more industrial democracy and more workers' control. In many ways that is an expression of the demand for more democracy, and especially from Scotland.

2225
There is a demand for more control of industry and politics by the ordinary people.
There is nothing new in the argument now going on in the Labour Party. The present position is inevitable given the present strands of opinion. In recent years a constitutional commission has been formed and a report was issued. However, I am a devolutionist who became rather more worried about the Assembly as it came nearer. I became worried because I could see it approaching on the wrong basis. It was being fostered by the Nationalist Party because of a greed for oil. Equally I acknowledge the genuine dissatisfaction of people in Scotland with the record of the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 and with our failure to deliver the goods. If a radical party fails, its supporters will find an alternative. They found it in the SNP. That is the history of the matter.
It is true to say that there are many movements towards devolution. I think it was the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) who suggested that one such movement had taken place because of a fear of the SNP. That has not been my approach. If anything, I have become more hesitant. I have tended to move in the opposite direction. If we move towards an extension of democracy, as it were, on the basis of greed and with an exaggerated sense of nationhood, I can see only disaster.
If SNP Members disclaim greed, I ask them what they would have said if great oil deposits had been found off Yarmouth and Lowestoft and not in Scottish waters, and if the English parties had said that no oil would go to the people of Scotland. I know that I would have fought the issue on behalf of Scotland, but would they have taken up the fight? Would they have welcomed such a claim being made by the English people?
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I would.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady says that she would. That is very interesting in view of her party's present policy.
Mrs. Ewing: I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood me—I hope not deliberately—because I say on behalf of my party that we wish that much of
2226
the oil had been found off the coast of England. I am certain that in that event our case to get out of this House and have a House of our own, with all respect to yourself, Mr. Speaker, and a Speaker of our own would have been stronger. I believe that it would have happened more quickly if the oil had been found off the English coast. We would have welcomed that situation.
Mr. Buchan: I think that the hon. Lady is absolutely right in the first half but the second half contradicts the first, because I think she said "our oil" at the end. We know that if massive deposits of oil had been found off the coast of England SNP Members would have dropped their nationalism on the spot and said "This oil must, of course, be shared with the people of Scotland." That is what they would have said, and they know it. That is the danger of the present position.
Mr. Robert Hughes: It should be noted that when my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that the hon. Lady would have fought for a share of English oil to come to Scotland, she was shaking her head and saying that she would not have fought for that. Therefore, she would not have said that the Scots had a right to any oil resources in England. I am very interested to note this.
Mr. Buchan: With all respect, there has been a lot of confusion among Members on the SNP bench, especially when they were shaking and nodding their heads at the same time. It was the best argument I have seen for having television in the House. The point would have been taken.
I want briefly now to look at the new position that has arisen as a result of the referendum on the EEC, because we must all accept that we are in a new ball game. What are the conclusions to be drawn from that? I want first to look at the circumstances of it. The circumstances are that the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party opposed continued membership of the EEC and were beaten. As a result, a movement has developed within the Labour Party which was not difficult to predict. We predicted that it would happen and the quarter from which it would come. The argument is that

2227
now that we are to remain in the EEC there must be separate Scottish representation.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: The hon. Member says that the Labour Party was opposed to Britain's staying in the EEC.
Mr. Buchan: Yes.
Mr. Hutchison: Not all of it—not even the Prime Minister.
Mr. Buchan: I did not say any such thing. I always try to be as accurate as possible.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Renfrevvshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said earlier that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) spoke for 10 minutes. According to my records, the hon. Member spoke for only six minutes.
Mr. Buchan: You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that that is still a record for the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South. When I was a Minister he had a very bad habit of standing up after I had made a long speech in Committee, saying "Why?" and sitting down again, leaving me stranded about five yards from the civil servants. It was most effective. Six minutes is a lot longer than that.
The fact is that the Labour Party qua Labour Party opposed Britain's remaining in the EEC. The Government qua Government were for remaining in the EEC. The SNP was opposed to it. The Labour Party and the SNP were beaten. To be even more accurate, most of the Government said "No". A majority of the Cabinet said "Yes". A majority of Ministers as well as a majority of Members of Parliament said "No". But this is not the argument at the present time. It is of importance only in filling in the background.
The Scottish Nationals now say that there should therefore be separate representation. I agree. It is my desire to spread representation and devolution as soon as possible. There are good reasons why there should be representation. But that is not the argument. The argument is about the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) that there should be Scottish
2228
representation, up to and including membership of the Council of Ministers. With respect, that is an argument not for representation at Brussels but for a Scotland separated from England.
I discussed this matter on a radio programme with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). She at least said straight away that we could not have repreesentation on the Council of Ministers without first becoming a separate State. I know that some of her colleagues have said the opposite. But the hon. Lady has said that, and she is right.
The historical parallel is the attempt of the Soviet Union in 1945 to get 16 representatives at the United Nations because of the 16 Soviet Republics. It was refused and was given three as a kind of sop, but only one seat on the Security Council. The same would prevail here. If we had separate Scottish representation on the Council of Ministers, Germany would immediately demand about nine representatives for the Lander. But that would not happen, because not only would we have to be separate but we would have to be more separate than any other group of countries in order to prove the point to the Council of Ministers. We would have to carve our separation from England before we had any case for representation.
I resent this back-door smuggling in of separation on the basis of representation at Brussels. It must be fought out on its merits at present rather than in an indirect way.
Mr. Dalyell: When the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) made her "Jonah and the Whale" speech at the European Parliament—she described the relationship between Scotland and England as that of Jonah and the Whale—the reaction of the Germans was to ask whether we were suggesting that Wurtemberg or Bavaria should be hived off from Germany.
Mr. Buchan: I understand the point about Wurtemberg and Bavaria, but I do not quite follow the analogy of Jonah and the Whale. In any event, the SNP is attempting to get the best from both sides.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire sees the logical outcome of the

2229
present position as an ultimate Scottish withdrawal from Westminster and a Scottish Government with representation at the European top table as of right. I should have thought that that was clear demand for independence. But my hon. Friend writes in his article in Highway:
"There will be no need for a border on the Border, or any of that nonsense."
But there will. The moment that we are a separate country, the moment that we apply Scottish answers in matters like agriculture, we must have a border and we must have border taxation. That is how Europe works. It works on a system of manipulation of border taxation. Unless my hon. Friend and the SNP are driving for a European unification and a unitary State of Europe, and pushing hard for it, I think against the wishes of most people in this country and in this House, they must not make such comments.
My hon. Friend makes the same proviso again:
"Most importantly, there must be no fission of the British trade union structure. It would be daft, and unnecessary, to break our unions into Scottish, English and Welsh components."
But we cannot have it all ways. I wish that those who advocate this would decide which way they want it. It may be the fault of too many people wanting to have it any way. The danger we are in is that some of us will exploit entry to the EEC as a means of bringing about separation. How does this tie up with the Assembly point?
I shall be a little ruminative about how I see the future. I respect the Scottish Nationalists. I wish, in a sense, that they had not conducted the kind of campaigns that they have conducted over the past three or four years based upon oil. I believe that their campaigns released a kind of conscious and curious greed, as well as materialism and dishonesty. The oil will not last for too long. Many people take the view that the Assembly will polarise the position between Edinburgh and London. That brings me to the rôle of the SNP and others concerning a separate Assembly.
If there were a number of assemblies within a State, the problem would not arise. There is not much likelihood of one of the 51 States of America breaking away in that sense. Indeed, when there
2230
was a massive break-away of a number of American States a civil war was fought to preserve the Union. In Canada one State may quarrel with the central Government, but there will be counterbalancing by a number of other States.
If we polarise demand between Edinburgh and London, each argument will become an argument for our own control. People will ask "Why have we not got 'X'?" and the answer will be "Because we do not control our own destiny" The dishonesty creeps in when people think that they will always be better off as a result and that only good will follow. It is not true that only good will follow, because the whole of human history indicates that sometimes damage will follow.
The Members of the SNP have agreed with me on all these points, and that is why I say that they will argue for more control. I cannot see how that can fail to provoke a political response. They would put forward the argument that separation on each and every issue was a good thing. It is no good my saying to my constituents that they cannot have a new school because we are building a new school at, say, Kidderminster and have used up the country's resources, because they would say that they had an Assembly to look after them. In Germany the Lander are not affected in such a way because there the drive is centripetal, towards unity, and there is no danger of drawing the region out. Ours will have come about not because of our understanding that we need to extend democracy and give power to the ordinary people but partly because of a movement to separate. If that happens only damage can accrue, because the future of oil will be short-lived. I do not want to discourage people from taking decisions of this kind because the political institutions are already set up.
Moreover, damage will accrue because of the strength of our market south of the border. We have a good prospective economy in Scotland. Instead of being able to take advantage of the market south of the border, we should be inhibited. There would be grade danger of our being unable to keep our present technological mix. There are problems facing the people in Linwood. There are 6.000 or 7,000 men in danger of losing their

2231
jobs. There will be competitive incentives. If we try to operate a separate incentive scheme to encourage industry to go to Scotland, other areas in England must protect themselves, and they will have among them Scottish people working. That leads me to the further point: must all Scotsmen be foreigners south of the border?
Mr. Watt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a small country like Sweden, which has two separate motor car companies, is the sort of example we should follow or go for?
Mr. Buchan: Of course. Scotland has Linwood and Bathgate. There is also the question of Nordic union. We will talk about that kind of union later. Sweden also happens to be bigger than Scotland and has a better economic structure than Britain and Scotland are likely to achieve in the near future.
If we are to stop this movement into polarisation leading inevitably to separation, we must consider whether the Assembly will be allowed to work. We must consider how to prevent any possible wreckers. This matter must be decided once and for all. We must not, through the artificial political structures which we establish, allow ourselves to drift into an accidental separation which the people of Scotland do not want.
The position must be put squarely to the people of Scotland: "Do you want an independent Scotland?" If they say "Yes", they would have said "Yes" to an Assembly in any case, so there is no loss to anyone there. It would have happened anyway. But if they say "No", as I believe they will, we are then enabled to try to make our devolved Assembly work. I think that we should go ahead with a devolved Assembly. I am in favour of it. We should try to let it work because the people will have so decided.
In that situation we would have to ask something more of the Scottish National Party which claims to put its trust in Scotland. If the Scottish people so decided, would the SNP accept that decision and continue to trust them?
Mrs. Bain: Yes.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Lady says "Yes". Is there anyone else on that
2232
bench who is likely to say "Yes"? That is what we would like to know.
I believe in devolvement. I also love Scotland. The Members of the Scottish National Party love an entity called Scotland rather more than they do the Scottish people. But that can be helped and transformed when they shake their minds free of their obsession with statism. I do not like States. I like people, not States.
The offer which I have suggested requires a sense of responsibility, understanding and humility on the part not only of the SNP but of all of us. It will require a lot of toleration, understanding and courage. I wonder whether SNP Members are capable of providing it.
12.23 a.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I should like to start by making clear the position of the Scottish Conservative Party. In 1965 the then Sir Alec Douglas-Home asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr Heath) to set up a series of policy groups, one of which concerned the machinery of government. That committee, called the Douglas-Home Committee, called for a directly-elected Assembly in Scotland. That has since been confirmed at a Scottish conference only this year by an overwhelming majority of 500 against six. The great majority of Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament are also in favour of a directly-elected Assembly.
If my arithmetic is correct, 1965 was 10 years ago—before the Hamilton by-election which first brought the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to this House. Therefore, it was not fear of the Scottish National Party which made the Conservative Party in Scotland go for devolution. It felt that it was correct.
That decision was reached before Wheatley and Kilbrandon. The Wheatley and Kilbrandon Reports have caused the difficulties and the need to look at other possible policies.
The reform of local government has put the Assembly into a different light. We now face the prospect of community councils, district councils, regional counils, the Assembly, Westminster and Strasbourg. We would be the most over-governed country in western Europe, and the cost would be terrific.

2233
If we are to have an Assembly—the majority of Scottish Conservatives support the idea—something must be done about all those tiers of government. Without spelling out the details, something must be done to combine the regions and districts. I know that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is worried about this, but it will have to be faced. We cannot have the present number of tiers.
Mr. Dalyell: Is the hon. Member saying that the Scottish Conservative Party is in favour of altering all these contracts solemnly entered into? Imagine the expense of it. We could not do this to those local officials who have burned the midnight oil carrying through these ulcer-giving activities.
Mr. Fairgrieve: I accept the difficulties, but the alternative is no Assembly and I believe that there should be an Assembly.
A first priority will be to decide the powers of the Assembly. The more powers that are taken, the fewer will he the number of Scottsh MPs who should be allowed to come here as of right. That is inevitable.
I think of the number of Scots who have been here. Some have been Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Nobody ever knew who was Prime Minister of Ulster, and that is how an independent Scotland would be looked upon by other parts of Europe. I wish my party to continue to give leaders to the British nation and not to only a small part of it.
We believe in devolution—not just political devolution, but devolution in other activities as well. The Scottish Council executive, of which I am a member, has asked for years that British firms should not take their headquarters away to England. We said that long before it became a political issue. It was an industrial decision to say to firms that they should come back to Scotland, and this has been happening. In the past 10 years, we have also seen political decision making by Government Departments coming back.
There is a need for an Assembly because at the moment we have bodies like the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland talking about mammon instead of God because there is no Assembly in which such discussions can take place.
2234
The SNP wants total Scottish independence—
Mrs. Bain: Nothing less will be good enough.
Mr. Fairgrieve: It was interesting to note from the speech of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that Plaid Cymru apparently wishes Wales to remain as part of the United Kingdom. Plaid Cymru and the SNP sit on the same bench, but they differ on this fundamental matter.
Mr. Donald Stewart: We are two different nations.
Mr. Fairgrieve: I gather that they are both meant to be Nationalist parties. One is for independence and separation, and the other wants to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I wish that hon. Members would allow the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) to continue. I am very interested, though I am completely neutral as long as I am in the Chair.
Mr. Fairgrieve: I thank you for your interest in my few brief remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I have spent all my life in industry. The United Kingdom is one economic unit. If Scotland is separated off, the whole economy will have to be broken up. With the present structure of British firms, that would be a total impossibility. If we cannot break up the economic integration, political separation is a non-starter.
Europe is an important new aspect to this question, particularly in view of the referendum result. My friends in the SNP—if I have any—know that for year after year, to the point of boredom, I have been asking for the implementation of Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome. This calls for direct elections and would enable Scotland to send directly elected Members there instead of their being selected by the Westminster Government. I enter one caveat. At present the United Kingdom goes to Europe with the muscle of 55 million people behind it, like Germany and France. Already we have seen a British Minister—the present Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—go to Europe to negotiate on behalf of the

2235
whole British nation, not just for 5 million of its people.
It is interesting to note that during the 14 years of the Common Market, whereas the veto has been used by the bigger countries it has not been used by the smaller States. That is because they know that there would be no point in their trying it. That is another reason why we must go to Europe as the United Kingdom.
One of the first jobs of the Assembly without a Civil Service should be to think out its own position, to debate how it will work in the United Kingdom and how it will work with Europe. As a Conservative I am certain that the future of a Scottish Assembly lies within the United Kingdom as part of the EEC.
12.33 a.m.
Mrs. Margaret Bain: I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), who stated at the start of his speech that he would clarify the Conservative Party's attitude to devolution. He has clarified it, and it is obviously still an attitude of total confusion. I was delighted at your own remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, about your neutral interest in this debate. Like many other hon. Members you are no doubt grateful to the SNP for having the ability to raise this subject tonight. A quick calculation shows that the debate has been going on for four hours, during which time members of the SNP have spoken for only 48 minutes.
The devolution issue is of crucial importance to us. This is the first opportunity we have had to raise it since the window-dressing debate in January when the Secretary of State for Scotland summed up by talking about his experiences in the Highland Light Infantry. That reflected the total demoralisation within the Labour ranks in Scotland. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) stated recently that at grass roots level the Labour Party was in a state of demoralisation. A quick perusal of Labour Party research reports, which are not published but which filter through to the newspapers, shows that the Labour Party will lose many seats in Scotland at the next election, probably because the
2236
Minister responsible for devolution is sleeping on the issue.
The Labour Party in this situation is hoist by its own petard. It decided to come out in favour of an Assembly for Scotland because it felt that it had to do something to save its seats at the last General Election. It now has to give an Assembly to retain its seats at the next General Election. Indeed, the Labour Party has found its Catch 22. It is finding it difficult to deny the growing aspirations of the Scottish and Welsh nations who demand the right to their self-respect and dignity, and to carve out their own political future.
When I listen to comments about regional problems within the United Kingdom, I become angry. Only yesterday, when I made a point about the Scottish situation, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), who has not stayed to listen to this debate, shouted "What about Merseyside?"
I put it to the Minister, who I am glad to say has now awoken, that if the Labour Party wants to talk about regions, I can talk about regions. I can talk about the region of Strathclyde—I am one of its Members of Parliament—with its vast social and housing problem.
Mr. Buchan: Why, therefore, object to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) also talking about regions? I do not follow the logic. Why should he not be free to complain?
Mrs. Bain: I do not object as long as he does not try to classify Scotland as a region, because, as the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has already admitted, Scotland is a nation. I can talk about Tayside with its unemployment problem and the Grampian Region with its fishing problem. We are talking about the nation of Scotland, not about a region of a nation. We are talking of an entity which no one tonight has tried to deny, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
I find it distressing that there is this negative attitude from Members of Parliament for Scotland who are seeking hurdles to place in the way of devolution and who are trying to scrape around a barrel to say that it will cost too much. If only some other hon. Members had the

2237
honesty of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison), who always categorically states his total opposition to devolution. I would much prefer that other hon. Members had this attitude. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South asked what rôle the Scottish Nationals would play in an assembly.
Mr. Robert Hughes: As the hon. Lady so charmingly corrected my geography about Dundee, may I correct her geography about Aberdeen? I am the Member for Aberdeen, North.
Mrs. Bain: With all due apologies may I remind the hon. Gentleman of my previous statement—East, West, Name's best, and I would rather be at hame.
Mr. Sproat: So would we.
Mrs. Bain: Some hon. Members should not speak so long.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North asked whether Scotland would play a constructive rôle in the Assembly. Of course it wishes to play a constructive rôle because we regard devolution as a dimension. Devolution is not a once-forall step. It is a dimension, and within the Assembly we have to work out the future of Scottish government. We shall not say that we must stop here, because the people of Scotland will decide the powers that the Assembly should have. Give us the Assembly and let us see what the people of Scotland want. The people of Scotland do not want a talking shop. They do not want another tier of Government which will be irrelevant to the problems with which they are faced. They want a situation in which they can take decisions which will be of great importance to them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said that we were trying to over-simplify the situation. He asked about the role of Scotland within the EEC. We want the rôle of Sctland within the EEC to be the same as the rôle we want Scotland to play within the United Kingdom, which is a rôle of partnership. I disagreed with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South when he said that Scotland, England and Wales had been partners. We have not been partners, for the simple reason that we are not equal. We cannot be equal, in a situation in which, for example, during the local government
2238
reorganisation the vast majority of Scottish Members of Parliament voted against a particular piece of legislation and yet it was passed by this body.
We are not saying that the Assembly will be a panacea for all our ills. We have never claimed that. However, it will give us machinery to work out our destiny, to try to solve our problems and to say that we have the dignity and self-respect to make our decisions and not blame everything on the English. If we make mistakes, we blame ourselves. By giving the people of Scotland a government, we would be giving them the right to blame themselves for their own mistakes and not look for a scapegoat. Conservative Members may laugh, but they have denied the people of Scotland that kind of confidence for a long time.
The issue should not be clouded by the very trite arguments of certain Conservatives. I find it very amusing that at one minute I was said to be a romanticist and the next minutes I was a materialist—a filthy materialistic person looking for money. Those of us on this bench are all pre-oil Scottish Nationalists. We were all Nationalists before oil was discovered, and we would be Nationalists if there were no oil under the North Sea.
Mr. Sproat: The hon. Lady would not be here if oil had not been discovered.
Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman may say that. However, I want to put to the House the importance of oil within the context of the Scottish scene. In 1968 we had a spectacular victory in Hamilton, which struck a blow of fear in the hearts of the Labour Party. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the SNP."] In the following year the Labour Government produced a Scottish budget, in which they said that we in Scotland needed the English connection. They said that we could not possibly survive. They said that we were too poor to go it alone, too poor and to stupid. That is what the Unionist parties have been saying to the people of Scotland—"You are too poor and too stupid."
Mr. Robert Hughes Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman rises to his feet, but as an educationist he will accept that that was what was put out. If people are told the same thing often enough, they will begin to believe it.
Mr. Hughes: Never at any time have I or any of my hon. Friends said that the Scottish people were too stupid, and neither have the Tories said that. We have never said that the people of Scotland were too stupid to run their own affairs. This kind of mythology is deliberately misleading and misrepresents us. If the hon. Lady looks back over the debates and discussions over many years, she will find that we have always taken an honourable position. The argument about Scottish self-government does not rest on whether Scotland is too poor or otherwise. We said in 1968 that if the people of Scotland wanted independence the question of poverty of resources ought never to come into the matter.
Mrs. Bain: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. However, both major parties are on record as asking where the people of Scotland would find within their country leaders of the calibre required, administrators, ambassadors and so on. That is on record, and hon. Members are aware of it.
Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way? [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. The hon. Lady is addressing the House. I got order for the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), and we must have the same order for the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Bain: I shall return to the point I was making—
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes rose—
Mrs. Bain:—which was that the Labour Party told us that we were too poor.
Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Bain: No. I want to develop my argument.
Originally we were told that we were too poor to have self-government and that we had to allow this very generous body, Westminster, to look after us. Now we are being told that we are selfish and greedy because we want to see the wealth that is around Scotland coming into Scotland to eradicate the disgusting inheritance of Scotland, particularly in my area, the Strathclyde Region, where we have appalling conditions in housing and we
2240
are expected to send our children to appalling schools which suffer also from a lack of staff. We wish to give the people of Scotland the opportunity to eradicate these social problems.
That is why the Assembly will be important. We shall be setting up the machinery which will give us the opportunity to look at the situation and to work out our own future and destiny, and we shall not have Big Brother telling us what to do.
12.44 a.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: I want to rebut some of the assertions of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain). The first which should be corrected is that all those on her bench were in the SNP before the oil was discovered. One need look no further than the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid) and the Member on her right, the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). One was in the Tory Party. The other was in the Labour Party only a few months before he was elected for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire. He was in the Labour Party and was touting around for a seat. He thought that we would do well in his own locality for the SNP, and so it turned out.
That is one inaccuracy, or a deliberate lie—I would not put it as high as that—in what the hon. Lady said. If she is referring only to the few of her hon. Friends who are here, even that is not true, because the hon. Member for Banff was not in the SNP pre-oil.
Mrs. Bain: He was so.
Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that?
Mr. Watt: I joined the SNP in 1967. There was no word of oil in the North Sea at that time.
Mr. Hamilton: If that is the case, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell us when he officially left the Tory Party. It is possible, from our point of view, to belong to both at the same time, because we see little difference between them.
Mr. Watt: I left the Conservative Party virtually hard on the heels of the election in 1966, when the Tories took such a battering, when it was obvious that they

2241
had no policies relevant to Scotland's needs and they were so out of touch with the Scottish people that they would take a further battering in the election to come. I am sure that this will go on still.
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that I allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. He is writing Scottish history in every word he speaks.
Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member, whether inadvertently or not, is falsifying. My hon. Friend proved that he was in the SNP before oil.
Mr. Hamilton: I am a generous minded fellow, and I am prepared to concede that the hon. Member left the Tory Party and joined a Scottish Tory Party called the SNP. He left the sinking ship and thought that he was joining one which was more seaworthy.
Mr. Buchan: For the sake of greater accuracy, the first round of licensing for oil in the North Sea was in 1964.
Mr. Hamilton: That is true. But I think that the hon. Lady was implying that no oil had been discovered when she and her colleagues joined the SNP, and that that was before the SNP made its headway.
The other point on which I would take up the hon. Lady—this is the kind of myth which is perpetuated by repetition in an attempt to persuade the Scots and others that it is true—is that I do not recall anyone ever having said that the Scots were too poor, stupid or selfish to run their own affairs. That is an unworthy accusation to make of anyone. I challenge the hon. Lady or any of her hon. Friends to produce a quotation from any speech, Tory or Labour, to that effect. She must either confirm that accusation by quotation or withdraw it. She is sitting there chewing to keep herself awake at this late hour. She must either confirm or withdraw the very serious accusation she has made against the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Labour Party that some people at some time have said that the Scottish people are too poor, stupid or selfish to be allowed to govern themselves. I shall willingly sit down and give her the chance to do so.
Mrs. Bain: I have no intention of withdrawing my remarks.
Mr. Hamilton: I must insist. The hon. Lady cannot get away with it like that. She made an accusation that members of the Labour, Tory and Liberal Parties said that the Scottish people were too poor or too stupid to govern themselves. That is clearly on record. I ask her either to confirm or withdraw that statement. She said that she would not withdraw it. She has not confirmed it. I again give her the chance to react, if she can. If she cannot confirm it, I presume that she is telling deliberate lies.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is possible to express one's feelings without using the unparliamentary expression "lie".
Mr. Hamilton: I shall rephrase the sentence and try to bring myself within the rules of order. The hon. Lady's memory may have forsaken her for a few moments and she cannot quite recollect the quotation.
Mrs. Bain: The hon. Gentleman may like to read some back editions of Hansard.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady may wish to refer me to the statement. She made the accusation. I want to pin her down to saying who made it. She made the accusation that Members of Parliament said, either inside or outside the House, that the Scots were too poor or too stupid to govern themselves. I have challenged her several times to verify, confirm or deny it.
Mr. Andrew Welsh Mr. Andrew Welsh (South Angus)rose—
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has recovered from his illness and has acquired such a fine sun tan in the process. He must have visited the Riviera with his children during his alleged illness, which prevented him from asking a Question about the accident in Arbroath, which is in his constituency. I had to ask the Question in his absence. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman here looking so well. He must have made a complete recovery.
I return to the other point made by the hon. Lady. She claims that Scotland is

2243
a nation. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said that England was not a nation. The Shetlanders do not think that they are part of the Scottish nation. That is the dilemma of the Scottish National Party, which made many promises to the Shetlanders. When we discussed the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Bill, Members of the Scottish National Party said that they would first take the oil before they allowed the Shetlanders the right to secede. The Shetlanders made it clear that if there was any devolution they would rather be linked to Westminster than to Edinburgh. I could go further. They would probably prefer to be linked to Norway rather than to Westminster or Edinburgh. If the Scottish National Party or the Labour Party are to carry devolution to its logical conclusion, we might say that as the Shetlanders and the people in the Western Isles voted differently from the rest of the United Kingdom in the EEC referendum they should have the right to opt out of the EEC. Does the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) want the Western Isles to leave the EEC if that were possible? That is devolution. The people of the Western Isles and the Shetlanders said that they did not want to remain in the EEC. Does the hon. Gentleman accept their decision or does he say that they should be overruled by the majority decision taken by the people in the remainder of Scotland? The same argument applies on the assembly.
We have now established the principle of government by referendum. We have taken the most important constitutional decision for centuries by means of a referendum, and we are all bound by that. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) could not get to Strasbourg fast enough. As a good democrat she accepted the democratic decision. She was there and she was under the table in five minutes.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard the hon. Gentleman make an imputation against my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). Will you rule on it?
Mr. Hamilton: No, I made no imputation. I said that the hon. Lady was hell-
2244
bent to get there. She was there within hours of the decision having been taken on the Floor of the House that she should go. She was quite ready to go. I was sitting opposite her when we were entertained by the Mayor of Strasbourg. I made no imputation.
Mr. Henderson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection is that the hon. Gentleman "used the words under the table within five minutes".
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Personal charges are not welcome in this place and, indeed, are out of order. If those words fell from his lips I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw them.
Mr. Hamilton: If there was any imputation in my remarks, of course I withdraw them. I just said that the hon. Lady was very eager to get to Strasbourg and she enjoyed herself very much. Everyone saw it, and I was glad that she was happy to be there.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am not unduly sensitive—after all, I have been here for some time—but the hon. Gentleman is almost compounding his previous remarks. Perhaps he would be fair enough to agree that on the first day I was at Strasbourg after the decision of the House I managed to make a speech and that I worked very hard all the time I was there.
Mr. Hamilton: I am not disputing that. The Lady complained that no one listened to her, but everyone has a choice and some speeches are not worth listening to. She had only herself to blame for that. I listened to it from behind the door and I was ashamed for her sake. To translate a bit of nonsense into five languages is a difficult exercise.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve) made a good point on the issue of the EEC. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn visited Europe before entry. She made very pleasant remarks from my point of view, but they were almost struck from the record from her point of view. She made a pro-EEC speech which was recorded in the pamphlet produced by the Common Market. She clearly enjoyed her visit on that ocasion too. She said that it could make democracy more powerful and that it was a meaningful institution. Of course she is right.

2245
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West spoke as an industrialist. He said, with truth, that the United Kingdom economy, for good or ill, is one economy, an integrated economy. That is one reason why it is virtually impossible to separate the statistics. Attempts have been made to produce separate Scottish budgets, and it has been virtually impossible to do. When the attempts have been made they have been derided by Members of the Scottish National Party. [Interruption.] Of course it is a British Budget, because it is a British economy. That is the point that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West was making. But he did not go on to say that not only is it an integrated national economy but it is being increasingly run by multinational companies.
The leader of the SNP said in his opening speech that the SNP knows where it is going. I want to put one or two questions on that statement.
Mr. Henderson: Is this Question Time?
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman can please himself whether he answers. I understand that the SNP has an official winder-up.
In Scotland as in the United Kingdom —they are not more prevalent in Scotland than in England—we have multinational companies. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West referred to the battle between capitalism and Socialism. That is the essence of the debate, not whether one is a Scot or an Englishman. I am instinctively opposed to capitalism, not to Scots, Englishmen or Welshmen, or any creed, colour, race or whatever.
I believe that this is a battle of economies and political philosophies rather than of nations or nation States. The economy of the world is being increasingly run by multinational companies, which often have budgets bigger than those of a large number of States.
In the debate about the Adjournment of the House next Thursday I quoted an example in my constituency, Burroughs Machines. I take it that neither the SNP nor the Tory Party does anything other than welcome such companies into Scotland. If there were a separate Scottish Assembly, would the SNP do everything in its power to attract firms, as I have in
2246
Glenrothes, where we have a Swedish firm and American firms? I think that in Ireland there are Japanese firms. Would the SNP actively encourage such firms to come to Scotland?
Mr. Donald Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Hamilton: Then I ask SNP Members a further question. Burroughs Machines is an anti-trade union firm. It does not believe in trade unions. Three or four years ago the shop-floor workers managed to obtain trade union recognition. My unpaid agent, Mr. Jimmy Stevenson, is a worker in that factory. He is on the staff. In March he sought to get the staff trade union recognition. The American management of Burroughs said, "We had better have a ballot of the staff after the holidays." My agent was one of the four members of the staff who wanted that ballot. On the Thursday, half an hour before he went on his holidays, he was told, "Don't come back after the holidays. You are redundant."
Before that, my friend Jimmy Stevenson had been elected as a district councillor for Kirkaldy District Council. As a result he was attending a lot of meetings of the Kirkaldy District Council —which would not be abolished by the SNP. I had received personal assurances from the Burroughs management that it would allow its employees as much time off as they wanted for such public purposes. Within months of his getting time off for his public authority work, the management said to Jimmy Stevenson "We will put you on a part-time contract."—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what happened on the day his friend was going on holiday. I know the story, because I was in the Chair when the hon. Gentleman gave this full story about seven hours ago.
Mr. Hamilton: Not the full story. I am filling in the details.
We are promised the Assembly next year. Burroughs will still be in Glenrothes next year. It has knocked out my trade union pioneer. Presumably the Assembly will contain some of the hon. Members from the SNP bench. How would they deal with a company like Burroughs and its industrial relations policy? We are told that the SNP knows

2247
where it is going. But we do not know. It is important to know what that party would do with companies like that which sack a man and, although he has been with the firm for five years, base his redundancy pay on the part-time contract he was given three months before he got the sack. What is the SNP's view of that kind of industrial relations?
If we get a Scottish Assembly, as I hope we do, will there be separate industrial relations legislation in Scotland, different from that in England? If so, what will happen to Burroughs Machines with factories in England and Scotland?
Mr. Watt: And Portugal and Spain.
Mr. Hamilton: If there are factories in England and Scotland and protection for workers is more all-embracing in England than in Scotland, what would stop Burroughs from clearing out of one country and moving to the other?
Mr. Donald Stewart: What stops it now?
Mr. Hamilton: Nothing at all. I would like it to be understood in the context with which I am dealing. Would worker protection legislation be identical in England and Scotland? If not, footloose multinational firms would move from one country to another. That is precisely what we want to stop by getting into a bigger unit.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West about an integrated United Kingdom economy. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that we want to go further than that and look towards an integrated European economy. The multinational companies must be controlled, and they can be controlled only by a multinational political unit.
Mr. Donald Stewart: No.
Mr. Hamilton: That is how I see it. I note that some of my hon. Friends look uncomfortable. Presumably that is because they were anti-Common Market and do not believe in the concept I have put forward.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am not the least bit uncomfortable about my hon. Friend's remarks about the EEC and the fact that I and some of my hon. Friends opposed
2248
it. I accept the existence of the EEC. I accept that we shall have to think through the precise kind of political control we shall get within the EEC to try to control the multinational companies which spread their business around.
Mr. Hamilton: I am glad that my hon. Friend takes that view. It seems that he is now accepting the result of the referendum, as do the majority of my colleagues. I want to know how a separate Scotland would fit into that situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West made this very point. The SNP argues that it wants separate Scottish representation in all the institutions of the EEC on the same basis as Luxembourg, Denmark and all the other EEC countries. It will get that only with complete separation. In other words, there would have to be a separate Scottish Prime Minister, a separate Scottish Foreign Secretary, a separate army, a separate navy, a separate air force—in other words, complete separation.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Certainly, an independent nation.
Mr. Hamilton: There we have it on the record. The leader of the SNP states, with all the authority at his command, that he wants a separate Scottish navy, a separate Scottish army and a separate Scottish air force. Does the hon. Gentleman want a separate Foreign Secretary?
Mr. Stewart: Yes.
Mr. Hamilton: We are dragging it out gradually.
Mr. Stewart: When is the hon. Gentleman going to come to the monarchy?
Mr. Hamilton: I was leaving the best to last. Does the SNP want a republic?
Mr. Stewart: No.
Mr. Hamilton: It seems it does not want a republic. Would not the SNP put the matter to a referendum?
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Yes. It is gratifying that the hon. Gentleman has realised that we are the official party in Scotland. Unfortunately the Scottish National Party is not the subject for debate, but I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman will know that we are believers in referenda. He knows my views on the matter. I

2249
have always said that as a democrat I would put any serious issues to referenda and accept the verdicts.
Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a referendum for the Scottish people before we discuss the powers and functions of the Assembly? It is important to know whether we shall have complete separation. Before we decide what powers the Assembly will have, should there not be a referendum so that the Scottish people can decide whether they want complete separation? The powers and functions of the Assembly will depend on the answer that is given to that question. The hon. Lady has already said that she believes important questions should be put to the Scottish people by way of referenda. There is no need for the hon. Member to repeat tediously the authoritative position of the SNP.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am getting seriously concerned about my hon. Friend changing his mind on referenda. It is bad enough to find that, but now I find that Members on the SNP bench agree as well. This really fills me with concern, because what is being asked is that the work on devolution should be abandoned until this question is settled once and for all.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn has said here in the House and on television that she believes that important issues ought to be put to the people by a multiplicity of referenda, and I presume that an important issue would be for the Scottish people to decide whether or not they want complete separation, because the functions and powers of an Assembly would depend first of all on the settlement of that question.
Mr. Buchan: Many SNP Members have accepted that separation should be the subject of a referendum. The real question that should be posed is whether the SNP would accept a decision if it went against them. That would be a test of their faith in the Scottish people and of their honesty.
Mr. Hamilton: Presumably the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson), when he winds up, will answer that question too.
If the decision were against complete separation, would the SNP accept that?
2250
If they would not, that makes a nonsense of the hon. Lady's suggestion. By inference the hon. Lady is saying that they would accept it. if the Scottish people said "No, we do not want that separation", that would alter the terms of reference of the unit within the Cabinet Office, because then we would have to decide just exactly how much devolution there should be. It would knock the stuffing out of what the Leader of the SNP has said. He has already said that he wants a separate Prime Minister, a separate Foreign Secretary, a separate Chancellor of the Exchequer and the rest.
The consequence of that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West said, must be border controls, customs barriers and so on. It is no good the Scottish National Party saying they would not have them, because the decision would not lie with them. It would lie down here. The English would erect them. Of course they would. The Scots could not separate and unilaterally go their own way without expecting a reaction from the 45 million English. If the Scots had separate taxation and separate immigration laws and so on, the English would see that there were barriers put up, and there would be smuggling across the border.
Mr. Buchan: It is not a question whether the Scots or the Welsh or the English desire it. The point is that they would have to do it or they could not operate. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt) must understand, with his knowledge of the EEC—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had the privilege of addressing the House for half an hour and there are other hon. Members waiting to speak. Now he is making not an intervention in his hon. Friend's speech but an independent point.
Mr. Hamilton: My hon. Friend is making me speak for longer than I wished. The point is a valid one. The barriers would be erected by the English. If the Scots said, "We want to be separate", the English would say "All right, we will jolly well see that you are separate". They would take the decision.
One of the first to clear out of Scotland would be me. That might give great satisfaction to the SNP, but I think that

2251
it would be a loss to Scotland if that happened, because I am an Englishman —and I am not particularly proud to be English; it is not my fault that I am English; I did not ask to be born in England; I was not consulted on the matter—and I have been accepted in Scotland for what I am for 25 years. Sometimes people in Scotland question my parentage, but they do not hold it against me. I am instinctively inter-national, as I think the Scots are.
We English have no specific English national dress like the Scots have. We have no distinctive English culture. We have no particularly English music. The English do not parade their nationalism as blatantly as do the Scots. I am not saying whether that is good or bad. It just happens to he the fact. I do not give a damn where any man or woman was born. What I instinctively accept is that no one is my superior and no one is my inferior, wherever he may have been born.
I think that the SNP is needlessly creating this kind of division which my party stands for removing. Although the Nationalists disclaim responsibility for the activities of the Tartan Army, they can- not completely dissociate themselves from the emotions and motivation of those stupid people—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Shame.
Mr. Hamilton: That is the kind of thing that is created. Whether they were responsible—and I do not think that they were—they create this kind of feeling among an irresponsible section of the community. I do not think they realise the danger that they are creating, but they must bear a heavy burden of responsibility for that kind of thing.
Mrs. Ewing: Disgraceful.
Mr. Hamilton: I want to address one or two questions to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has been waiting patiently. We recognise that a Scottish Assembly is coming. If it is inevitable, like the poor girl about to be raped we had better lie back and enjoy it. But there is no evidence of that kind as far as I can see. The Leader of the SNP was right when he pointed out that my hon. Friend the junior Minister in the non-
2252
existent unit said that there might be a slippage of the timetable. I think that it is foolish to make a timetable, because there are enormously complicated questions to be decided.
Perhaps I might for a moment or two discuss the nuts and bolts of this issue. They have not been mentioned at any great length in this debate. We have not decided, as far as I know, on the size of this Assembly. We have not decided on the nature of it—
Mr. Rifkind: That is what they will do.
Mr. Hamilton: I want a progress report. I am putting the question to my hon. Friend, indeed, to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East, who may have some ideas about the size.
The discussion paper, "Devolution within the United Kingdom" specifically states in the final paragraph:
"Anyone who wishes to express a view should do so in writing as soon as possible."
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether the SNP has produced an official document dealing with the nuts and bolts of the composition of the Assembly, in particular its size, the nature of the constituencies, the method of voting, the regularity of elections, whether there should be Scottish Members of Parliament remaining at Westminster as well as attending the Assembly and whether the Secretary of State for Scotland should remain in the United Kingdom Cabinet or have a completely different rôle in Edinburgh.
If there is complete separation, I cannot envisage the English allowing any representative from a completely separate Scottish Assembly taking any part in a Westminster Government. They would have no part to play, not even an Ulster role. I assume that in those circumstances the SNP would completely exclude every element and trace of Scottish representation here. Is that right? It is important to spell out these matters. Am I correct in thinking that the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) is now indicating officially that he does not want any Scottish representation whatsoever in Westminster?
Mr. Donald Stewart: We would be independent.
Mr. Hamilton: I understand he is making it clear that there would not be

2253
a single Scottish voice heard at Westminster.
Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member is making very heavy weather about a number of matters. If he studies a copy of the Scottish National Party's manifesto, he will find that all these matters are clearly answered.
Mr. Hamilton: On the contrary, I shall put a few more questions to the hon. Gentleman after I have put some more questions to my hon. Friend the Minister.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire is on record as wanting a separate Scottish Civil Service. Is that the official SNP policy? As far as 1 know, the SNP is not officially on record as wanting a Scottish Civil Service. Does the SNP have in mind the creation of a separate Scottish Civil Service? Is that the official position or is that something that is merely in the mind of my hon. Friend? I want to know from the SNP, and especially from my hon. Friend, whether it is in mind to have a second Chamber in Edinburgh, because that is a matter which may be important to some people. If that is the case, how will it be elected and paid for? What will its functions be?
We have heard from the SNP tonight that the existing regions would be abolished. Therefore, a new tier of government would be established—namely, the Assembly—and the regions would be abolished.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend is a former Chairman of the Estimates Committee and, therefore, understands financial matters. It is all very well to speak about abolishing the regions, but what compensation would there be for contracts which had been broken for thousands of people? There are contracts in writing and they are law.
Mr. Hamilton: This is an important consideration. That question will be best answered by the Minister. Has there been any attempt to cost the establishment of such an Assembly, taking into account the compensation payments that are likely to arise from the abolition of the regions? These are not trifling, stupid questions. They are realistic.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: I am sure my hon. Friend does not want to mislead the House. It may be the policy of the SNP to abolish the regions, but it is not the Government's policy. Therefore, I do not think that it is proper for him to address that question specifically to me.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: As there does not seem to be any representative on the Opposition Front Bench, I should like to say that my policy is that we do not have any Assembly at all but go on just as we are.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman, in his filibustering speech, made it abundantly clear that he did not want anything to do with an Assembly. However, it was the Labour Party's official policy at the election that we should have an Assembly, and we shall carry out that promise. There will be an Assembly. I want to know from the Minister how far the Government have got with that policy. We are seeking something in the nature of a progress report. The SNP is anxious to get answers to questions, and I am putting some questions which hon. Members opposite have omitted to put. They have not posed several questions to which I think it is important to obtain answers.
My hon. Friend said that it was Government policy to maintain the regions. Therefore, Scotland will have community councils, district councils, regional councils, the Assembly, Westminster and Brussels. Would it be possible for any one man to be a member of that lot? Some people in Scotland, who are already members of both district and regional councils, have their eyes on the Assembly. Indeed, some officials in the regions are receiving greater salaries than the Prime Minister. Unless it is spelt out, it will be possible for an individual to be paid at district, regional, Assembly and Westminster level and also to be a member at Brussels. Therefore, he could have five separate forms of payment for doing those jobs. It is important for the taxpayer and the ratepayer to know whether that will be possible under the Government's proposals.
I should like to address some questions to the Leader of the Scottish National Party. The hon. Gentleman, I repeat,

2255
said that the SNP knew where it was going and made it clear that he and his colleagues want separate Armed Forces for Scotland. I do not know whether he has worked out the cost of what he would regard as a credible separate Scottish air force, army and navy. Would he hive off the Scottish coal industry completely, financially and in every other way, from the rest of the United Kingdom coal industry? The hon. Gentleman is not moving his head either horizontally or vertically. I do not know whether he is asleep.
Mr. Donald Stewart: No. Just bored.
Mr. Hamilton: One of my hon. Friends posed a question about the universities. The SNP is clearly divided on that matter. Some of its Members believe that they ought to remain under the University Grants Committee while others believe that there ought to be separate Scottish control of the universities. In that event would they allow English, African, or other students to attend Scottish universities? Would the universities be international? The true meaning of a university is that it is open to all nationalities. The SNP claims to know where it is going. It is important to know the answers to these questions.
If the SNP Members want a separate regional policy for Scotland, how will they stop firms moving south of the border if the grants, subsidies and loans in the English regional policy are more generous? They cannot ignore what happens across the border. The same situation will arise with income tax and a number of other taxes. If income tax was lower in England, how would a separate Scottish Government prevent people moving out of Scotland? If taxes were lower in Scotland. how would they stop people moving in from England to take advantage of that fact? These are not trivial questions. They need to be answered. If there is any slippage in the unit dealing with these matters, it will have been caused by questions like these.
I must tell the Government that it would be idle to presume that legislation on this matter will be non-controversial or that it could get through the House in a day or two. A long time will be needed for consultations both before and after the
2256
legislation is framed. Representations will be made by trade unions, industrialists, local and national politicians and by the regions of England. The Kilbrandon Report was concerned with devolution generally and not just devolution to Scotland and Wales. The regions of England will be very much concerned and affected by any Government decisions relating to Scotland and Wales.
I have been a Member of this House for a number of years and I have never found any great emotion about the machinery of government. The SNP is right when it says the Scottish people—they are no different from any others in this respect—are concerned with the security of their job, the quality of their children's education, they are not concerned with the kind of government that provides those things. It could be a benevolent dictatorship for all they are concerned. "Participation" has been the "in" word for some time and there is a popular belief that the people are anxious to participate. I do not believe that is true. If we look at the record in trade union and local elections, we find that the turnout is derisory. As long as the wage is right, the rent reasonable, the job secure, and the school adequate, the people do not give a damn how these services are provided. There is not much evidence to show that many people are actively concerned to make the decisions.
My experience in the Labour Party is that very often there is difficulty in finding candidates to stand at local level—although that is perhaps not the situation at national level—and in maintaining local parties. The SNP, when at the pinnacle of its power in my constituency a few years ago, won control of Glenrothes District Council. Its candidates were so astonished that they did not know what to do. Within a few weeks they had all resigned and the Labour Party took control by default. The SNP did not have a clue about running a district council. It is time we pricked the balloon about how anxious people are to make decisions for themselves.
The debate has been useful in pinpointing some of the problems and pinning down the SNP on what it really stands for. We have obtained some information from its Members, but we are still not certain of their views on housing, education, agriculture and a whole lot of

2257
other issues that affect the lives of ordinary working men and women. I hope that before the debate ends there will be some attempt by the SNP to spell out its policies on these issues. It is no good its supporters saying that they will wait until they get the Assembly before telling us. When the Government provide the elections they will have to come up with policies, but it is important for people to know them now.
I think I have said enough to show some of the difficulties. It would be idle for the Scots to presume that there will not be a reaction—and, I suspect, a hostile reaction—in England to what is done in Scotland and Wales if similar favourable treatment is not afforded to the English regions. There will be rows. There will be, I was going to say violence, but there will certainly be great discontent if Scotland is seen to get more favourable treatment.
There is one factor which has never been mentioned and which the Scots will have to face. Has the hon. Member for Western Isles any idea of the size of the National Debt?
Mr. Donald Stewart: Yes, £26,000 million.
Mr. Hamilton: No. The figure is £40,125 million, as shown in Table 1 of the Annual Abstract of Statistics for 1974. Scotland's share of that—and this Parliament will see to it that Scotland takes its share—on a per capita basis is roughly one-tenth. Scotland would have to shoulder a debt of £4,000 million or £800 per man, woman and child. The Scottish National Party had better spell that out to the Scottish people. I put that thought to the hon. Member for the Western Isles because I shall make it clear to my constituents.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that we are not paying our share of the National Debt now?
Mr. Hamilton: It is being shouldered on a United Kingdom basis, and the Scottish people would have to take all the disciplines. It would not all be advantage. It would be shouldered in much the same way as the National Debt is shouldered. It is important for the Scottish people to understand that they would have a Scottish National Debt. This Parliament would insist that they took
2258
their proportion of the United Kingdom's National Debt as it exists. I hope that Members of the Scottish National Party will spell this out to the Scottish people in their future gyrations on policy.
1.46 a.m.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The rather leisurely way in which this debate has been conducted will, I hope, not mislead anyone about the tremendous importance of the subject before us in the early hours of today.
The particular significance to the Minister is that the Government are due to present a White Paper in the autumn of this year setting out more detailed proposals on the whole question of devolution in general and of Scottish and Welsh Assemblies in particular.
I am a little disappointed that in the debate tonight more time than is necessary has been spent attacking various parties and personalities across the Floor of the House, which has not been particularly constructive to the point we are trying to discuss and understand. We have not been very helpful to the Minister in the considerations taking place, and if we do not like the White Paper in November to some extent we have only ourselves to blame for the lack of ideas and constructive thought that has gone into the debate so far. I am obviously hoping to remedy that in the next few minutes, in my usual modest way.
However, it is a pity that we have spent, not only on this subject but on many political subjects, a disproportionate amount of time attacking each other's policies rather than providing some good solid ideas about what the situation should be.
The only other criticism I would make is that fear is used to a greater extent in the devolution arguments by both sides. The Scottish Nationalists suggest to the Scottish people that they are being deprived of something and are being held back. There is the fear of the anti-devolutionist who says that we cannot play around with the constitution and that if we go any way towords an Assembly, the danger is that we shall start on a slippery slope that has a horrible ending.
We should be able to discuss the subject fairly rationally, discover some of the directions we might go and try to understand some of the attitudes that

2259
have been developing among hon. Members and people generally in Scotland and England during the past few years. We have already heard tonight from people who might be described as diehard Unionists—they come from all political parties—who believe that they were panicked into a devolution commitment which they think is now ill considered and likely to launch Britain down the slippery slope of separatism. This argument seems to endorse the status quo as the defence against nationalism, and it leads to an understandable tiredness with the deluge or change and reform which has marked the past few years. But this is a view from Westminster rather than from Scotland, and it one which seems insensitive to the restlessness which is as evident in Scotland this year as it was last year.
This restlessness with over-centralisa-tion affects attitudes in industry and the trade unions as well as in Government and with Government. If this restlessness seems less troublesome this year than it was last year, this may be due entirely to the firm commitment made by all parties which fought the election in Scotland last year to have an Assembly set up before yet another General Election takes place. I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was suggesting that the SNP did not make that commitment.
Mr. Robert Hughes indicated assent.
Mr. Fletcher: If we are talking about the majority of seats in Scotland and the two major parties in Scotland, we must accept that the Conservative Party and the Labour Party made a firm commitment regarding the Assembly during the election last year.
A second attitude to devolution which seems to be developing is now called the minimalist approach. This suggests that the manifesto commitments might be met by setting up a talking shop in Edinburgh, following the enactment of a piece of legislation which would no doubt be described by the Government Front Bench as the "Regeneration of the Constitution Bill."
That is an approach which is broadly supported by some leading and respectable political figures as a sensible and
2260
gradualist approach to devolution. But it is open to the serious criticism that it is really a matter of "How little can we get away with to try to appease nationalism, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, to fulfil the election pledge made last year?" That is not good enough in the situation in which we find ourselves and in view of the commitments we have made.
The third attitude is the maximalist approach. This is a view which I share, not merely because I think that I understand the restlessness which exists in Scotland but because I see the commitment to an Assembly not as a threat but as a source of potential benefit to the United Kingdom. I should like to see some of this restlessness in my English friends rather than their considering that devolution is just some little local difficulty in Scotland and Wales.
The constitutional reforms I would advocate would make the regions of England, including the South-East, envious of the autonomy captured by Scotland and Wales and would act as a spur to the English regions to follow this example. One purpose of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales would be to lead the way for regional government in England, even though obviously, for historical reasons, the Scots and the Welsh Assembly would be quite different in form from whatever form of government might be set up in various parts of England.
It is a reasonable rule when advocating changes of this kind in the structure of government that there should be no increase in the total size of the government machine. Therefore, in arguing the case for a directly-elected Scottish Assembly, which would have the power to raise revenue in Scotland and would not, therefore, be merely another gathering of big spenders, I would also advocate changes in the structure of local and of central Government.
The first and obvious change is the abolition of regional authorities. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has twice tonight mentioned contracts—presumably he means the individual contracts of people employed in the regions. That is a matter of concern to all of us who are interested in getting the structure right, but it cannot be posed as an insurmountable problem when we

2261
are trying to get the structure right of local and central Government. This can be overcome in the light of our experience already with the new regional authorities and the commitment to an Assembly.
Mr. Dalyell: This is a serious concern. The Assembly will take over many of the local authority functions of the regions, because it will then become an executive local authority in its own right. Is this what is intended?
Mr. Fletcher: The Assembly as I see it would be a top tier of local government in Scotland as part—only part—of its functions. It would take over the duties of the regions which could be considered the top tier of local government.
Mr. Dalyell: This is the basic objection. It is no accident that the hon. Member who makes this proposal comes from North Edinburgh. What some of us are very concerned about bluntly is Edinburgh government. It is all very well to make this suggestion when one represents parts of the capital city and a famous constituency, but if local government functions are to be attached to the Assembly things will be rather different if one conies from Ayrshire, let alone the Western Isles.
Mr. Fletcher: I cannot support that part of the hon. Member's argument. I am fortunate enough to represent an Edinburgh constituency. Edinburgh manages very well at the moment with the legal profession and the Government organisations and commerce and industry generally. I am not trying to say that Edinburgh should necessarily become some massive capital city. It would be the obvious place to centre government in Scotland, but if other hon. Members have other suggestions I shall be happy to consider them. I am also happy to say that I saw in the Press yesterday that the Secretary of State has decided that the headquarters of the Assembly should be in my constituency. That is a decision that he took without any pressure from me, so I cannot be blamed for that.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the hon. Member pursue a little further and more clearly what he means by the Assembly taking on some of the functions of local government? The present relationship
2262
between the Government and local authorities is that the latter have statutory duties. Are we saying that in the Grampian Region, for example, some of the local authority functions, either in that region or in the city of Aberdeen district, would be directly or executively controlled by the Assembly?
Mr. Fletcher: We have to realise that we are talking about an Assembly and a kind of structure that we do not have at the moment. We are going into a completely new area. The transfer of functions which are at the moment local government functions to an Assembly means that they will no longer be local government functions. The ground rules for those functions, as conducted and managed by an Assembly, would be different from the ground rules for the same functions if they remained part of local government.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Devolution of power and decentralisation seem to run counter to the argument to centralise local government functions under an Assembly which controls Scotland. It is the other way round. More of the functions transferred from Westminster to the Assembly should be further devolved to the local government system to be decided on by the Assembly.
Mr. Fletcher: I want to see the maximum of functions of government devolved to the districts. We must organise local government so that it is as near as possible to the people concerned. There are functions which can best be managed on an all-Scotland basis by the Assembly. There are other functions which can best be managed on a United Kingdom basis at Westminster. I think of Scotland as setting the pace in a pilot scheme. I hope that Scotland will become the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom if there is good thinking in the White Paper and the legislation that will follow. The people of Scotland will be pacesetters in a structure of government which did not exist formerly in the United Kingdom.
The abolition of the regions will help to reduce the cost of bureaucracy. This is not an insignificant factor when we are trying to understand and reshape the structure of Government.
Mr. Dalyell: We know that upheaval and change stoke inflation.
Mr. Fletcher: The regions are not run by the elected representatives. The experience of the past few months suggests that the regions are run by the senior officials for the senior officials and not by the elected councillors, who seem to be powerless in any situation requiring the authorisation of the expenditure of money. The Secretary of State said that he was powerless to intervene. There must be something sadly wrong with the structure of local government in Scotland when the Secretary of State cannot intervene and when the regional authority councillors appear to be powerless to intervene at a time when a great deal of spending is taking place.
Mr. Dalyell: There are to be in effect 140 full-time Assembly-men. Their salaries and those of their officials must be paid.
Mr. Fletcher: I do not think that that proposal will cost a lot less than the present cost of running the regions, in terms both of councillors and of staff.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the situation. Salary increases were agreed by joint councils in which councillors controlled expenditure. The senior officials are charged in the statute with the executive running of the different departments. Although in some senses cost is not a serious issue, the salaries and conditions of local government staff are protected. Some local government officials received £70,000 golden handshakes as a result of the way in which the commission approached the question of local government officers' salaries. However the jobs were redistributed, the money would still have to be found. We cannot cut a man's salary.
Mr. Fletcher: It all adds up to a good deal for the officials and a bad deal for the ratepayers. There is something wrong with a system which allows that to happen. Parliament is faced with a challenge. If we are to make changes to bring about decentralisation, and not merely a facade of decentralisation, we must devolve power to the elected representatives in the proposed Assembly. The concept of the regions was produced
2264
in the late 1950s. There was a White Paper on the subject in the early 1960s. There was a Royal Commission on local government in the late 1960s. Its recommendations are being implemented halfway through the 1970s.
Much has happened to politics in Scotland since these ideas were first produced. It is a tragedy that the House insisted on putting through the reorganisation of local government in 1973 when the Royal Commission on the Constitution was sitting. The two operations were completely independent of each other. That is not entirely the responsibility of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Labour Members were not very quick to catch on to that. It is easy to criticise with hindsight, but that was a major mistake. To insist that because we have set up regional authorities we should keep them and add another tier of government in the form of an Assembly would be for the Labour Government to compound the errors made by the previous Conservative Government.
The office of the Secretary of State should go if we are to have an Assembly with meaningful powers. The Assembly should take over the domestic affairs which were previously conducted through St. Andrew's House upon the responsibility of the Secretary of State.
Mr. William Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman visualise a situation in which Scotland does not have a representative in the United Kingdom Cabinet?
Mr. Fletcher: Not at all. I have great ambitions. There is nothing to stop my becoming a Cabinet member of the British Government.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Not as a Scottish Minister.
Mr. Fletcher: Not as a Scottish Minister, no, but as a Scottish member of a British Government, as can happen now.
Mr. Sproat: Does my hon. Friend envisage that Scotland will have the same number of Members of Parliament although there would be no Secretary of State?
Mr. Fletcher: Yes, I envisage the same number of Members of Parliament.
Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman wants to have his cake and eat it.
Mr. Fletcher: Not at all. This place is overloaded. There are too many Members of Parliament.
Mr. Sproat: The amount of work will not diminish.
Mr. Fletcher: There are 635 Members of Parliament, 71 of whom are Scottish Members. This has nothing to do with whether there is a Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers. The balance between Scotland and the United Kingdom must remain the same. If the House decided to reduce the total number from 635, the Scottish Members should be reduced proportionately. I do not want Scotland to demote itself within the context of the United Kingdom.
The biggest single breakthrough in this restructuring would be in finance. Scotland would have an opportunity to abolish the rating system and replace it by local income tax for which the Assembly would be responsible. Block grants would be given by the Assembly to the district councils, and Westminster would continue to make a block grant to the Assembly because local income tax would not finance all the activities that took place through the Assembly.
Mr. Robert Hughes: If there is a case for the Scottish Assembly to have additional revenue-raising powers in addition to the block grant so that it may determine the pace of expenditure, there surely remains a case for local authorities to have the right to raise additional revenue through local income tax so that each area decide its own priorities and whether it wants to persuade its people to pay more to get more services.
Mr. Fletcher: This is a very complex subject. I am simply trying to put forward some ideas.
There are various ways in which this could be done. The principle I am trying to apply is that of not adding more levels of taxation or representation. I am anxious that the Assembly should be revenue-rasing, on the principle of no rep-representation without taxation. [Interruption.] I said it the other way round deliberately. I want people to be responsible. If an Assembly is set up with-
2266
out revenue-raising powers, parties will fight the elections with great promises, and if the party that gains control cannot fulfil them it will blame Westminster for not supplying the cash.
Mr. Dalyell: Have mercy on public administration. It may be all very well for lawyers from North Edinburgh to have local income taxes, but let the hon. Gentleman think what the proposal would do to the Inland Revenue. It would mean the break-up of the Inland Revenue as we have known it.
Mr. Fletcher: I cannot believe that those now administering rate assessment and collection in Scotland could not, with a reduction in staff, switch over to some sort of local income tax [Interruption.] There will be a great deal to chew over in the White Paper and the legislation that will follow.
Mr. Dalyell: Ridiculous.
Mr. Fletcher: At least some of us are trying to put forward some ideas, instead of indulging in a constant gnat-bashing exercise, which is the main contribution from Labour Members.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Fletcher: The whole point that I am trying to make is that we made a mess of local government reform, and we must try to get this right. The pressure is on the Minister and his colleagues to get the White Paper out by the autumn and to have the Bill next year. Let us get cracking. I am as interested in the subject as anyone else. But I do not mind if the Minister takes extra months or an extra two years, because the most important thing that he can do on behalf of every hon. Member is to get it right.
2.13 a.m.
Mr. George Thompson: I am glad to follow such a thoughtful and reflective speech as we have just heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher).
We have heard a great deal of talk about slippery slopes. It is always presumed that they are for descending. It never seems to enter people's heads that they can be ascended and that one can climb up a slippery slope if one sets one's mind to it. There is an old Scottish proverb that "It takes a stout hert to a stey

2267
brae." I hope that the Minister has that stout heart and that he will successfully surmount the stey brae.
One hon. Member said that the English had not paraded their nationality or their nationalism. That is probably true when an Englishman looks at himself, but he should bear in mind the words of Robert Burns:
"O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!"
When a non-Englishman looks at the English people, he is well aware that they have their own culture and national personality, and we are glad that that is so. The English do not see it, because they live in it. They live and move and have their being in it.
Mr. William Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the English national dress is?
Mr. Thompson: I suppose that it might even be said that the clothes I am wearing are a development of an older English working-class national dress. I am sure that my ancestors did not parade in this sort of garb.
It is a question of what the Scots and the Welsh want. The English people have to settle for themselves how they will run their country. I would not presume to interfere. if they see certain good things turning up in Scotland and Wales which they wish to imitate, who are we to stop them? If, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North hopes, Scotland becomes in a sense an experimental area and the English see good things coming out of it and want to imitate them, let them do so. I would hope that in turn, if we saw good things in England, we would want to imitate them in a Scottish sense where we could.
We must remember that history does not stand still. The decisions that the Minister will take in formulating his White Paper, or the decisions the House will take in legislating, are not necessarily the last word. All through the last election campaign I kept saying that the Scottish people and the same goes for the Welsh and English, would stop this process in their own country when they had what they wanted. It may be that when a measure of devolution comes to Scotland the Scottish people will say
2268
"Yes, this is what we have been looking for." I shall still be saying to them "No. I think you could have something better because you could have independence." But it will be up to them to decide whether they wish to stay with what they have got or whether they wish to move forward. They may wish to move forward within a decade or within a century. History is in flux.
We are not capable in this House of putting up a barrier to prevent events from moving on. We must not take the view that we can do so. We know that no Parliament can bind its successor, for the very good reason that events march on. It is clear that we will not have time, even if we wanted, to dismantle the new system of local government which has just come in before we legislate for an Assembly, if the Government mean their timetable seriously, and I accept their assurances that they do. If this is so, is it not the case that local government reform will be for the Scottish Assembly? It will be up to all the parties there to present their policies for local government reform to the Scottish people for their choice at a General Election.
One of the excellences of a small country is that organisations are bound to be relatively small. This means that the number of people involved in the organisations is likewise relatively small, so that the personnel get to know one another. They may already know each other, having passed through the same university college or training school.
Mr. Buchan: There may even be some people working.
Mr. Thompson: Of course. Let us hope that we all work as hard as we can. I certainly try my best, and I can safely say that I have never been in another occupation that demanded that I should be present anywhere as a worker at twenty minutes past two o'clock in the morning—except the Army. I remember guarding a NAAFI canteen with a pickaxe handle at this time in the morning many years ago, before a certain gentleman in Russia made us all sit up and rush to get our revolvers back again. I must say that I found it quite pleasant beneath the stars. I do not say that this personal contact is not possible in a large country, but there has to be greater effort

2269
to achieve it. It has often to be done on a regional and not a national scale.
Another question that I put to the Minister concerns a particular body which I choose to mention as an example, although there are other bodies similarly involved. Many years ago when I was a forestry worker there was a Forestry Commission (Scotland). Then there was an amalgamation. The other evening I had the pleasure of regaling the House with an account of monoliths and tnegaliths, but this amalgamation resulted in the creation of a monolith with headquarters at Basingstoke. Then, like the businessman in the advertisements in the London tube trains, the monolith was sent packing not to Glenorchy but to Corstorphine. It would probably have found a few more sizeable forests if it had been sent packing to Glenorchy, rather than to one of the most salubrious suburbs of Edinburgh.
I used to have doubts in my simple peasant mind about such movements. I wondered whether they were not in part to be seen as a means of building organisations and structures to hold the United Kingdom together. I suggest that the devolution unit, or rather, I should say, the Ministers in charge of devolution, must consider the place of the Forestry Commission and other similar bodies. Are we to revert to having a Forestry Commission (Scotland)? It would seem to me that we should do so.
I have always believed that self-government would have a beneficial effect on the psychological health of the Scottish people. In most of our difficulties in future we shall know that the fault lies not in our stars, not in the English or in England, but in ourselves in Scotland. We shall have to set to and tackle our own problems in our own way. To my mind that will be a good thing. If the Minister can help to bring this about, he will have done a great deal for the people of Scotland in the way of restoring the self-respect and self-confidence of the Scottish people.
2.23 a.m.
Mr. Hamish Gray: There are two features of the debate which slightly disappoint me. The first is that we have had no contribution in favour of an Assembly from the Labour benches. That is a great pity
2270
since some Labour Members are so keen on devolution. It is a pity that this evening they did not wait to give us the benefit of their researches. They have been working extremely hard on this matter and we would all have been most interested to hear what they had to say. There can be no doubt that they have been working hard, but whether we agree with their findings is another matter.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Gray: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman has already had his fair share. It is a pity that those who are so keen on devolution are not here.
The main arguments which we have heard in favour of massive devolution have, not unnaturally, come from the Scottish Nationalists. They would not expect me to go along with them all the way in what they advocate. I totally disagree with the separation and the separatism policies for which they stand. At the same time, some of my hon. Friends have been floating ideas. Some of them have been thought through and some obviously have not. However, they have ideas about devolution.
I believe that the question of devolution is something which we all accept in some degree regardless of the side of the House on which we sit. What we do not accept is the degree of devolution—indeed, total independence—which the Scottish National Party advocates.
I have stood on election platforms at three elections now and advocated an Assembly for Scotland, and I am certainly not going back on that now. I have always believed in an Assembly for Scotland. Initially the recommendation was for a directly-elected Assembly, but the Conservative Party at the February election considered that an indirectly-elected Assembly would be a quicker means of getting an Assembly started, and that having got it established it would then be there and it could evolve from that state. Presumably the idea would have been that it would become a directly-elected body.
When the present Government announced that they were going to take steps to create a directly-elected Assembly we went along with them. Those of us who believed in an Assembly felt that if the Government were proposing to have

2271
a directly elected Assembly we should be prepared to accept it.
I have been most interested in some of the speeches in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) launched some very interesting ideas, but the one thing he had slightly forgotten was that the whole question of an Assembly and its powers, and what it will eventually do, will depend on the functions that this House gives it.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) made a very interesting point when he mentioned the possibility of having a referendum before an Assembly is created. The hon. Lady the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) said, I think, that she believed in a referendum for all sorts of things. I have always been opposed to the principle of referenda, but we had one for the Common Market question. It may just be that it is worth considering having a referendum before we proceed along this path at all, because I am absolutely certain that the one thing the people of Scotland do not want is total separation or total independence. Therefore, having sorted out that question, it might be easier to decide what the powers of an Assembly should be.
We shall have to wait to see what the Government produce. We are not able to discuss this in detail now because we do not fully know their intentions.
Mr. Robert Hughes: This is the first debate I can recall in which so many people have raised the question of having a referendum before the establishment of an Assembly. It is a totally new point. Does not the hon. Gentleman take the point that if we were to convince the people of Scotland—and, indeed, all hon. Members of this House—that we should have a referendum before any work was done on passing a Bill on devolution, this would delay devolution and would not be a good thing?
Mr. Gray: The hon. Member must not misrepresent what I said. I was not advocating a referendum, What I said was that the hon. Member for Fife, Central had raised a very interesting point which I think deserves further consideration before we proceed along these lines.
2272
One of my hon. Friends mentioned the reorganisation of local government and criticised our party for what we did in that way. Our party would have been criticised 10 times more if we had done nothing. We knew that there were no votes in reorganising local government, but there had been an outcry for it. The Wheatley Commission had sat. The mistake was that the Wheatley Commission was not told to look into the financial side of local government. It should have been given a money remit as well. Had that been done, we might not have had the criticism of reorganised local government in Scotland that we have now.
I am disappointed that a number of my hon. Friends and a number of distinguished Members on the Government benches have such grave misgivings about a measure of devolution for Scotland—an Assembly. I feel that this is something which we could accept as being in the long term for the benefit of Scotland. I have made it clear already that we are not talking about a separate or independent Scotland. We are talking about a greater measure of devolution for Scotland. All of us in this House and outside it have advocated this for a very long time.
Hon. Members are perhaps being rather pessimistic, and they are not accepting the challenge which is offered. I believe that we can make it work but, as is always the case, until we have a White Paper and know exactly what the Government propose it is difficult to debate it in anything other than vague terms.
We have talked a lot tonight about the EEC. Whatever criticisms hon. Members may have of the EEC or of EEC legislation, the question of our entering the Common Market was not rushed. For years successive Parliaments considered this matter very carefully, and when the legislation eventually came before Parliament it was the product of the thinking of a series of Governments in the past.
I go along with those who have suggested to the Minister that probably the most important thing of all is that the Government must not be panicked into legislation necessarily this autumn. The Scottish Nationalists will do everything they can to panic the Government into

2273
a hasty decision. It is 10 times better for Scotland that this legislation, if necessary, is delayed slightly and that we get the right answer at the end of the day—[Interruption.] That is typical of the Nationalists. We hear the giggles and squeaks from their bench whenever anyone mentions delay. We want to make sure that we get it right. We all know that the Nationalists want this in a hurry, because they are afraid of what may happen to them if anything goes wrong with the oil.
The Scottish National Party had no credibility before the oil came. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn made a fleeting visit to this House as the hon. Member for Hamilton. She won a by-election, and she went out at the General Election. She had no oil to back her at that time. The hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was not elected because he represented the SNP. He was elected because he was Mr. Donald Stewart, the Provost of Stornoway, and, as I have said in Committee, he had a jolly sight better voting record for the Labour Party than his predecessor. I do not say that in any carping way, because there is no Member of the SNP for whom I have a greater regard.
Those were the two seats which the SNP had before the advent of oil. The remainder have come in on the barrel, and they will go out on the barrel—
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Wishful thinking.
Mr. Gray: No, it is not. The fact that they are wobbly all over Scotland and losing their appeal is the reason why they are so desperate—
Mr. Watt Mr. Watt rose—
Mr. Gray: No, I will not give way to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). That is why they want to get this going in a hurry—
Mrs. Ewing Mrs. Ewing rose—
Mr. Gray: Nor to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn—[Interruption.] I intended to make a few brief remarks—[Interruption,] The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn squeaks all the time, anyway, whether one gives way to her or not. She is always chirping away.
We want to emphasise to the Government that, much as we want to see this
2274
legislation coming forward, we must be sure that we get the right answer.
My other comment to the Minister—I hope that he will pass it on to his right hon. and hon. Friends—is that we have had just a small sample tonight of the kind of prolonged argument which is likely to take place when we face the legislation. If the Government intend to introduce the Bill in the next Session, they must be prepared to sacrifice some of the other measures which they are also seeking. I think I am right in saying that the Bill will have to be taken in its entirety on the Floor of the House. That means that the time available for other legislation will be very limited.
If the Government try to clog the machine in the way they have done this Session, we shall never get the Bill through. Scottish National Party Members have tonight given us just a taste of their ability to argue various points, and I hope that the Government will take this on board.
I welcome the fact that the Government will produce a White Paper and I look forward to seeing it. I wholly support the principle of a Scottish Assembly and hope that the Government will give us proper legislation in due course.
2.37 a.m.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I find the highly personal remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) beneath contempt. However, I have no intention of repaying him in his own coin which he so liberally and viciously spread around.
The Assembly has now been more or less housed. As it is now seeing to its own needs, I hope that when it is in operation it will ensure that it can similarly decently house the Scottish people.
Those responsible for devolution must ensure that governmental machinery is available to allow the Assembly to complete its task. This will mean at best a complete Cabinet system with fully-fledged Ministers ready and able to meet the governmental needs of Scotland. There will have to be Ministers for each major area of national life backed up by adequate executive machinery. These will represent the basic governmental muscle power required for the regeneration of Scotland.

2275
Those responsible for devolution must ensure that the decision making in Scotland is done by people living among and aware of Scotland's needs. There must be democratic control by the Scottish people. Anything less must stand condemned as being inadequate and parochial.
We desperately need a Scottish Housing Minister with adequate drive and energy to meet one of the worst housing problems in Western Europe. If the devolution unit does its job properly, such a Housing Ministry will be recommended. This will mean an end to government in Scotland by part-timers who hold a whole host of other portfolios. It will mean an end to the mentality of putting "Scotland" in brackets with Scotland always lagging behind English legislation as some kind of afterthought. Co-operative housing is being considered as a third force or alternative which will allow people to share in house ownership. The Government-sponsored committee now looking into this matter has met 13 times. It has not met in Scotland. It has not taken evidence in Scotland. It has no plans to visit Scotland. However, its report will be made available to the Scottish Office.
Are we to assume that when the Scottish legislation follows the English legislation as surely as day follows night, or as night follows day, it will be based on English research data and English experience? The development unit must try to find an end to this sort of situation.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: I do not want to be repetitious. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has a prepared speech in his hand. However, I should have hoped that earlier in the debate he might have gone through his speech and substituted "Constitution Unit" for "devolution unit".
Mr. Welsh: I was using a shorthand term that was used by other hon. Members. I hope that if the machinery is created a start can be made on Scottish initiatives and decision taking based on the actual Scottish situation. The present poverty of the governmental machinery hides a similar dearth of adequate financial provision. The Scottish Estimates show that the money at present allocated is not enough. Glasgow alone needs
2276
practically the whole sum at present allocated if it is to solve its housing problem. If only one city is capable of soaking up such a large percentage of the finance at present allocated annually to Scotland, what hope is there of solving Scotland's housing problem. What hope is there for Bowhouse or for Ferguslie Park?
It is ironic that Strathclyde contains the heaviest pockets of urban deprivation yet at the same time has 61 per cent. unemployed in the construction industry. Recent warnings have come from that industry that unemployment will increase. There is a need for these workers and for their skills, because there is an obvious task for them to perform.
If the Secretary of State will not act, those responsible for devolution must ensure that the Assembly is equipped to fulfil the task. Those responsible for devolution must ensure the decision-making power and the financial teeth for the Assembly to allow it to undertake that task.
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Welsh: I should like to finish what I am saying. The Secretary of State has said that he does not know—
Mr. Buchan Mr. Buchan rose—
Mr. William Hamilton: Give way.
Mr. Welsh: The Secretary of State has said that he does not know how much is needed to bring Scotland's houses up to minimum tolerable standards. Indeed, he cannot hold out any hope of a longterm solution. This is an indication of lack of adequate thought and research into the whole situation. The Secretary of State should know the answers but he does not. Those responsible for devolution must ensure that the Assembly is equipped to answer these and similar questions.
Mr. Buchan: Which questions?
Mr. Welsh: We need funds and a research organisation capable of constructing an adequate framework and analysis of Scotland's housing problems. We need Government machinery and the financial resources to carry it out in harness with all appropriate sources.
The Government know about the Department of the Environment's report on

2277
urban deprivation. It will be to their shame if they do not produce Assembly proposals adequate to meet and solve this problem. While they are doing that, it would be of great assistance to know exactly how much of Scotland's oil revenues will be allocated to the task of building Scottish houses. The Scottish people have a right to know how much of their natural asset will be plundered from them and how much will be set to rebuilding and renovating their homeland.
We notice that the first oil from Scottish territorial waters has physically been landed near London. Where the oil physically goes today, the revenue will surely follow. Let those responsible for devolution awaken the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Gerry Fowler: I think that even the hon. Gentleman will concede that the oil to which he referred was what might he called English oil on the analogy of Scottish oil because it came from what would on any natural division of the North Sea be English territorial waters.
Mr. Henderson: It is under the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts.
Mr. Welsh: The question remains, where is the oil revenue going? The answer is obvious. The cash is there and the need is there. Let those responsible for devolution produce a devolution plan to match this task for the sake of Scotland's future.
2.43 a.m.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I am glad to be called, albeit at this late hour. I have great affection for the Minister. I hope that after his winding up speech, having told us lots of encouraging things, I shall like him even better.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will have a fairly easy task in summing up the debate, because so few constructive proposals have been put to him by his hon. Friends. I look forward to a brief speech from the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he will have a lot of ideas of his own to put forward, because they have been singularly lacking so far.
We have had a debate not so much about the devolution unit as about the Scottish National Party. We are pleased to have a debate about the SNP at any time that the small number of Labour
2278
Members from Scotland care to have one. They have strayed so far from the subject of the debate that the Minister will have a much easier time than if they had poured into his ear the constructive proposals which they rightly realise can come only from hon. Members on this bench. That is why the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) has presumably asked so many questions which my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) will answer when he sums up.
I should like to limit my remarks to my portfolio, which concerns the EEC, and rehearse the patriotic arguments about which we have already heard so much. I should like to think that the Minister will seek powers in the proposed Assembly to scrutinise intensively all EEC legislation as it affects Scotland. This is a matter on which I would probably receive support from other parties. The Lord Advocate has given more than one set of encouraging replies and yesterday he said he would make sure that legislation coming from the EEC would be scrutinised.
Scrutiny is not a simple matter. As the hon. Member for Fife, Central was careful to point out, I have taken my seat in the European Assembly and I know just how many important regulations affect our domestic situation. They cover such a wide range of subjects that I could not list them all. I do not intend to speak for an hour like some other hon. Members and I hope that I shall not make a tedious and boring speech.
The Lord Advocate has said that it is his function to scrutinise law reform as it relates to Scotland, and he would surely agree with me that whatever other powers are given to the Assembly, the ability to scrutinise EEC legislation must be one of them. Laws that might affect Scotland are pouring in from the EEC and it is better to know about them in advance than to complain about them after they have taken effect. A vast bulk of paper work is involved. There is tons of it. It is very difficult to get to know all the regulations and there is likely to be a problem of enforcement. The chairman of the Chief Constables' Association in Scotland has said it is impossible to know all the regulations and that it will be difficult for the police to enforce them.

2279
If EEC legislation is unacceptable to Scotland, there will be a need for action to prevent it passing into law. If it is acceptable, other action needs to be taken. As we sit here debating the Assembly, there is legislation coming from the EEC which needs to be scrutinised from the Scottish angle. We already have a precedent for scrutiny of law reform from a Scottish angle because of our different system of law. We have a Scottish judge in the EEC and many Scottish trained lawyers there. This point has been taken in Europe and the existence of a separate legal system for Scotland was guaranteed in the Treaty of Union in 1707, but I will not go into that now.
The laws of the EEC affect vital areas such as agriculture, horticulture, fisheries and industry. It would be wrong to have an Asesembly which did not have power to scrutinise this legislation. There has been a growth of legislation in such matters as crofting which is excellent and specialised. Matters such as transport, which has a social element, and shipping are also included. We reserve the right to introduce subsidies to transport in order to assist remote areas. We should like to think that more will be done. Will there be any interference with our rights to consider that? There should be a strong element of subsidy to encourage remote areas to keep their populations, but that is a dangerous word to use in the EEC.
I remember my first visit to Brussels when I represented the Hamilton constituency. I am not ashamed at losing that seat. I did my best to keep it and I very nearly succeeded. On that visit delegates from my party were concerned about matters of this kind. We met some top civil servants of the time. One phrase was used which did not attract me to the EEC, but Commissioner Thomson assures me that in the intervening years the EEC has changed its policy in this respect. The phrase was that hill farmers would have to go to the wall. That phrase has a nasty ring to it and I did not like what it implied. In Scotland one of the top civil servants used the phrase in the company of myself and of several SNP members.
Mr. Dalyell: I do not believe it.
Mrs. Ewing: I was there and so were six other witnesses.
Mr. William Hamilton: What nonsense.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Ewing: No, I will not give way on that point.
Mr. Dalyell: She is talking absolute rubbish.
Mrs. Ewing: I was in a meeting with top civil servants on this.
Mr. Hamilton: They did not say that.
Mr. Dalyell: No civil servant said that.
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Lady give way now?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate has gone on for a long time and the hon. Lady should be allowed to proceed.
Mrs. Ewing: I can easily obtain the names of the persons involved. They are in a record, but they are not in my head.
Mr. Dalyell: Produce them next week.
Mrs. Ewing: The Mansholt plan also said it.
Mr. Dalyell: Rubbish.
Mrs. Ewing: I referred back to this meeting in a conversation I had with Commissioner Thomson recently. He said that I should not worry about the matter because the policy of the EEC had changed in the intervening years. I welcome that change, because if hill farmers were to go to the wall that would not suit the economy of Scotland.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Dalyell: What absolute rubbish the hon. Lady is talking.
Mrs. Ewing: I do not propose to entertain any argument on that point. Those events took place as I have described.
I wish now to turn to horticulture where we are encouraging people, who work very hard in an industry which is useful and important to many parts of Scotland, to break their panes of glass and to go

2281
out of business. If that is to be the result of EEC policy it is important that hon. Members should be in Brussels and speak out against that policy.
On fishing, the EEC policy was hammered out before Britain joined. One can perhaps excuse it to some extent, therefore, on the ground that the pond was not so big. Now that Britain is a member that policy must be halted. That is the kind of thing that a strong Assembly in Scotland could speak up about.
That policy as at present constituted cannot be permitted to come into force on its due date. This question concerns the survival of a whole industry in Scotland. I am sure that it must affect the English side of the industry just as much. We have heard ambitious speeches from all hon. Members on this subject. That is one of the reasons, apart from the question of scrutiny for urging that the Assembly should have a district department within its Civil Service to consider ways in which it can cope with EEC policy and regulations in the best interests of Scotland.
Mr. Buchan: We are talking about a devolved Assembly, not a separate State. The hon. Lady is suggesting that in a devolved Assembly there should be a scrutiny organisation. What is she proposing as the feed-back on that? Will she recommend, in addition, representation at all levels of the EEC, including the Council of Ministers? If that is the case, it is a separate argument.
Secondly, will such a body of representatives in Brussels perform the duty of Members of Parliament or Assembly members and report back to the British people allegations such as the one about the civil servant who said that hill farmers must go to the wall? Would they report back to their own people that this had been said so that the truth could be checked?
Mrs. Ewing: I have reported this incident to the House on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman has not been present, but this is not the first time I have told the story to the House and it may not be the last time, although as I believe that the EEC has generously changed its policy the matter will not arise in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I have thought about the ques-
2282
tion of scrutiny since yesterday when the Lord Advocate gave such encouraging replies and I believe that the scrutiny should be conducted under the umbrella of the Lord Advocate and that he should have additional help. The Assembly would have to have a separate department to cope with aspects of the EEC policy which affect Scotland.
I turn to the question on which the hon. Gentleman anticipated me, namely, that of direct representation.
Mr. Buchan: We want the name of the civil servant.
Mrs. Ewing: I do not have it in my head. I shall not be delayed by this because I have already answered the point. It happened before many witnesses and it was referred to in my speech with Commissioner Thomson, who admitted that that had been the policy, but it has since been changed. The hon. Gentleman can ask Commissioner Thomson about that. I try to be relevant, but sometimes it is rather difficult and Labour Members who filibuster quite disgracefully, boringly and impolitely and who lower the standard of this House will not tempt me into losing the relevance that I like to have.
Scotland should have direct representation across the board in Europe. It is rather strange that here we have a nation —and the case is conceded that we are a nation—
Mr. Buchan: Conceded?
Mrs. Ewing: We are a nation. Luxembourg has half the population of Edinburgh, yet it is a Member State and has its seat at the table of the various institutions. That is what we want.
I had the good fortune to catch the President's eye on my first day at the European Parliament. The fact that it was a Wednesday was not my fault, as the House will remember, and I made this point in my speech. It may interest hon. Members to know that far from the unworthy, rather rude remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central, my speech was well received. I was told by the British civil servant that normally—
Mr. William Hamilton: It was not. No one was listening to it.
Mrs. Ewing: Normally speakers do not look at the Chairman but just at the headphones and ignore him. However, I had an actively interested audience. Later I was congratulated by members of the delegation of Luxembourg, Holland, Denmark and Ireland, some of whom said that they agreed heartily with my point. I was congratulated by the Rapporteur, Mr. Bertrand, the next day and after my speech, which was listened to with rapt attention—[Interruption.] —I have said that they do not normally listen, but they listened to me. Anyway, we are on record—[Interruption.] Considering that the hon. Member for Fife, Central took an hour for his speech and my hon. Friends never interrupted with a word. I think I am entitled to make one last point on the matter. That is that at the end of the report of my speech—and it is in the minutes—appeared the word "applause".
My party always supported the idea of the referendum. Even if a referendum result does not go the way one likes, If one is a democrat one has to accept it. That is what I had to do. I am disappointed that it went the way it did. But immediately it went that way, we thought it was right that we should have a place in the European Parliament, and the Labour Party appeared to agree with us. We took our place and do not apologise for having done so.
However, I have a considerable mail bag, across the board, from people who vote for other parties and tell me so, and from members of other parties, apart from supporters. There was a gut reaction in Scotland following the referendum result— "All right, now that we are in, let us get on with it. We are glad you are going because you will speak up about things that affect Scotland." I have had considerable support from people in other parties for my position there.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Lady name these people in other parties?
Mrs. Ewing: I have an enormous file of letters.
Mr. Dalyell: Name some.
Mrs. Ewing: Some come from West Lothian, and some from my hon. Friends'
2284
constituencies. I do not have all the names in my head, but many good Scottish names were among them.
Our view is that wherever there is an international forum, Scotland should be there. That is why, after I visited the Parliament in January, before it was announced that there was to be a referendum, I took the view that there was a forum and that my party, if its members so agreed, should send a representative. That is still my view. I would take that view in relation to any forum—the United Nations, the EEC or the Commonwealth. Where the nations meet, we should meet, because we are internationalists and want an international voice.
That is precisely why we are members of this party. It is because we want Scotland to be on the same basis as Holland, Norway, Denmark, Canada or Australia. We want to be there when the nations meet because we dare to think that while we may have nothing superior about us, we have an individual contribution to make. Perhaps people from all parties would consider that Scotland has an individual contribution to make.
Mr. Gray: I think that the hon. Lady did the right thing in going to Europe and I wish her success there. However, does she not agree that there are members of the SNP who are wholly disgusted she has gone to Europe? They have told me so.
Mrs. Ewing: There will be some. There must be some, because our official campaign was opposed to it. I shall not say that there may not be some hon. Members—[Interruption.] We may be as disunited on this as the two major parties, but there is no cause for worry. We have no splits in our party. Hon. Members can rest assured and sleep. We shall lose no sleep about it.
I should like to pose a question about devolution. [HoN. MEMBERS: "About time."] Once again, I really cannot take criticism about relevance. What I have said has been particularly relevant. I am sure that I have been one of the most "relevant" speakers in the debate.
As regards devolution, it has been said that customs borders would be required, and so on, between Scotland and England. The hon. Member for Fife, Central said that if we ever established such a border

2285
he would leave Scotland. But he insists that customs borders will be imposed by the English.
The subject discussed when I attended the European Parliament was political union, closer integration. During the referendum campaign, those who were for our staying in hedged on that subject, but it has now come out from under the carpet. If pro-EEC Members are for political union, customs borders become irrelevant. Such talk has always been irrelevant. Perhaps England might want them with Scotland, but there is no reason for Scotland to want them.
I should like to know how those hon. Member who are critical view political union.
Mr. Robert Hughes: If there is political union, the need for customs borders becomes irrelevant only as nation States disappear. Why should we set up new nation States now?
Mrs. Ewing: As usual with those who favour the EEC, the hon. Member has not said how he feels about political union. in a political union of Europe, Luxembourg. Holland and Denmark would be units. I am not in favour of political union, because Scotland would be helpless, but those who are must accept that there will be units. Why should Scotland not be a unit?
We are a nation with only the trappings of nationhood—the Scottish Office and some devolution—and look how long it took to achieve them. We want to be normal, like Norway. No one laughs at Norway, Denmark, Sweden or Holland —[Latiehter] This is a hilarious subject to many hon. Members but we take it seriously. We do not hold our views for materialistic or romantic motives. We want nothing that is not ours—the dignity of making decisions that affect the community of Scotland, in our own country, in a democratic way.
3.8 a.m.
Mr. Douglas Henderson: The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) drew attention to absent friends. I would say, in a neutral way, that a significant feature of this debate and a pointer to the future of the proposed legislation is the absence of hon. Members for English constituencies. I say that neither critically
2286
nor approvingly. There is one present, and there is the Minister waiting to reply to the next debate, but no English Member has made a contribution to the debate.
I doubt whether many of the speeches have been of much help to the Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Many of them were not relevant, never mind of assistance to the Minister.
Mr. Henderson: I shall try to be relevant. The almost hypnotic influence of my hon. Friends and myself on Government supporters and members of the Conservative Party seems to have changed the style of the debate. Instead of a discussion of the work of the unit, whatever its title, there has been a debate on the theoretical policies of the Scottish National Party, in which distorted views were expressed. It is incredible that hon. Members, with their political skills and sophistication, should ask elementary questions about the policies of the Scottish National Party on the coal industry, the universities, the army and taxation. We regard that as an attempt to change the structure of the debate so that it is no longer helpful to the Minister.
Mr. Robert Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends put down the topic of the debate they should not be surprised that the policies which they espouse should come under scrutiny. That is the purpose of the debate. The hon. Gentleman may remember a similar debate initiated by the Scottish National Party about the role of the conciliation and arbitration service in the teachers' dispute. Its Members spent the evening discussing Scottish education and denied the Minister the right of reply. The hon. Gentleman need not complain about tonight's discussion.
Mr. Henderson: I am not prepared to go into history. I was not present in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, as I am assured by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) that as usual it was the Members of the Conservative Party who were responsible for the difficulties on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman may feel that it is appropriate for him to withdraw his allegation.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he reminds me that the debate was initiated by the Conservative Party, I apologise for my imputation against the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
Mr. Henderson: That is a most gracious withdrawal. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's views.
As the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) mercifully appears to have left our midst, I do not propose to go into all the major points raised by him.
However, he gave the clear undertaking that he would be one of the first to clear out of Scotland after it became independent. That provides an additional incentive to every Member of the Scottish National Party to bring that date much closer. Indeed, other hon. Members may also feel that that is a good idea.
I hope that the Minister will indicate the Government's thinking on four headings—functions, finance, the organisation and framework of the Assembly, and relations with the rest of the United Kingdom and external bodies.
The vast body of reasonable opinion in Scotland believes that the Assembly will be a laughing stock unless it has an economic and industrial function. However that may be defined, however grey the area and indistinct the shape, a great deal of the pressure for the transfer of power from London to Edinburgh is based on the fact that the Scottish people feel that the economic forces in these Islands have not worked in their favour in the past. However fairly or unfairly, however right or wrong, there is a strong feeling that they wish to take decisions and responsibilities in these areas in their own hands. If the Minister comes up with a scheme which excludes from the proposed Scottish Assembly powers in the areas of trade, industry and employment, he will disillusion many people, and those who press this view on him will be the wreckers of any Scottish Assembly, not the members of the Scottish National Party or any other party.
Clearly, we must have powers in relation to industry and employment. I quote from the Scottish Council Research Institute report on economic development and devolution which lends support to that view:
2288
"The last decade provides conclusive evidence of the inability of the central Government of the United Kingdom to provide the necesary stimulus to economic development in Scotland."
That is a clear and firm statement.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Not necessarily true.
Mr. Henderson: It may not necessarily be true, but I am trying to show that there is a strong body of opinion, right or wrong, which the Government cannot ignore. If it is not true it is for the Government to prove that it is not true. We have a strong feeling in Scotland that until we have control of these functions, until we have control of our own economic destiny, we shall never get out of the pit of the unemployment situation and the record of demand management in the United Kingdom with its stop-go policies which are always applied at exactly the wrong time.
Mr. Buchan: I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants control over industry and the economy to be devolved and put as much as possible in the hands of the people.
Mr. Henderson: Yes.
Mr. Buchan: In that case why did the SNP oppose my amendments to the Scottish Development Agency (No. 2) Bill to introduce workers' co-operatives in Scottish industry?
Mr. Henderson: We are straying from the principle. My party was in good company, as we were supported by the Government Front Bench in resisting that amendment. If the hon. Gentleman cannot convince his own right hon. and hon. Friends, he has precious little chance of convincing anyone else.
The evidence of the performance of the Scottish economy and the effect on it of remote control is confirmed by other work that is being done. I refer to John Firn's work in Glasgow University on the external control of regional policy. He discusses the type of regional incentive Scotland should have and refers to the large part of Scottish industry which is under external control. We must reverse that trend, as Canada is doing, and make sure that a greater area of the economy is within the control of people who live, work and have their being in Scotland.

2289
The effect of external control on regional policy is one of the most important areas to be examined, and the control of regional policy is one of the most import ant functions which the Scottish Assembly should have.
There is strong feeling that not enough has been done in retraining. If we are changing from an economy which is heavily based on older industries to one which is based on newer industries, the need for retraining is much greater. Compared with the Swedish figures, the Scottish figures are lamentable. In those areas Scotland must be able to take initiatives and, if necessary, adopt policies which are different from those of the United Kingdom.
It has been fairly said in the debate that if we adopt different policies there is a possibility that our policies or facilities will be less attractive than those offered elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We must have confidence in ourselves and decide that we shall take decisions. We cannot be cushioned from the effect of decisions. We must take them in Scotland, and if we make a mistake we must be a democratically-elected body which returns to the people of Scotland and faces the electoral consequences. Some Members have shown in this debate that they want to have their cake and eat it.
Mr. Buchan: That is what worries us.
Mr. Henderson: We are telling the Minister "If we are to have this Assembly, for heaven's sake let it be one with real responsibility and power". If it is not, the people of Scotland will feel badly let down.
I come, secondly, to finance. There are precedents in many countries for a form of devolved taxation. I hope that the Minister will tell us that his unit is looking at the possibilities. For example, VAT might be a devolved tax available to the Assembly. There is a different sales tax between one State and another in the United States. It would be administratively possible for the proceeds from VAT to be at the disposal of the Scottish Assembly. One can envisage national insurance contributions being collected there. It would be possible— and this will be one of the ways in which the Government's proposals are judged—
2290
for oil revenues to be made available to the Assembly.
Thirdly, I turn to the organisation of the Assembly, the executive structure, the number of members. Presumably, some of these matters will be set out in the Bill. But I plead with the Minister not to include in the Bill too detailed a scheme and too restrictive a set of proposals. I believe that it is for the Assembly to make many of the decisions in this area. We must know the number of members, the basis on which they are selected, the constituencies and the method of voting. But I should be most unhappy if I thought that the Minister would lay down hard and fast rules about how the executive within the Assembly was organised and what the names of the officers of the Government would be. Those are properly matters for the Assembly to decide.
Similarly, in relation to the Civil Service support, the point was made that it must be an independent Civil Service. It cannot be responsible to United Kingdom Ministers and to Ministers, or whatever they may be called, in a Scottish Government at the same time.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The Civil Service in Scotland at present is responsible to the Scottish Ministers, and nobody else, when they are working in the Scottish Civil Service, but it does not need to be a totally independent Civil Service to avoid divided loyalties, which I think is the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Henderson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The problem—and this is one of the grey areas—will be whether the Secretary of State for Scotland will remain, whether the civil servants are to go through for payment on his Vote or are to be entirely chargeable to the Assembly, or are to be paid under some other system. Certainly, they must be responsible to the Ministers in the Assembly.
I should like to see reasonable and fair rules for transferability with the Civil Service of the United Kingdom, because there are many Scotsmen working in the Civil Service in London who would welcome the opportunity to return to Scotland to work, if they were working for a meaningful Government. There may well be people, such as the hon. Member for

2291
Fife, Central, who will feel happier coming to work here rather than working in Edinburgh.
The point about local government has been raised ad nauseam. It would be a matter for the Assembly to decide what form of reorganisation of local government should take place. That should not hold up the legislation on this matter. There should be no need for the sort of delay that the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty mentioned.
I think that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) talked 17 times tonight about contracts to be bought out and so on. Surely it would be possible to have provision for transferability of these civil servants or public servants in the regional authorities to the public service of the Scottish Government. It would be possible to use some of these highly-skilled people in the Civil Service.
Mr. Dalyell: This involves the question whether the Assembly is to have the execution functions now entrusted to local government.
Mr. Henderson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's point eludes me to some extent. Perhaps he can explain it in more simple language.
Mr. Robert Hughes: At the moment the position is that the executive functions in local government are there by statute. If the Assembly were to begin by taking over the executive functions of local government it would be necessary to deal with the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. It is a question whether local authorities are to have broadly the same functions and responsibilities as they now have or whether the detailed day-to-day work is to be done by the Assembly and not by local authorities.
Mr. Henderson: This is a slightly different concept from what I have been discussing. I have been talking about meaningful devolution which means having real power, becoming a real Parliament. The reorganisation of local government functions is something at which the Assembly would look and about which it would take decisions.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that the lateness of the hour makes it difficult to explain the position. At present the
2292
distinction between central and local government is that broadly, central Government provides most of the money and legislates on how local authorities shall function. I agree that it would be for the Scottish Assembly, once set up, to change local government re-organisation, if it wanted. The question is whether the Assembly is to take on the executive functions at present held by local government?
Mr. Henderson: This is rather a lengthy point.
Mr. Dalyell Mr. Dalyell rose—
Mr. Henderson: I do not want to have a long dialogue on this point, and that is what is developing. It would not be helpful. There is the question whether there should be the ability to make a transfer of civil servants from the local government service to the new Assembly. That may well be something to build into the Bill or to make sure that nothing restricting it is inserted into the Bill.
There is also the point about the relationship with the Government of the United Kingdom and with other bodies. There have been articles in the Press and speculation elsewhere about the idea that the House of Commons or the United Kingdom Parliament should retain an over-riding veto on the legislation of the Assembly. If there is a feeling in Scotland that its democratic decisions can be overruled, that will not be a happy way in which to start relations between the two governments.
I would hope, even if for technical reasons something of that kind has to be built into the legislation, that there would be clearly stated a convention that only in the most extreme circumstances—which might be illustrated—would the Government ever use that veto. If we are talking of a body which has Big Brother looking over its shoulder all the while, it will not gain the respect and moral dignity and will not carry the conviction of the people of Scotland. Our policy on this is quite clear. We wish to see a real transfer of power to Edinburgh. We wish to see a good start to the Assembly. We make no bones that we shall continue to fight until Scotland is independent. Let there be no doubt about that. We believe that this gradual approach has much to commend it. We

2293
hope that what the Minister will say will reassure us that the Government are serious, that there is no slippage and that they will bring forward meaningful and practical proposals.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman promised to deal with the problem which I posed involving the working of the Assembly and the referendum. I understand that the hon. Gentleman favours the evolutionary method, but I asked him whether he would deliberately exploit the problems that arise before the Assembly has a chance of settling down. There will be teething problems, and I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman will exploit them in a separatist manner. Similarly, would he exploit a referendum decision?
Mr. Henderson: Of course, one can foresee teething troubles, and it would be a strange political party—and this must apply most of all to the hon. Gentleman's party—that did not exploit such problems to its own political advantage. The hon. Gentleman would be one of the first to exploit a problem if he thought that exploitation would accrue to the benefit of his party.
Mr. Buchan: So it is party before country. Now we know.
Mr. Henderson: That is not an unusual experience for the hon. Gentleman. We would put Scotland's interests first all the time. The question that the hon. Gentleman asks about a referendum is a matter that he should put to the Minister. Let him ask the Minister what the Government intend to do. I am not yet sitting beside the Minister. I hope to heaven that I never do, as it would mean having the hon. Gentleman sitting behind me instead of on the opposite side of the House.
I hope that tonight the Minister will say something worth while. I hope that he will be able to reassure us about the pace at which he is moving, and that he will take full account of the views put to him in the debate.
3.32 a.m.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind: I think that the House has probably surpassed itself over the past six and a half hours in that it has been debating a devolution unit which the
2294
Minister assured as at the beginning of the debate does not exist. This has been a convenience to the House in that it has enabled the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) to talk about the reception that her speeches get at Strasbourg, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) to talk about the plight of Red Indians and the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) to talk about how the lifts work in the Palace of Westminster. The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) also took advantage of a wide-ranging debate.
Despite the opportunity that those varied and magnificent subjects provide for someone in my position, I do not intend to succumb to the temptation of taking advantage of it. It is my intention to be brief. I am conscious of the fact that having debated this matter for six and a half hours we have effectively prevented many other Members who balloted from taking part in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I must express the view that I think it unfortunate that certain hon. Members chose to speak for a very long time, thereby ensuring that Members high on the ballot have had to wait until the early hours of the morning to get an opportunity to speak. I do not intend to follow their example. I intend to speak briefly, to put one to two points to the Minister and to comment on some of the matters that have been raised.
It amuses me, and interests me, that SNP Members claim to be speaking on behalf of the people of Scotland. Every time that they do so I am reminded of the referendum on the Common Market. I seem to recollect that until the referendum took place SNP Members went round Scotland claiming to represent the people. They were shocked and disappointed when they found that the people of Scotland did not agree with them. From John o'Groats to Gretna Green the views of the SNP were rejected.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Not in the Western Isles.
Mr. Rifkind: I was careful to remain on the mainland. Clearly the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland will go their own way.
Mr. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman include Orkney?
Mr. Rifkind: No. I apologise to the people of Orkney.
Clearly the people of Scotland demonstrated that on a major issue affecting them they consider that their interests are identical with those of the people of England and Wales. It is clear that they considered themselves to be members of the British nation and that they were taking a common decision affecting their destiny.
Another matter of considerable interest to come out of the debate is the SNP's objectives. For a considerable time we have questioned SNP Members as to their objectives. We have asked them whether they include amongst them independence, which we maintain to be separatism, or some sort of limited devolution. They have often used the word "self-government" instead of "independence" in describing their objectives. They have used it deliberately. I suggest they have used it to suggest to the people of Scotland that somehow they can have what the SNP seeks without dismembering the United Kingdom.
The dishonesty of that argument became surprisingly and dramatically clear this evening. We had Scottish National Party Members saying that self-government was their objective, and the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) saying that it was his party's objective. When they were pressed, it turned out that, although they all conveniently used the same phrase, and the hon. Member for Caernarvon was honest enough to accept that self-government was not full independence—he expected Wales in some sense to remain within the United Kingdom, within a common political unit—the Scottish National Party is trying to deceive the British and Scottish public by suggesting that independence and self-government are somehow synonymous. They use the phrase "self-government" because it is innocuous and somehow suggests that at the moment the people of Scotland are not self-governing.
I suggest that the people of Scotland are no less and no more self-governing than the people of England and Wales, that they are represented in a basic democratic tradition, and that no individual in Scotland is denied any political
2296
right that any individual in any part of the United Kingdom has.
We know that there is to be a White Paper published in the second half of October. There has been considerable suggestion, if not a definite statement, that it is the Government's view that the Bill to be produced in the early part of next year will be to provide Assemblies for both Scotland and for Wales, and I ask the Minister to consider whether this is necessarily a desirable way to go about it. This will be one of the most important constitutional issues to be determined by the House. It does not automatically follow that what is good for Scotland is good for Wales, or vice versa.
But I put to the Minister an open question whether there might not be an argument, not to consider a single Bill, to cover two quite separate matters, but to consider two pieces of legislation dealing with different situations and requirements, just as with the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies there was no suggestion that a common piece of legislation would have been sufficient.
We have tended to assume that somehow the Bill to be produced in the early part of next year will attempt to be the final say on devolution for the foreseeable period, and we know, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has said, that this clearly will lead, if there are controversial powers in that Bill, to major and very lengthy debates, with much opposition from Members of different parties.
There may be a way in which this problem could be resolved much more satisfactorily, because there is broad agreement on all sides of the House as the desirability of an Assembly. This comes not simply from the present Government. One hon. Member who was very critical of an Assembly—I think it was the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan)—nevertheless accepted that there might be a good case for an Assembly.
Mr Buchan: I am not only a believer in an Assembly. I am a maximalist in relation to an Assembly.
Mr. Rifkind: I take the hon. Member's point. Perhaps it was the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton)

2297
who said that, although he was not very keen on the idea, he was not necessarily hostile. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said that he was fully in favour of devolution, and that there might even be a case for some form of Assembly.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: My hon. Friend said that there was broad agreement about having an Assembly. I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no such thing and that I for one will oppose this with every resource at my command. I have no doubt whatsoever that many of my English colleagues will do the same, and many of my Scottish colleagues, and that many Labour Members, if they have the courage to speak out, will do so, too. In no circumstances will any of us make any move to break up the United Kingdom or take any step towards that.
Mr. Rifkind: I freely pay tribute to the consistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Hutchison) on this subject. But I chose my words carefully. I said that there was broad agreement. I did not say that it was unanimous. What is more, my hon. Friend knows that our party at its conference carried a motion in favour of the Assembly by an overwhelming majority, that the majority of our Scottish colleagues favour a directly-elected Assembly, that the Leader of our party endorsed a Scottish Assembly, and that that is the policy of our party. My hon. Friend and I each know our respective positions on this, and I do not suggest that his views are other than those which he has put forward.
I suggest that, given what I have described as a broad measure of agreement for an Assembly, if the Government wished to produce an Assembly which met the basic requirements of the vast majority of Scottish Members of this House, the legislation would have a much better chance of an early passage through this House. Although this would not be the final form of devolution suitable for Scotland and perhaps for Wales, it would be more acceptable for it to be composed like that for the time being.
There are certain difficulties in any course which is adopted. There is the difficulty of determining whether and, if
2298
so, to what extent there should be industrial or economic powers given to it at a time when we are in the middle of a very severe economic crisis. Our attitudes to economic devolution and the granting of economic or revenue powers must be coloured by the present crisis. We cannot escape that. Yet it would be absurd when establishing an Assembly designed to operate for many years to come, to say that decisions which might be made in the midst of an economic crisis could necessarily be the best decision for an Assembly.
There is another and equally important factor. Once an Assembly was established and operating, the question whether its powers were sufficient—whether powers should be taken away from or added to it—could be argued in a more objective fashion. At present, anyone who speaks against certain powers is accused of being against an Assembly, and anyone who speaks in favour of those powers is accused of going down a slippery slope and making separatism and independence inevitable.
We want to say that a majority of hon. Members in all the parties support a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, let us have that established so that it is no longer a matter of contention, and then we can argue about possible extensions of powers on the basis of the merits of the arguments and not on the basis of other irrelevant considerations.
One aspect of the White Paper which disappointed me was the way that one of the few unanimous recommendations of the Kilbrandon Commission—that there should be a different form of election to the Assembly—was summarily dismissed without argument, consideration or any explanation why it should be refused.
I do not ask the Minister to give a definite assurance on this matter, but I hope that he will leave the matter open and agree to consider whether) some other form of election might not be appropriate. I believe that it would be a mistake to assume that the electoral system operating in Westminster was necessarily the ideal one for the Assembly.
I hope that the Minister will not approach the debate and the arguments advanced in it as being merely a formality. There have been a number of constructive suggestions—perhaps fewer than

2299
one might have hoped—and I hope that there will be time for them to be taken into account before the Government publish their White Paper.
3.45 a.m.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Gerry Fowler): This has been a lengthy debate. I strongly suspect that when we receive Hansard on Saturday morning some of us may be reminded of the dictum, "Never mind the quality, feel the width".
There have been some useful contributions to which I shall allude. I assure the House that we shall examine carefully all the suggestions that have been made in the course of the debate.
I shall begin by directing my remarks to the subject of this debate, because I do not think that every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate made sufficient effort to do so.
As I tried briefly to explain during interventions, there is no such thing as a devolution unit. There is a Constitution Unit but it does not operate within the Lord President's Office, by which I assume was meant the Privy Council Office. It is responsible to myself and the Lord President in the sense that we exercise ministerial oversight over its work. However, the fact that it is in the Cabinet Office is important, because it is not unique in working on devolution within the Government. Its task is largely to co-ordinate the work of staff of other Departments as well as making its own contribution towards devolution in the processing of particular topics. There are, for example, staff in the Scottish and Welsh Offices working if not full-time, virtually full-time on this matter. There are ministerial links. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) have a specific responsibility within the Scottish and Welsh Offices for liaison with the Lord President and myself.
Therefore, the staff of the Constitution Unit are concerned with co-ordination, in the same way as all the staff of the Cabinet Office, as well as with the devising of policy.
I think that it is appropriate—perhaps Ministers do not do this often enough—
2300
for me to pay tribute to the work of our officials, who have been very hard pressed over the past few months. There has been much discussion about the timetable this evening. It is clear that the Government did set themselves a singularly stiff timetable, but that means hard work not only for Ministers, but for all the officials who serve them. I am grateful for everything that they have done.
Perhaps I should emphasise what one or two hon. Members have mentioned in the course of the debate: we are attempting something unparalleled not simply in this country but in any country in the world. One cannot look at the evolution of federal systems and find a parallel. In general they have grown from the bottom up. One cannot even look at the West German federal system and say that that was created de novo at the end of the war. We all know how recent were the roots of that system in the quite separate States and Principalities of Germany. We are attempting to do something that has no precise parallel in any other country.
Why are we attempting to do it? I speak as a Celtic Englishman by origin, but still very much an Englishman. In my view the argument has nothing to do with nationalism interpreted as separatism. I am a convinced devolutionist. I wrote about the subject approximately 10 years ago. I am a devolutionist because we live in a world where decision making becomes ever more remote from the people. Irrespective of membership of the EEC, more and more decisions are, of their very nature and by necessity, taken at international level.
It is right and proper, therefore, to examine the accretion of power to the central governments of national States which has taken place over the past 150 years and ask whether it is necessary that all of these powers should be exercised at central government level. Is it not possible that some of those powers could be exercised at a lower level with an increase in the democratic feel of the process of Government without loss of efficiency? I should regard that as an important criterion. That is why I am a devolutionist. Indeed, I am a devolutionist for machinery of democratic government reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a notable

2301
contribution to the debate. I agree with him that we must distinguish the romantic argument for devolution to Scotland and to Wales, which is concerned with the historic nationhood of those countries, from the argument which stems essentially from good democratic government and its requirements in the late twentieth century. I am not using the word "romantic"' in a derogatory sense. I recognise the power—particularly the emotional power—of that argument.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Who is the Minister to throw away 270 years of history and tradition? Why is he taking it upon himself to make these absurd changes for which nobody has asked?
Mr. Fowler: I imagine that the hon. Gentleman might have asked in 1707: who were they to throw away 1,000 years of history? The argument can be played both ways. I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that I merely represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: Which will not last long.
Mr. Fowler: There may be two views on that last intervention, made from a seated position. However, the debate has ranged wide enough and I will not be drawn on that subject.
This is a singularly difficult exercise. That is why we must get it right. I agree with those who have said that we shall not get every detail right the first time round. That would be an impossible hope. On the other hand, we must get it as right as possible in the sense of producing something which is workable without disrupting the unity of the United Kingdom but with the benefit of improving greatly the way our system of government works.
The suggestion has been made, particularly by Members of the nationalist parties, that the Government have lost momentum since last October. I think that was the phrase used by the hon. Member for Caernarvon. That is untrue. We have been going as hard as any Government could have gone at the development and evolution of our proposals.
Mrs. Bain: Would it be a useful reminder for Labour Members to have on
2302
their desks the result of the October election? That might produce action a wee bit quicker.
Mr. Fowler: I am afraid that the hon. Lady yet again, as so often happens, reveals her party's innocence of government. I noticed this point in the speech by the hon. Member for Caernarvon, too. I do not blame the Nationalists. It would make no difference if every Labour Member of Parliament had on his desk the results of the October election. All that matters is that Ministers and officials working with them who are concerned with the development of our proposals should keep up the pressure. It is not a question of everybody putting in his own little oar in the development of the White Paper. I can assure the House that, in terms of the schedule for production of a White Paper, we have no reason to believe that we are slipping behind schedule. I put it that way rather than saying that we are not slipping behind schedule because I do not want to give the impression, so complex is the nature of this task, that it would be impossible for us not to slip at some point. Every time we come to a particular topic in this area, we find pitfalls and unexpected snags. I could never guarantee that event X will happen on day Y, and I would be silly to try. That is different from suggesting as some nationalist Members have, that there is something sneaky going on or that the Government are slipping behind in their programme and not really trying.
I do not want to make a Nat-bashing or nit-picking speech, but whenever this subject has been debated in the House, there has been much political posturing on the nationalist benches. We all know why that is. If they say often enough that the Government do not mean it and the Tory Party do not want it, they convince themselves—that is not difficult—they convince certain major organs of the Press in Scotland and they may even begin to sow doubts in the minds of other hon. Members on both sides. There is no truth, and there never has been any truth, in the suggestion that the Government intends to slip behind in its programme for devolution. I hope that is the last we hear of this suggestion. The Nationalist Members occasionally behave like the chorus in a rather bad Greek tragedy whose principal function is to

2303
cry "Woe" at every opportunity. Fortunately, there is no disaster.
I notice that the view of the hon. Member for Caernarvon on self-government was not the same as that of his colleagues in the SNP, despite the fact that the leader of the SNP called the hon. Member his hon. Friend. The view of the hon. Member for Caernarvon is also far from the unanimous view of Plaid Cymru. Despite the fact that it has only three Members, it is as disunited as any party with 300 Members. Not all its Members took the hon. Member's line with regard to the EEC. His speech revealed that it is possible to support a Nationalist party even to the point of representing it in this House and yet not have a separatist philosophy. It is separatism we are talking about when we discuss destroying 2,000 years of history in this island.
The leader of the SNP indulged in some scare stories. The fact that a story stating that certain of my hon. and right hon. Friends take a particular position—and I notice the cast of the drama changes every week—appears in The Scotsman or the Glasgow Herald does not make it true. Again, I strongly suspect that we have reached the point where hon. Members on the Opposition benches, even for the most innocent of reasons, are beginning to believe their own propaganda. That is the most dangerous mental state for any man to get into. I wish to deny that there have been totally abortive conferences at Chequers, or whatever the tale is. There is nothing in these stories.
I should be unwise to follow the hon. Member in the rest of his speech which appeared largely to be concerned with MacBrayne's. As we have more debates on the subject of devolution, I hope that we do not continue to use them as a peg on which to hang our constituency problems.
One or two hon. Members said—and I have sympathy with them—that it was more important to make sure that we got the package right in the sense in which I was describing it earlier than to make sure that we get it a month or two earlier than might otherwise have been the case. This point was well made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher). I. was most fascinated, how-
2304
ever, when the point was made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Watt). His attitude in the debate was responsible and was not fully in accord with that of many of his hon. Friends. I had every sympathy with him when he said that it was very important to group the powers together properly.
He said, I think, that above all one should devolve a coherent package of functions which made sense as well as a set of component elements which also made sense. I agree with him entirely. This is an infinitely complex job and I am grateful for the sympathy he showed over the difficulties.
I cannot easily answer tonight many of the questions that I have been asked. The reason is obvious enough. If I were to answer those questions I should remove the need for a White Paper in any event. The House would have the White Paper read into the columns of Hansard.
It might be as well to explain why we cannot announce a series of decisions one by one to the House on the components of the devolution package. The reason is that the functions must hang together. Even the constitutional side of the question, even the financial elements, must hang together with the functions as a coherent whole.
It would make no sense to have a series of legislative and executive functions and then to devise constitutional machinery which was quite inapposite for the proper scrutiny of that legislation and the proper performance of those executive functions. That is why, although decisions are taken provisionally, and have been for a considerable time, it is necessary to consider the whole final package to see whether it makes sense. I am sure the House will forgive me if I do not deal with many of the questions.
Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: The House will not forgive the Minister. We are here to get answers. Why does he not give them? He talks about people hanging together. I hope that he hangs with them.
Mr. Fowler: I am always grateful at this time of the morning for a bit of old-fashioned Edinburgh politeness.
I should refer to the matter of local government which has arisen time and again in the debate. I intervened in the

2305
debate to say that the Government have no present proposals for any change in the Scottish system. Several hon. Members drew attention to the fact that it would be possible to devise a devolutionary package so that future powers in respect of local government rested with the Assembly just as much as with Parliament. That would be a possibility. I shall go no further than that.
That is the principal comment that I want to make on local government, save to record my own surprise at the suggestion by the hon. Member for Dundee, East that we might solve the problem by abolishing the regions in Scotland and replacing them by a series of ad hoc bodies. That would be a singularly unpopular suggestion in any of the component parts of the United Kingdom.
I was asked a series of questions to which I shall simply allude. First, will there be a separate Civil Service? I cannot easily answer that without anticipating the White Paper. I can answer the question of buildings in relation to the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is considering this as a matter of urgency. He is making arrangements and he hopes to make an announcement before too long.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) returned to a question which he has raised in this House before, namely, the question whether we could have a financial appendix to the White Paper. At the root of all this is the fact that he wants some estimates of the likely cost as opposed to the cost of the present system of a devolved system of government in Scotland. It may well be exceedingly hard to produce anything that would count as accurate estimates, save possibly on quite arbitrary assumptions and within a very narrow range, namely, the cost of administering the Assembly rather than the services for which it is responsible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to look at the question, whether in the context of the White Paper or in other contexts, how we can give as many estimates of that kind to the House for the convenience of Members when they debate devolution.
Mr. Dalyell: I understand my right hon. Friend's difficulties, but, when we
2306
are engaged in a major conflict against inflation that could engulf us all and when we have heard what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to say, can he be happy about the imprecisions?
Mr. Fowler: As I do not accept that the costs of transferring the administration of functions already administered by Government to Scotland are necessarily great, apart from the element to which I drew attention, namely, the direct cost of administering and servicing the Assembly rather than the functions for which it is responsible, I do not agree with my hon. Friend. However, it could well be that he will be proved to be right and I shall be proved to be wrong. We shall have to see.
My hon. Friend also asked me about the universities and suggested that I might consult specifically Professor Samuel Edwards, Professor Sir Norman Hunt, Sir Brian Flowers, and so on. I can assure him that I have already consulted representatives on the staff at universities. I have already talked to eminent academics. I shall not give an undertaking, however, that I shall talk to specific academics, because that would be the wrong way to proceed. It is much more important to get the general feeling of the staff and, for that matter, the students of the Scottish universities than it is to talk to a few people, however eminent they are.
On the other hand, I must dissent from the view of the hon. Lady the Member for Dunbartonshire, East, who attacked the evidence of the AUT—merely, I suspect, because she did not agree with its conclusions—on the ground that it was very hurried. Perhaps I may say, in the friendliest spirit. that I hope that hon. Members on the Nationalist benches will begin to come to terms with the fact that there can be unpalatable facts in politics and that one must not simply dismiss evidence because one does not like it.
I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central about the possibility of a second Chamber. He will see that in the context of the White Paper of last year, that was not then in the Government's mind. He also asked about costing, and he posed 'a series of further questions. I hope that he will bear with

2307
me when I say that he will get the answer to all of them in the White Paper, and that he should not have too long to wait. He is right when he says that this legislation will be exceedingly difficult legislation. Personally, I hope that more hon. Members than have been present in the House tonight will begin to study our proposals in some depth and that we can debate the matter further, at considerable length, in the coming Session of Parliament.
Let me deal finally with the questions asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) whether we are determined that there shall be an Assembly with real responsibility and real power. I would regard it as a fatuous and futile exercise to create an Assembly for Scotland that was merely cosmetic and did not have real responsibility and real power. I began by saying that I am motivated in this by a desire to improve the machinery of democratic government. I emphasise the word "democratic". I do not believe that we would achieve that if this were merely a cosmetic exercise. We would have the opposite effect—of destroying faith in democracy in Scotland. That is why it is imperative that we get it right and that it is an Assembly that has real power and real teeth. I hope that we shall achieve that objective and that we shall achieve it to time.

SKYTRAIN
4.13 a.m.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: I am very grateful to have this opportunity of raising the subject of two Votes, Class IV and Class VI, and in particular the relationship of those Votes to the decision announced in the House two days ago in respect of the future of the Laker Sky-train project.
The situation, as I understand it from paragraph 10 of the Civil Aviation Guidance published in 1972, is that it is the job of the designated authority to encourage the provision by British airlines of services that will foster the development of United Kingdom trade and tourism and strengthen the balance of payments.
2308
There was no change in that objective in the anouncement this week, and that one welcomes. But what was difficult to accept—I regret that I shall have to make numerous references to this— is that when on 29th July the Secretary of State said that he had
"accordingly told Laker Airways that in these circumstances the Skytrain service cannot be allowed to start"
he was making an announcement which had been made known to Laker Airways only within the previous two hours.
That is particularly short notice, and not the kind of consultation that one would expect the Secretary of State to have with an important British airline of international calibre or the kind of consultation that he said he had had with British Airways. In reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones), he said:
"I have discussed with British Airways not only the thinking that went into the review but also the outcome"
I understand that Laker Airways submitted substantial documents to the Secretary of State during his own review of the future of British aviation policy. These have been discussed but at no time during the discussions were there consultations about the future of Skytrain let alone its stopping.
Not only was Skytrain stopped but there was another peculiar feature to this mystery.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Mr. Laker was never seen in the Department of Trade about his submission? I should like him to specify his complaint. Is he saying that it was wrong of the Secretary of State to advise Mr. Laker, as he had advised other parties to the matter, only a short time before the announcement was made? Does he think that the Secretary of State should not have done that at all?
Mr. Warren: I think the Minister has misunderstood what I have been saying. I have said that submissions were made by Laker Airways to the Secretary of State during his own consideration of what he wished to review in civil aviation. I also said that discussions had taken place on the study submitted by Laker but that it was not until less than two

2309
hours before the announcement that Mr. Laker was told that his Skytrain project was to be stopped. Other airlines had enjoyed better consultation. I am sure that the Minister could list the consultations with British Airways, beforehand and not on the day when it was made known to them what the future would be.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not knowing the confidential matters which went on in the Department prior to the announcement. But would he not accept from me that the Secretary of State did not disclose at an early stage his conclusions, either to British Airways or to British Caledonian? It so happened that they were seen a short time before Mr. Laker, but there is nothing sinister in that. It would have been wrong, would it not, for the Secretary of State to make his decision known to any of the parties concerned a considerable time before it was announced in the House?
Mr. Warren: I do not want to be diverted into consideration of the consultations with other airlines, but in this case less than two hours before the announcement was the first time that Mr. Laker knew that the Skytrain was to be stopped. That was an important matter for a company which with the Government's authority, had invested $71 million in the project.
I should like some guidance. The Secretary of State said on Tuesday that the Skytrain could not be allowed to start, whereas the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) made an assumption,
"Will my right hon. Friend accept that the decision not to go ahead with Skytrain for at least 12 months will be widely welcomed by Labour Members …?"—[0fficial Report, 29th July 1975; Vol. 896.]
It will be useful to hear whether it is to be stopped, as the Secretary of State said, or has been shelved for only 12 months, as his hon. Friend seemed to believe.
I give the history of the project. The first application was made for the Sky-train on 15th June 1971. Permission to operate it was granted by the Civil Aviation Authority on 26th September 1972. On 28th February 1973 the British Government designated Laker Airways to operate as a United Kingdom flag carrier on the London-New York route.
2310
On 13th March 1974 the United States judge, Mr. Greer Murphy, recommended to the United States Civil Aeronautics Board that Laker should be allowed to operate the service. That recommendation is contained in a substantial document, the significant statements contained in which show clearly that an experienced but neutral party, assessing the capability of an applicant came to a clear decision, which was relayed to the Civil Aeronautics Board and passed for decision formally to the President of the United States. On page 32 of his findings he said:
"The record clearly establishes that Laker possesses the financial, organisational, and operational qualifications to be found fit, willing, and able under the provisions of Section 402"—
which is the permission to operate.
Elsewhere in the document the judge made clear the ability of Laker Airways when he said:
"Laker's proposed services is within the scope of the Bermuda Agreement."
There was no doubt about the way in which the service could operate. The judge went on:
"Issuance of a foreign air carrier permit to Laker authorising it to engage in the scheduled foreign air transportation applied for will be in the public interest."
There was clear evidence that on the United States side of the Atlantic every circumstance was in favour of Laker Airways.
In addition, a number of documents show that the Department of Trade was fully in favour of the efforts being made by Laker. A document dated 11th September 1974, which was sent to Mr. Laker and which was signed by the Minister, says that he was pleased that Mr. Laker had been keeping in close touch with the officials in the United Kingdom. He goes on:
"You … will therefore know that both formal and informal representations were recently made to the US authorities on this matter. These should have left them in no doubt that we expect full compliance with the terms of the UK/US Air Services Agreement, as regards the designation of Skytrain".
A letter written on 30th September to Mr. Laker on behalf of the Secretary of State supports those representations and views.

2311
On 4th October 1974 the Secretary of State wrote to Mr. Laker saying:
"We have continued to take the opportunity whenever possible of reminding the US Government of the strong representations we have made about your permit. … If we are able to make quicker progress with the US Government so that Skytrain can start in the course of the winter, we will naturally consider negotiating an amendment to the agreement".
We wonder why Skytrain became involved in that review. It is clear that the Government wanted to do that long after the fuel crisis and the recession of passenger traffic burst on the world. That letter was appended to the statement of the Department of Trade of 23rd September which mentioned the agreed 20 per cent. cuts in the North Atlantic airline capacity. All this came after the cut in airline capacity caused by the fuel crisis and at a time when the Government were still thoroughly backing the Laker Skytrain.
I come once more to the queston of what caused the Government to include the Skytrain in the review. On 7th February this year the CAA upheld the licence application of Laker Airways after the revocation of the British Airways appeal against it. We end up in February this year with the statement that it was recommended by the CAA that operations should commence but not for a period of 12 months. I should like guidance whether this is a rolling situation. Was the hon. Member for Keighley right in saying that it was a 12-month period, or is the project shelved entirely?
Mr. Clinton Davis: I shall in due course enlarge upon the matter, but my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) was not entitled to draw the conclusion which he drew. He did not have the advantage of seeing the statement, and he may have misconstrued it and confused it with the CAA observation that the service should not start for at least 12 months. Suffice to say that my hon. Friend was not entitled to draw the conclusion which he drew from any words used by my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Warren: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention. When he replies to the debate I hope that he will tell us what is to be the future of Sky-train. Will it be allowed to proceed?
I have gone through this extensive preamble about the history of the pro-
2312
ject because many important officials in this country and in the United States administration have been pressed and have taken time to try to promote this British project and to find a solution which would be of benefit to the United States Government and people and to the British Government and people. Many of them, particularly those in the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States, must be mystified why this tremendous pressure should have been exerted over such a long time, why so many dollars should have been allowed to be invested when the United Kingdom has a distinct deficit of dollars to expend on any capital equipment and why there should be this continual wish to drag down the project.
There has been a remarkable amount of confusion about what the passenger gets for the ticket he buys. The tickets cost £59 single fare and were not to be sold more than six hours before departure. The ticket enabled a person to travel without further booking restrictions, it was valid all the year round and there were no over-booking problems. I have no interest to declare except that one day I hope to be able to buy a ticket for myself. There is considerable misunderstanding about the cost of flying the Atlantic.
Mr. Henry Marking, who is a great authority on aviation and a competitor of the Laker Skytrain, is a man whom I greatly admire. In the BBC television programme "London South-East" at six o'clock on the evening of 30th July in reply to a question whether the Sky-train would be reasonably priced he said:
"It is more expensive than ours, £99 to £109; you can't get better than that."
In trying to research the fare structure, one problem is to find out exactly which are the apples, which the pears and which the oranges. With great respect to Mr. Henry Marking, there is a substantial difference between what he was saying and the reality of what Skytrain offered.
I hope that in due course one of my hon. Friends who has been looking at the consumer side of the problem will catch the eye of the Chair to talk about the kind of market penetration that would be involved in the Skytrain, compared with British Airways. I under-

2313
stand that the £99 quoted by Mr. Marking refers to an off-peak period, and that the £109 involves what is called the "shoulder period". For those fares it is obligatory to buy a return ticket, whereas the Skytrain tried to offer a £59 single ticket at a standard rate all the year round.
There are certain other conditions, which are very important, attached to the fares quoted by British Airways. They show the difference between the kind of service available on the Skytrain project and the kind available on a normal IATA carrier. On the Apex system in the United Kingdom one must book 60 days in advance. The Canadians have a similar system. In the United States, on the ABC system, one must book 90 days in advance. These are typical booking conditions. A non-returnable deposit is demanded, and one can be liable to pay the whole fare. Insurance can be taken out against having to do so, but it costs £5. The many terms and conditions in the small print mean that there is a world of difference between the kind of fare and service offered on the Skytrain and that which is available from IATA scheduled carriers.
I have quoted the off-peak and shoulder fares. The peak fare at the height of demand is not £99 or £109 but £136 return—a return ticket being obligatory—compared with £59 single on Skytrain. A return fare on Skytrain would be £118, but one would not be forced to buy a return ticket. This means that a different kind of service is being offered.
It has been suggested that we should not be able to compete with the Americans, because they would easily step into the breach and soon put Sky-train out of business. I find that there is no American law which would allow competition to Skytrain by a United States supplementary carrier of the kind that Laker Airways is. I presume that it would not be possible to enact a new law to allow direct competition with Skytrain any faster than it could be done here.
Members of IATA, such as Pan American and TWA, could not offer such fares as £59 single, because under the IATA rules everyone must agree on the fare. At present none of the IATA
2314
carriers is even thinking about offering a fare as low as that which could come on the Skytrain.
Before the civil aviation review there were nine operators operating across the Atlantic. One was British Airways, another, British Caledonian, still had the routes assigned to it, and the third. Laker, had the licence. After the review of civil aviation we no longer have the opportunity of offering three British carriers across the Atlantic. We have only one. So the chance of spending pounds for one's flight across the Atlantic is substantially reduced. A traveller is far more likely to have to spend dollars or other foreign currency to get across the Atlantic. This reduction in competition is a great disappointment to the air transport industry generally on this side of the Atlantic and in particular to this country.
I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that even at the late hour when Mr. Freddie Laker was able to see the Secretary of State this week, Mr. Laker immediately offered to accept a restriction in the authorisation of the licence to a period of two years as proposed in Judge Murphy's recommendation in the United States to the Civil Aeronautics Board. Mr. Laker also went on to say that if, after 12 months, the experiment was unsuccessful, he would voluntarily get off the route. Unfortunately the Secretary of State felt that he could not accept that proposal.
My hon. Friends and I hope to be able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman that there are important arguments here. While we appreciate that, because the Secretary of State has received little notice it was impossible for him to change his policy at that moment, we hope that he will consider looking at the whole problem one more time.
I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would find tremendous co-operation across the House in trying to find a workable solution which would not cut into British Airways' market or into the ability of the British to get the best possible share out of the North Atlantic route. There has been a two-year delay on this project which has gone across two Governments. That has meant, in the opinion of some, a loss of $200 million of revenue to this country from tourists who would have come but who have not been able to afford the air fare.

2315
I remind the Minister that there is this question of the $71 million of investment, approved by the Bank of England, which involved the purchase of a third DC 10 last year, which specifically carried the blessing of the Secretary of State for Trade. That aircraft was imported duty free on the instructions of the Secretary of State. I am delighted that this was possible. There were certain onerous terms and conditions laid down for the operation of the aircraft in a letter dated 29th April to Mr. Laker in which it was said that the Department would want a record of each flight undertaken and the date, departure and arrival point and mileage logged. Very courteously the letter went on to say:
"I hope you will not find this too onerous a task"
The last sentence said:
"In conclusion I should like to wish you every success with your new venture."
The conditions laid down are important because they also show the constraints under which Laker Airways is forced to operate with this aircraft, with or without Skytrain. One was that the aircraft should be used during its first three years commencing June 1974 for at least half of its revenue-earning mileage on non-stop flights exceeding 2,500. It is difficult to find sectors in which to operate exceeding 2,500 miles which do not involve crossing something like the Atlantic on a non-stop basis. Another condition was that if, in any of the three years, the conditions laid down were not complied with, the duty-free direction would cease to have effect and the duty would become payable.
At the moment if Laker Airways cannot manage this because Skytrain has gone out of the window, Mr. Laker will become lumbered with the duty on the whole aeroplane. Lastly, it was a condition that the aircraft should be used only for the maintenance of overseas services. That is not very onerous because it is impossible to fly over 2,500 miles in Britain without passing over a bit of water. It will be seen that there are some important and complicated aspects to this. I regret that I have taken so long in trying to describe them. However, even at this late hour, I welcome the opportunity of having a chance of trying to set the scene for Skytrain. Per-
2316
haps there would not have been another chance to do so.
I ask the Secretary of State and his Ministers to look at this project once more. I am not a Front Bench spokesman, although I happen to be the chairman of a relevant committee, but I assure them that I shall give my personal endeavours to trying to find a way to make this scheme work. We are considering a unique transportation system. It is a system which will extend the opportunity to travel and enable people to know more about the world in which they live. It is an idea which is typical of the inventive genius of the British people.
We have always led the world in various forms of transportation. Here we have a leadership system which is a new and exciting idea. It is a concept for which people have been waiting, on both sides of the Atlantic. It is a means of bringing people together. It offers a chance for people on either side of the Atlantic to see each other's countries and to take part in an exchange of ideas. They would have the opportunity to get to know each other in a way that would not otherwise be possible, given the general level of fares.
I hope that the Minister will not take it amiss if I say that at a time when his Government are repeatedly castigating private industry for its failure to invest in new, modern equipment, here we have a potential $71 million investment which is not being allowed to proceed. The first leader in today's edition of The Times is entitled "An Industry Outclassed", but the Skytrain is an industry that is anxious to go. Hundreds of new jobs would be created by allowing Sky-train to fly. The money has been invested, the market is ready. It would be possible for Lakers to get going in a remarkably short time. This year's summer season has been missed, but the scheme would probably be ready in the spring of next year. That would probably be the best time to get it off the ground.
The British air transport worker is an unusual person. He operates on a 24-hour clock. His enthusiasm for the industry is quite unusual. He is a man who wants to see his industry succeed. He is a man devoted to trying to make it succeed. I think that we must take every possible opportunity to encourage

2317
him. It would be nice to see incentive, encouragement and collaboration given across the Floor of the House, in what is otherwise too dull a world.
4.43 a.m.
Mr. Norman Tebbit: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren), my purpose is not to upbraid the Minister over the review of civil aviation but to seek to persuade him. Certainly it is not my intention to attack or criticise British Airways in any way. Nor to say that the Secretary of State is wrong in his efforts to protect it. However, I fear that he has perhaps made the error of over-protecting it.
The review of civil aviation policy could not have been an easy matter for the Secretary of State. He had to make difficult judgments. If my colleagues and I differ from him, we do so not so much on grounds of ideology as on the judgment we make of the practical problems that aviation faces, the opportunities which are in front of it and the best way in which British aviation can take advantage of them.
I understand the anxieties which I think were in the right hon. Gentleman's mind about over-capacity on the Atlantic route and throughout air traffic generally. I share his anxieties, as everybody does in the aviation industry, and I would be the first to accept that there is no proper free market in the North Atlantic travel business.
There are seven carriers now on the London-New York run, only one of them British, all of them national carirers, often subsidised, and often taking loss-making business—indeed, they are seeking loss-making business—and some of them ought to get out of that business. Very few will, because they are national air lines, and national air lines are part of national prestige.
Efforts towards a reduction of capacity on the Atlantic route at the moment by agreement are certainly not unreasonable, and I well see the possibility that the Secretary of State feels that the advent of Laker Airways with the Skytrain on the North Atlantic could make it more difficult to achieve capacity cuts which he may feel are necessary.
But the problem, I suggest, is not only one of capacity. It is the related problem
2318
of fare levels and revenue yields. Fares and, even more, the actual revenue yields, are liable to fall or, in these inflationary days, to rise less quickly when there is over-capacity on a route.
It seems to me that the case against Laker which must have been deployed in the Minister's office or in the Minister's mind must have been threefold: first, that Skytrain would add to excess capacity; second, that by offering such a low fare it would further dilute passenger yields and lower the total revenue on the route; and, thirdly, that it would not generate new traffic but would divert traffic from the existing carriers.
I will deal first with the question of capacity. Most of the capacity on offer is not British capacity, and it is with British capacity that we should be most concerned. As the advent on the route and the subsequent withdrawal of British Caledonian showed, the privately owned airline will react in a logical manner to an over-capacity situation. British Caledonian withdrew. Indeed, it withdrew in just the manner that Laker Airways had forecast it would, because Laker had always suggested that it was unlikely that British Caledonian would succeed in offering a similar produce in the competitive market against the "big boys" who in fact had superior equipment generally.
Skytrain would risk Laker's money. If he began to lose money badly, undoubtedly he would withdraw. Any question of over-capacity would have been dealt with. Capacity control is then automatic in that sort of situation.
Secondly, on the matter of fares and revenue yields, as my hon. Friend has said, Skytrain offer a very simple deal: £59 single fare with the restrictions on booking time which my hon. Friend mentioned; no discount; no agents' fees; no fiddles; no back-door sales of discounted tickets; no over-booking situation either.
Mr. Clinton Davies: And possibly no return flight. If the return flight is booked, a passenger may then have to come back on a scheduled flight at considerably increased cost.
Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says "no return flight".
Mr. Davies: Possibly.
Mr. Tebbit: Of course, everyone recognises that there might not be a return flight available on the day on which one wants to come back, but if one were extremely anxious to get on a flight on the particular day, there is little doubt that a queue would form at the booking desk before the six-hour limit, and that those who were there first would get on the aeroplane. I think the Secretary of State would recognise that that would mean that those most anxious to get aboard would in general do so. If a situation arose where people were being turned away, I imagine it would show that there was a demand for the service far in excess of the demand which its critics are forecasting. So I think that it is unlikely that there would often be a 100 per cent. load on these services. If there were, it would be a very good justification for starting them.
In contrast to that, what is the position today on fares? I went a little further than my hon. Friend. I rang British Airways, the scheduled carrier on which I would naturally go to America. I asked what I would have to pay to fly to New York in the next day or two. As always, the sales assistant was very helpful. He asked for how long I wanted to go. For a stay of 14 days in America, the return fare was £238·70. If I wanted to stay from 22 to 45 days, it was £198·20. I said that I was not sure how long I wanted to stay. I was told that in that case I might have to pay the normal fare of £306·80 return, although I could take one of the cheaper rates and then, if I found that I ran out of its terms, pay the difference. If I had known two or three months earlier that I might want to go to New York, I could have bought an Apex fare ticket at £160·20 return, or as little as £118·50 if I wanted to go in the winter and not at present. I might have been able to purchase an ABC ticket under similar circumstances—the ticket to which Mr. Henry Marking referred in his television broadcast—the off-peak price varying from £99 to £109, but £137 this month, with conditions almost indistinguishable from Apex. Then the assistant mentioned—this was over the telephone, which no doubt was why he mentioned it—that perhaps the youth fare might interest me, valid for anyone between 12 and 23 years of age, valid for one year, bookable less than five days in advance, at a price of £180·60.
2320
By this time, I began to imagine the customer might be a little confused about the best and cheapest way to travel. That is no criticism of British Airways. These are the IATA structured fares which are applicable to more or less all the airlines operating on the route. But what a complex system, what a series of disincentives to travel, and what a difficult situation for the ordinary man who does not make a habit of travelling to America but who, perhaps, hears suddenly that a close relative is sick in America, wants to go, does not know how long he will be there, but wants to get aboard an aircraft and fly there as quickly as possible. How easily he might slip into paying £306 return when he need spend only just over £100 if he knew what was available, or, if he had been granted prevision to know that his relative would be ill so that he could book two or three months' earlier.
By the time that the agent's commission and the other selling expenses are paid, just what is the real revenue yield to the carrier? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) is in this business and is quietly wondering to himself what is the real revenue yield.
We know that, in addition to legal cuts, there have been vast ticket fiddles, with major TATA carriers discounting their own tickets at prices far below the agreed figures. Against all this, we have Freddie Laker's £59 each way, very few niggling restrictions and, above all, no restrictions on the length of stay or the age of the passenger, with every penny paid for the ticket going to the airline, to the people who actually offer the service to the passenger and not to other parties.
It is hard to believe that the revenue dilution would be as significant as IATA airlines claim, because they claim that they offer a variety of legal cheap fares.
There is also the question whether the passengers will be drawn from existing passengers or will be new travellers. Those who pay the standard fare of £306·80p at present are unlikely in general to transfer to the Laker Skytrain. They are mostly business travellers who want to book the day that they go or sometimes in advance and have all the advantages of flying that sort of schedule. They are unlikely to shift to Skytrain.

2321
Who would travel on Skytrain? I should like to refer to a survey which was carried out in April, 1975. This survey, I know, will appeal to the Minister. It is a research study conducted for Laker Airways Limited by Market and Opinion Research International. I am sure that this company is known to the Minister and his hon. Friends as it was chosen to do polling and research work for the Labour Party. Moreover, the Labour Party has won a couple of elections recently, so it is probably not a bad firm to use.
In the summary it says:
"Only one person in forty"—
that was the sample interviewed—
"had holidayed in the USA in the last three years, but a quarter spontaneously mentioned the USA as a destination they would like to visit, and when prompted, over 60 per cent. said that they would 'very much like' or 'quite like' to visit the States. … So there is no lack of people who would like to go to America—and all but five per cent. would go for 'personal' reasons (holidays, visit friends, etcetera)."
Only 2 per cent. said that they would use Skytrain for business reasons.
The survey goes on to say:
"The preferred length of stay is relatively long—well over half would want to go for at least a month.
Despite the large number who would like to go to the USA, only one in four considers it at all likely that they will go there in the next few years. The reason?—mainly the cost of getting there.… People's estimates of the cost of flying to New York vary wildly from around £40 to well over £300, with only five per cent. believing they could go for under £60. If a sub-£60 fare were available, the likelihood figures change dramatically—over half (almost double the earlier figure) would then be 'likely' to go."
That is the justification for the belief that the Skytrain would bring a completely new group of travellers to the United States. This was a deep survey and one on which Lakers based much of their case.
Perhaps it is equally worth noting that in this random sample there were included an above-average number of C1 and C2 respondents, and also a higher than average number of Labour Party supporters—for people were asked about their politics too.
It seems to me that there are four reasons, other than purely partisan why the Secretary of State may have reached
2322
the conclusion that he should put down Laker's Skytrain.
The first is that it might interfere with his hopes of limiting capacity. I believe that, although it would increase capacity, it would increase the British share of the market and would increase traffic, too. Therefore, it would be a favourable, not an unfavourable, factor on the route.
Secondly, he might have believed that it would divert passengers from existing carriers in substantial numbers and dilute revenue. I suggest that there are very good reasons for believing that that is not so.
Thirdly he may have realised, perhaps quite late in the day during his review, that if he committed himself to a policy, mainly concerning British Caledonian, that there should be no direct competition between British scheduled carriers on long-haul routes, he would, perhaps in logic, have to include the Skytrain in that general policy and therefore ban it, although the considerations which apply to Skytrain and to British Caledonian's competition are completely different.
Fourthly, it has been suggested that the suppression of Skytrain was part of a deal with the United States authorities over Concorde. I ask the Minister to be particularly careful to deal with that point when he replies. The suggestion has been made that the British Government had put such very strong diplomatic pressure on the United States Government to help get Concorde admitted to New York in particular that we had caused the Federal Government a degree of embarrassment which they accepted.
But they were also suffering from another embarrassment. The American Government have been suffering from the embarrassment of being in clear breach of the Bermuda Agreement by refusing to allow the Skytrain to start. It is suggested that it was broadly hinted, in the nicest possible way, that perhaps the British Government might get rid of that that second embarrassment for the US authorities refusing Skytrain operating permission for ever.
Mr. Clinton Davis indicated dissent.
Mr. Tebbit: The Minister shakes his head. I am glad to see that he does. I am happy to accept the assurances which I think he will want to give, because it

2323
would be a good thing to have this story, which is going around, cleared up and denied tonight.
The argument which I have sought to deploy is not that all the considerations are so overwhelmingly pointing in one direction that we would have to be crazy or perverse not to have come to the conclusion which my hon. Friends and myself have reached about Laker. I am suggesting that there is a balance and, indeed, that the balance is such that there must have been some degree of doubt in the minds of the Secretary of State and his advisers whether the Skytrain should be put out of court for ever or should be started perhaps next year.
If so, he ought to have given the benefit of that doubt to the consumer and to the innovators. He should have accepted that British Airways is a very fine, indeed great, airline which is much too good to be broken or even seriously embarrassed by little Laker. I suggest that Laker and Skytrain complement British Airways in many ways rather than compete with it. Those who start travelling on Skytrain as youngsters, when they are not particularly well off, will tend to graduate as passengers of ordinary IATA carriers.
The Secretary of State should have echoed the words of Judge Murphy in his recommendation to the United States CAB:
"Laker is fit, able and willing"—
and later:
"It is in the public interest to allow Sky-train to go ahead."
5.5 a.m.
Mr. Michael Neubert: After sitting through a substantial part of the seven-hour debate on Scottish affairs, I can still see the swirl of the kilt and hear the skirl of the pipes. If I inadvertently refer to British Caledonian instead of Laker Airways, I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I declare an interest as a travel consultant but also as a member of the great travelling public who cannot afford to travel to the United States as often as they would wish and who are being deprived of the opportunity by the Government's decision on Skytrain.
2324
The fear that Skytrain would divert traffic from British Airways was a major factor in the decision, and we should examine more closely the kind of people who will be excluded from widening their horzons by visiting the USA. There are those who do not wish or cannot afford to stay for the minimum period laid down in the excursion fare structure. They may well be working people of the kind represented by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), they may be nurses or even Members of Parliament. This is an untapped source of traffic. There are also those people who have to go at short notice, perhaps because of a family bereavement or because they are given short notice of leave. They are not catered for in the cheap fare structure because that is hitched to bookings made well in advance. There are also people who wish to go for a longer period than provided for in the excursion fare scheme. They might want to stay with relatives on an extended visit or tour the country. Finally, there are those people who would want to stay for an indefinite period, spending as much time and money as they can afford in the United States and perhaps even returning by a different route on a different airline.
All this represents an untapped market for the Skytrain project and would not detract from British Airways' traffic. If there were any doubt about that, it was resolved in the conditions attached to the licence given to Laker Airways in 1972. Tickets could not be booked more than six hours before departure, they had to be purchased on the spot and, to make sure there were no intermediaries, agents or touts, there was the novel and surprising suggestion that travellers should have their hands stamped to show that they had bought tickets that day. It was not possible to book seats until tickets had been purchased and they were guaranteed only for that day's departure. Travellers had no priority to reservations on the following day if flights did not operate. In addition, only 15 kgs of free luggage was permitted instead of the normal 20 kgs.
Mr. Tebbit: Laker Airways wanted those who had failed to get on board a particular flight to have a degree of priority on the next flight, but this was ruled out by the CAA, who imposed these extra conditions.
Mr. Neubert: Part of my case is that the conditions to be imposed by the CAA were very stringent and included all the items I am detailing now. In-flight catering was not included in the price of the ticket, but it could be purchased on board.
One major condition not so far mentioned was that the flights should be operated from Stansted, Essex. I have a constituency interest to declare in that Rom-ford is well located for convenient access to Stansted, and a large number of my constituents would benefit from Sky-train.
In the last few years a Romford-based tour operator has established himself successfully by basing his holiday programme on flights from Stansted, ironically, by using a Spanish airline. That airport, however, is not convenient for the vast majority of travellers to the United States. The typical British Airways passenger would not be able to fulfil all the conditions, especially since, being compelled to use Stansted, he would have no interconnecting domestic flights. The conditions were therefore designed to ensure no diversion of British Airways passengers.
There would also be a loss to our balance of trade from tourism if Skytrain did not operate. This is not only a question of British people travelling to the United States. The service would not create a massive drain on the sterling reserves because there would be return traffic from the United States. Since the United States has a larger population than Britain, the likelihood is that more tickets for Skytrain would be sold in the United States than would be sold here. Britain would thus enjoy a balance of trade surplus.
Mr. Warren: Surveys have shown that the split of passengers would certainly be expected to be about 60 per cent. from the United States and 40 per cent. from Britain, with a consequent dollar inflow for Britain. Some people have put the split as high as 70 per cent. to 30 per cent. in our favour.
Mr. Neubert: The Under-Secretary knows how important tourism is to us. In 1974 it was worth £1,000 million, and that was an improvement of £200 million on the previous year. One factor in that
2326
situation, however, was the drop in American traffic. Although tourist traffic has increased by 13 per cent. in the first four months of this year, there is an evident lower percentage of Americans in that total. With the news that the dollar rate for the pound is now 2·15, there is the chance that Britain will be more attractive. Air travel for the Americans at the fare levels proposed tonight would be a considerable attraction and would draw on a great potential as yet untapped.
One further condition was imposed by the CAA in granting a licence. It was that by limiting the frequencies and capacity they provided for a maximum in the year of only 250,000 passenger journeys. At present the traffic across the North Atlantic is about 10 million passenger journeys. That is the proportion of capacity that we are talking about, and we are discussing it in relation to a new market.
The subject of investment has been mentioned. A total of $71 million has been invested in new jet equipment on which there has been very little return so far and which has been given virtually no opportunity to earn foreign revenue. In all these circumstances should we not look to British Airways which has greatly influenced the Minister's judgment, to be a little more magnanimous?
It is an airline which, according to last year's report flew over 500,000 flying hours and 200 million miles. It can afford, with its worldwide prestige to be a little more generous to those who seek to operate in the same market. It still seems to hanker after monopoly, which I find surprising. It is symptomatic in its attitude, even these years later, to British Caledonian's access to routes once operated by British Airways. Those routes, which were transferred on the setting up of the second force airline, represent a small fraction of British Airways' worldwide network. The figure that I have in mind—subject to correction—is about 2 per cent. Even with that small fraction at issue there is a continuing resentment among certain members of the British Airways staff which comes out from time to time.
I should have thought that the Laker Skytrain project was not a very significant threat to British Airways at all. Freddie Laker has, by his imagination, developed

2327
ideas in air traffic which have brought immense benefit and pleasure to many hundreds of thousands of people who, perhaps, might never have had the opportunity of travelling more widely were it not for men such as him. I should like to quote him. In January this year—not much more than six months ago—he said:
"The people who are running national airlines today don't understand the interdependence of the whole tourist industry, and they don't understand ordinary people. There are 10 million in the U.K. and 50 million in the U.S. who are potential Skytrain users and who will never cross the Atlantic otherwise. Competition in the market place is the essence of a sound economy and air tourism has to be given a new dimension. Nobody has ever fought inflation or depression by contraction. If they had anything but rocks in their heads they would know that only vision and expansion is going to save this country's bacon."
It is astonishing that after such characteristically robust plain speaking Freddie Laker is still as popular as he is with so many prominent members of the air travel industry, including his competitors. He is popular because they recognise in what he says that pure unalloyed spirit of enterprise which once made this country great and could make it great again. We diminish ourselves and our future if through over-caution on the one hand or short-sightedness on the other, we seek to cabin and confine the imagination and energies of such men.
5.18 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davies): If I speak for rather longer than I would have hoped at this hour of the morning, it is because in a sense I want to pay tribute to the Conservative Members who have participated in this debate. I found the debate interesting because each hon. Member was able to apply in a constructive manner an expertise and at the same time to adopt arguments which did not totally overlap. I ask them to accept that I say that in no patronising way. We have our political differences, but there is no reason why one should not respect the qualities of one's friends on the other side of the House.
They invited me in their speeches to listen, in the hope that they might convert me to their point of view. Having been invited to do that, perhaps I may adopt a somewhat similar stance in the
2328
debate and tell them something of the difficulties, as I see them, which prohibited the Secretary of State—and, in the way that I was able to play some part in helping to arrive at the decision, myself as well—from coming to the conclusion which they have reached.
I was delighted with the posture which they adopted in their remarks because it contrasts very favourably with some of the shrill criticism one read in some of the popular newspapers when this decision was announced. I think that the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) put his thumb absolutely on the bull point here when he said that this was essentially a matter of a balance of judgment. Of course it is. I recognise, too, that there are obvious attractions about the whole concept of being able to travel to the United States apparently more cheaply, certainly at certain times of the year, than on the scheduled services, notwithstanding the Apex and ABC concepts which have been introduced.
I shall try to spell out the problems, but I ask hon. Members to accept that there could be opened a Pandora's box of problems. I do not believe that any responsible Government, in considering this matter, could have ignored the problems. Of course, it is a matter for hon. Members at the end of the day—there is no vote after the debate—to determine whether what I shall say during my observations is commendable to them.
Perhaps it would be helpful if at the outset I summarised the situation as I see it and then, in rather the same style as the hon. Member for Chingford, went on to develop the arguments that arise from the summary.
First of all, we came to the conclusion that the totally changed circumstances on the North Atlantic since Laker Airways received the licence from the CAA necessarily led us to the conclusion that we should abandon dual designation and, of course, embark upon capacity rationalisation. Secondly, it was recognised by the CAA in January 1975—this was a point not stressed in any of the speeches to which I have listened—that Laker could not operate now or until the market resumed a healthy rate of growth. That was the CAA's conclusion.
Mr. Nenbert: Perhaps the Minister would also mention that the CAA, at the

2329
same time as that judgment, made the point that Skytrain would have been operating then but for two years during which the United States authorities engaged in what has been called "unconscionable procrastination"—a memorable phrase.
Mr. Davis: I think that I adopted that phrase at some stage during Question Time, and I do not dissent from that propostion in the least.
Thirdly the CAA came to the conclusion by and large—and I hope that I do not do the CAA any injustice in summarising the position—that there would be no advantage and probably a slight loss, which I think the CAA estimated as about £1·l million on the balance of payments if the introduction of the Skytrain service were coupled with a reciprocal service by a United States carrier and that that would also be merged with a substantial loss for British Airways.
Fourthly, I would contend that Laker's own assumption as to profitability and certainly his assumptions about enjoying a monopoly with this service were unrealistic. Fifthly, the difficulties to which I have already alluded would be out of all proportion to the concept of Skytrain itself, difficulties which would inevitably emerge and difficulties which could easily subsume the concept of Sky-train, with the prospect that the heat in the kitchen would become so intense that, after some interval, Laker would withdraw but it would not be a simple situation consequent upon the withdrawal, because he could leave behind a fair measure of chaos. Sixthly, I do not accept that the travelling public would derive the considerable advantages in their entirety that hon. Members have spoken about previously.
My seventh point has not been referred to, but I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I refer to it. That is the refutation of allegations of bad faith by the Government in which Mr. Laker has indulged. I want to deal as well with the argument about duty remission.
It is essential to consider the decision first in the context of the whole review. It cannot be treated in isolation. My right hon. Friend emphasised in his statement on 29th July that in the changed circumstances now facing civil aviation, he had
2330
decided that in future it should be our general policy not to permit competition between British airlines on long-haul scheduled services. That was commented on in a fairly balanced judgment in The Financial Times on 30th July:
"The conclusions appear for the most part to be a reasonable compromise. They recognise the practical limits to competition in an industry which is in any case dominated by the decisions of Governments, both in licensing new entrants and in negotiating traffic rights with other Governments. At the same time they accept that the private sector has made a considerable contribution and must be allowed to prosper."
it went on:
"Most of British Caledonian's gains on the North Atlantic were at the expense of British Airways. During the period of dual designation, both airlines made heavy losses."
I know that that refers to British Caledonian, but it reflects in part at least on one of the arguments of the hon. Member for Chingford.
It went on:
"Moreover, the introduction of a second British airline has to be negotiated with the host Government, substantial concessions have to be granted, so that, overall, the gain to the United Kingdom may be slight."
In fairness, I should say that it went on:
"The Skytrain proposal is in a different category, since it is designed as a low-fare, no-reservation service, which no other airline is at present flying. The question which has to be asked is whether the Skytrain service is sufficiently novel and sufficiently cheap to attract a new class of passenger and so enlarge the total market."
Those are the arguments which hon. Members opposite sought to establish.
"The Government believes it would merely take business away from British Airways but this needs to be supported by much fuller information on relative prices and market potential than was made available yesterday."
That was a reasonable, balanced judgment. I hope to respond to that invitation. The Civil Aviation Authority's decision in February 1975 read in part as follows:
"We regard the Skytrain experiment as one to be launched in propitious circumstances when the operator and the public can have confidence that the experiment will prove successful and when diversion from other carriers would be likely at worst to fall within tolerable limits. We are forced to the conclusion that the Skytrain service should not be inaugurated until the market has resumed a healthy rate of growth."
The hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) asked why we included Skytrain in the review. I suggest that it

2331
followed ineluctably from the conclusion reached by the Civil Aviation Authority in February and that in those circumstances my right hon. Friend was perfectly entitled to make, and indeed was drawn irresistibly to, the conclusion that it was necessary to consider it in his overall review of British aviation policy.
Mr. Tebbit: I am sure that the Minister will have read in the transcript of the Civil Aviation Authority hearing in January the preceding paragraph and the last sentence of the next paragraph, which read:
"Nonetheless we believe, and in evidence British Airways acknowledged, that a segment of demand exists within the United Kingdom that, though smaller than it would have been two years ago, may nonetheless be substantial within the meaning of Section 3(1)(a) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971.
45. In sum, notwithstanding the weighty and well argued case advanced by British Airways, we conclude for the reasons set out in paragraphs 42–44 above that it would be wrong to revoke licence IB/24214 and we decide accordingly."
Mr. Davis: That is true. I am tempted to read the whole report, but that would take all morning. After the last debate, I am not sure that we should penalise the speakers in the next debate.
I referred to paragraph 48, which says:
"… on all forecasts it is unlikely to be for at least 12 months but nobody can today foresee with any degree of precision the date which may be appropriate for launching the service."
Mr. Laker assumed that as the period of 12 months had been mentioned he could start the service in April 1976. But he ignored the rest of the conclusions. I do say that he had no basis for coming to that conclusion, especially in the context of the situation, which remains the same.
In answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) on 21st March the Secretary of State for Trade said that he agreed with the conclusion of the Civil Aviation Authority. I now say, with the authority of the Secretary of State, following the civil aviation review, that I cannot see that the introduction of Skytrain can be justified for a considerable period of time.
Mr. Warren: The Minister made a definitive statement. But he also informed us
2332
of many new facts which were not previously known to this House. Those facts are of considerable substance in terms of his judgment about submissions made by Laker Airways, especially about the market, whether the market exists, and whether Mr. Laker's figures are correct. It would be most valuable if those matters could be looked at by Mr. Laker and the Department. As there is a difference it should be investigated. I am sure that the Minister would not want to discover that his figures were as wrong as he believes Mr. Laker's figures to be.
Mr. Davis: I rely in part upon the conclusions of the Civil Aviation Authority which investigated in great detail the submissions made by Laker, and I shall later refer to specific paragraphs in that report. In answering that question on the spot I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend. We shall publish a White Paper, and the conclusions which we have reached will, I am sure, be carefully considered by the hon. Gentleman—and indeed the whole House—in determining whether we have made the right judgment about this and other matters. The White Paper will contain fuller information than has been made available to the House thus far in the Vote Office and the Library.
I come to the question of the North Atlantic market, which has presented so many difficulties for British Airways, British Caledonian and, perhaps above all, the two major American Airlines, TWA and Pan-Am, in the last year or so. The position has changed dramatically since the Skytrain concept was originally proposed and the CAA licence was granted. The Civil Aviation Authority fully recognised that in its decision in January to renew the Skytrain licence.
The CAA was told by British Airways that in 1974 traffic between London and New York had declined sharply for the first time since the war and British Airways forecast no growth in 1975 and only a modest growth, probably not exceeding 6 per cent. at best, in 1976. The CAA considered that these forecasts might have erred on the side of optimism, and my right hon. Friend's statement was designed to reflect the severe setback suffered by airlines world wide as a result of the oil crisis and the consequent economic recession.
Mr. Warren: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, despite that statement by British Airways, that the CAA turned down the British Airways appeal. Whether or not the CAA felt that those figures were optimistic, it did not accept British Airways' argument.
Mr. Davis: The CAA did not accept the totality of the argument. Certain features of the argument were accepted by the CAA, as is demonstrable from the report, which I have here and threaten to read in totality.
It is right that I should spell out to the House so that it is on the record the stark nature of the information I have summarised. In 1968 profitability for North Atlantic IATA carriers was represented by a £75 million surplus. It went down to about £65 million in the following year. In 1971 there was a remarkable drop to a loss of £100 million. In 1972 there was a loss of £23 million. Then the rot set in, with a loss of £160 million in 1973 and £300 million in 1974. Those are dramatic changes which occurred within a relatively short period.
The continuation of the setback can be demonstrated by the fact that TWA in the first five months of 1975 lost $110 million and in the same period Pan-Am lost $50·3 million. We do not know the figures for British Airways in that period but it seems probable that when the total annual figures for British Airways are published in August the loss is likely to be about £10 million, but that is not simply North Atlantic travel, and it is not to be compared with the substantial losses suffered by the American airlines.
Mr. Neubert: The Minister is basing his case on the CAA judgment that such a project as Skytrain should not be instituted until the market resumes a healthy growth. Presumably both he and the CAA have in mind a general world economic improvement bringing about that growth, which one also presumes would occur within the present high fare structure of IATA airlines. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that that growth should be resumed by the introduction of a low-fare project, much more within the capacity of people to pay?
Mr. Davis: I am coming to that argument in the order in which I have
2334
arranged my speech, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to be a little patient.
My third point deals with the profitability and impact of Skytrain. I do not doubt that even at this time—but I believe that it would be for a fairly short period—Skytrain could earn substantial profits for Laker if it were introduced now. But the level of profitability depends on several factors, which in my judgment would not continue for long, and are based on a series of assumptions which I described before as unrealistic.
Laker's most optimistic forecasts depend on his enjoying a monopoly. There is no question about that. But it is the conclusion of my right hon. Friend and myself that he would inevitably have to compete with at least one United States carrier offering the same service. That is not an idle threat that has been made by Pan-Am, TWA and the five United States supplemental carriers. I do not say that all the suggestions would bear fruit, and one can reasonably discount a great deal, but I believe that at the end of the day some competition along similar lines is bound to emerge.
Mr. Tebbit: My understanding from Laker Airways is quite clear—that it has always assumed that its period in a monopoly position in the Skytrain market would be relatively short, and that it would welcome an American carrier coming on to the market, because that would engender much more interest in the United States, which is the larger market, in the concept of Skytrain travel, from which Laker Airways would benefit.
Mr. Davis: Again my argument is anticipated. Perhaps I should leave time for a question-and-answer session at the end of the debate. But I do not think that you would encourage that way of carrying on a Consolidated Fund Bill debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The second assumption relating to Laker's forecasts is that he would achieve an exceptionally high all-year-round average load factor of, I think, 76 per cent. That is a very high load factor to seek to achieve. It would also depend on having a fare approved, not only by the CAA but by the United States authority, that would enable him to compete effectively with the existing promotional fares.

2335
The CAA in January asserted that the Skytrain fare would almost certainly require further review before any question of the introduction of its service arose. That is stated specifically in the report. Even if the optimistic assumptions to which I have referred prove to be correct, much would depend on the success with which Laker could compete with a United States skytrain service—and possibly not just one but two. I have said that in my judgment that would undoubtedly occur almost simultaneously with Laker's introduction of the service, that it would be the inevitable price to pay for the initiation of such a Service. The best to be hoped for is that Laker could acquire half the available traffic, or one-third if there were two United States skytrains. Would we not then be faced with the prospect that British Airways would seek to activate a similar service, despite the CAA view that Laker, in its judgment, was an experimental service—a one-off service? There is no indication that the CAA would agree to British Airways undertaking a service of this kind—
Mr. Tebbit: Or IATA.
Mr. Davis: I do not know. This is a matter for speculation. The hon. Gentleman may be right. But it would be manifestly unfair if the American carriers were operating the skytrain services, together with Laker, while British Airways was excluded. It is one of the difficulties of the Pandora's box to which I referred. What would happen is that we would be inviting a shambles on the North Atlantic route when we require order and when order can be achieved.
What I have said concerns the profitability of Laker if it were to start Skytrain in the foreseeable future. What we have also to have regard to is the damage it would undoubtedly cause British Airways. Conservative Members seek to minimise that, as does Mr. Laker. It is right that I should examine this proposition in a little depth.
The calculation of British Airways, which was not rejected by the CAA, is that the losses that would be caused to it would be about £3 million a year. This would double if United States skytrains with about the same capacity as Laker were to start, too. We would be faced
2336
with a possible loss—indeed a probable loss—to British Airways of about £6 million a year. That loss has to be dealt with. It can be dealt with by subsidy, but that is not the Government's view of how we should deal with this sort of situation. The alternative is to put up fares elsewhere so that the consumer would have to pay for this in another way.
I contend that there would also be damage to the balance of payments. If there were two skytrains operating, each would earn about £8 million a year, but mainly at the expense of existing services. In reply to what has been put by Tory Members, let me quote from paragraph 37 of the CAA report. The arguments were repeated by the CAA in its conclusion when it said:
"It follows from all these circumstances that although, as British Airways recognised, a 'Skytrain' service would still be likely to generate some additional traffic"—
which it puts at 25 per cent. approximately of skytrain passengers—
"traffic would need to be diverted from other scheduled services and from charter services on a much larger scale than seemed either necessary or likely in 1972, if the very high 76 per cent. break-even load factor is to be achieved by 'Skytrain' on a year round basis. We cannot assume that any substantial period would elapse before the introduction of a matching service by a United States carrier or of some other competitive reaction, which would compound these effects."
That is the, way in which the evidence that hon. Members have relied upon was dealt with by the CAA. That cannot be swept aside as of no consequence. The CAA is a serious body that considered the evidence seriously. In the final analysis it came to a different conclusion from the Government, but that is a difference of emphasis. I do not think it can be said to be very much more than that. The CAA rejected the fundamental arguments on which hon. Members have sought to rely in this debate.
If the two Skytrains operate, each will earn £8 million a year mainly at the expense of existing services. They would earn £10 million from Pan-Am and TWA and £6 million from British Airways. Those are more or less the figures put to the House in the course of the debate.
I submit that the surplus of £2 million that would be earned by Laker would be whittled away by certain other considerations which have not yet been mentioned.

2337
First, it must be recognised that Mr. Laker undertook substantial loans on favourable terms when he purchased his DC 10s. It is true that the terms involved considerable payments of interest. That is a factor that has to be taken into account when considering the balance of payments situation. Secondly, his maintenance charges arise mainly in the United States. He does not have his DC 10s maintained to any extent in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tebbit: But those charges will remain in being as a charge on our balance of payments. They are there already. The only way they can be got rid of is if Laker sells the aircraft, or gets them off his hands and loses all that he has invested in them up to now.
Mr. Davis: In coming to my conclusion I am relying on the argument which was deployed before the CAA and which was clearly considered by it in its conclusion. Having regard to all the charges that would be involved, the CAA calculated that the net loss to the balance of payments would in the region of about £1 million a year. I ask the House not lightly to reject the conclusions that the CAA reached in that respect.
Mr. Warren: The CAA, having gone through all these examinations, came to the only judgment it could make—namely, that Laker should have the licence and should have the right to operate.
Mr. Davis: I cannot resist the temptation of referring to the interjection of the hon. Member for Chingford, who said that there is a bit of this for everybody. In a sense that may be the difficulty that the CAA had to face. Of course, it did not authorise the immediate operation of Laker. The arguments of the hon. Member for Hastings all lead to the conclusion that Laker should have been permitted to operate immediately.
Mr. Warren: I do not want to prolong the dialogue, but I want to be certain we agree on the facts as they have been deployed in this complicated argument. It is my understanding that the best and most opportune time for Laker to operate would be in the spring, and it is to be hoped that the economy will be on the upturn by that time. Nobody is looking for an immediate start of these
2338
operations. What I am looking for now is a deployment of argument between perhaps Laker and the Minister to clear up the very contentious facts that he is propounding with which the company will disagree immediately they have the opportunity in the morning.
Mr. Davis: It is very difficult to digest at this hour, but the hon. Gentleman is in conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for Romford, who was arguing that, notwithstanding the difficulties, the depression and recession on the North Atlantic, inflation should be fought, as Mr. Laker suggests, by adopting the techniques of expansion, vision, and so on. "Now is the hour", as I think Gracie Fields used to put it. I must go through this argument, because I recognise it as serious. But I think that the CAA was right in saying that there would be a net loss to the balance of payments.
My next point is that British Airways would operate with more empty seats, which would make complete non-sense of the policy that we have been trying to establish, not only here in Britain but in the United States of America as well, to reduce the number of empty seats flown across the Atlantic, because such waste is unacceptably damaging in present circumstances. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentlemen who have just intervened would feel that that was a wholly wrong conclusion.
The hon. Member for Chingford referred to the need for capacity rationalisation. British Airways, Pan-Am and TWA have, with the support of the Government of the United States and ourselves, arrived at a series of agreements to rationalise capacity on most of the North Atlantic routes. That capacity is at present tailored to meet the market demand, and we believe the result will be an improvement in profitability.
One cannot at this stage judge the results immediately—it is impossible to do that—but the agreements, which last until April next year, are beginning to have the intended effects, and as a Government we certainly wish these arrangements to continue for as long as they are required.
What I say about Skytrain in this respect is that its introduction would make it very difficult to persuade the United States air lines to continue to

2339
restrict their capacity, and the whole of the present structure could well be in jeopardy. I believe that it is a real risk.
Mr. Warren: Now we know.
Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman says "Now we know". He always knew, I am sure, that this was one of the relevant factors that had to be considered. Let us remember that on his own admission on the radio and television the other day, Mr. Laker described himself as a buccaneer. He rather liked that description, I suspect. But I do not believe that the scheduled air services of the world are necessarily areas for buccaneering.
The interest of the travelling public was the next point raised very persuasively by the hon. Member for Romford, supported by his hon. Friends. I do not accept that the market at which Skytrain has been aimed will be neglected as a result of the decision. I believe that the introduction of Apex and ABCs has proved already to be of considerable advantage.
Opposition Members seek to say that the Skytrain service—which, of course, varies at different times of the year in relation to its competitiveness with those types of fares—overall is preferable and likely to be cheaper. I have already made a concession in part on that. But obviously we are considering the general advantages and disadvantages as a whole. This is part of them. I think that hon. Gentlemen may concede some of the arguments in this case to me. I have made a concession in Dart about this, but I do not think that the situation can be considered simply overall on fares. It has to be looked at seasonally. The figures have been quoted already, and I see no advantage in repeating them.
I turn next to the investment in the DC 10s. The figure of $71 million has been mentioned. Mr. Laker said that our action was immoral because he had invested specifically for the Skytrain service with the approbation, as he put it, of successive Governments. I do not accept the allegations of Mr. Laker in this respect. In the first place, he took a very calculated risk. He did not know at the time that he purchased those DC 10s—at least, he did not seem to recognise—that there might be problems with the
2340
American authorities. He could not know, even if the licence had been granted, what conditions for the aircraft might be imposed by the American authorities if they had performed their part of the Bermuda agreement. It is perhaps a little strange that Mr. Laker should have rushed into the purchase of the DC 10s unless there were other reasons which persuaded him that they constituted a useful investment in themselves, quite apart from Skytrain.
The other day, The Guardian described it as "a massive gamble". I do not know about that. Mr. Laker saw the opportunity to buy the three DC 10s at a very low price, with low rates of interest from the Japanese banks and, generally speaking, on very good terms. Thus, even if Skytrain did not operate, he would make good use of the DC 10s. So he has. Laker is a profitable enterprise today. In the immediate future, if Mr. Laker could operate Skytrain tomorrow for a short period of time, he would show even greater profits than by the present use he is able to make of the three DC 10s.
But only part of the investment of $71 million which he claims to have invested specifically for Skytrain could have related to Skytrain. We know that the capacity on Skytrain was to be limited by the CAA licence to a daily DC 10 service each way in the summer and a maximum 189 seats daily each way from October to March. Therefore, that implied the use of a Boeing 707 in that season or a severely under-capitalised DC 10 during that fairly long period of the year. He might have needed a backup service, but I do not think that Mr. Laker would contend that the supporting DC 10 and the third DC 10 would remain idle. They would be used on other services, of course. Accordingly, it is misleading for Mr. Laker to suggest—and the argument was taken up by the hon. Member for Hastings—that the $71 million was an investment in Skytrain.
It is alleged that the Government permitted Mr. Laker to import his aircraft free of duty and it is implied that therefore we should remain committed to Skytrain. The hon. Member for Hastings referred to the letter of 29th April, setting out certain conditions. I shall deal first with the remission of duty. That had nothing to do with Skytrain at all. Section 6 of the Import Duties Act 1958

2341
specifically provides that duty remission depends—I have to introduce the Schedule when offering a resumé—on whether competitive British-made products are available at the time and not on the purpose for which the products are to be used. Therefore, it follows that the remission of duty had nothing to do with Skytrain as a project or a concept, although Mr. Laker has sought to argue the point in that way. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hastings did not pursue the matter in the same manner.
Mr. Warren: Will the Minister refer to the other conditions which are not part of the 1958 Act?
Mr. Davis: I shall come to the conditions. I shall deal with all the points made.
The conditions concerning the issue of the duty-free licence, were put forward solely to ensure that the DC 10s were used on routes for which the version of the TriStar that was available at the time did not have sufficient range. That was the purpose of those specific conditions.
The hon. Member for Hastings will remember that one of the difficulties about the TriStar at that time was that it might not have a sufficient range to cross the Atlantic, hence it did not—although it had Rolls-Royce engines built in this country—represent a competitive British made product. Nevertheless the Treasury was concerned that the conditions ensured that the remission of duty was not obtained under any sort of false pretence. I am not suggesting that Mr. Laker had that in mind. The imposition of those conditions were a perfectly satisfactory safeguard. I reject the charge which has not been made specifically by the hon. Member for Hastings but which has been made by Mr. Laker.
I have conceded before that I do not approve of the way in which the United States held up or failed to comply with the obligations under the Air Services Agreement in respect of Skytrain. Both Governments had to put up with a great deal of delay concerning that matter. Unhappily it is not altogether unusual for the United States Government to deploy these tactics, and I say that with much regret. It has happened before in other respects, quite apart from Skytrain.
We are still concerned about the matter. That is one reason why we have told
2342
Mr. Laker, and shall be informing the United States authorities, that certainly for the time being we are not withdrawing Mr. Laker's Skytrain designation as a scheduled service carrier. We shall continue to remind the United States authorities of our views on this matter.
Mr. Laker told us that he might have to sell his DC 10s. I do not think that will be the case. I do not think that it is such a tragic story as he seeks to represent, because on BBC Radio the other day he said:
"I will continue to be a buccaneer, and I can tell Mr. Shore and all people that think like him, that Skytrain will remain on the DC10s until the day I die".
He will not sell them. He will leave Skytrain on those DC 10s until the day he dies. Therefore, we should not take all Mr. Laker's propaganda quite as seriously as he would like us to take it. We must not be gullible about that. I do not think that the arguments that Mr. Laker has always adduced have impressed hon. Gentlemen opposite any more than they have me.
Mr. Warren: I do not know about that.
Mr. Davis: Then the hon. Gentleman must be acquitted of the charge of taking the matter as seriously as I had hoped he would.
I apologise to the House for taking so long to reply, but, as I indicated at the beginning, I felt that the arguments put forward by hon. Gentlemen ought to be taken seriously. Indeed, I have given way on a number of occasions because I felt that they ought to be able to deploy their arguments, even during my speech, if they felt that I was going wrong on any particular point.
I admit to having been a little critical of Mr. Laker, but I should point out that he is a beguiling, successful character, a man of considerable enthusiasm and zeal, whom all of us greatly admire. There is no doubt that he is an impressive chap in every respect. That does not mean that one necessarily must accept the conclusions of the arguments that he adduces so purposefully.
My right hon. Friend and I believe that Laker Airways will bend its energies towards the greater carriage of charter traffic on the North Atlantic and, indeed, in other markets. I hope that it will be successful in doing that. Certainly the

2343
Government are prepared to give Mr. Laker—still a relatively small airline operator, but with a most successful charter record—the fullest support in the development of the United States charter market. That was said by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question on 21st March 1975, and it still operates today.
This has not been an easy matter. None of the decisions which we had to take on this airline review has been easy. We have tried to approach the matter in an undoctrinaire manner. I hope that we have arrived at the right conclusions. We cannot be sure. We are not infallible. I hope that the House will recognise that some powerful arguments have led us to a conclusion which I understand is not a happy one for Mr. Laker. Indeed, it certainly has not pleased the hon. Members for Hastings, Chingford or Romford. However, it is a conclusion which we have reached in good faith and in a way which we believe will be to the long-term advantage not only of British Airways but of the British travelling public as a whole.

FISH FARMING
6.13 a.m.
Mr. Stephen Ross: When I found that I was fortunate to be drawn No. 4 in the Ballot, I hardly expected to be waiting until 13 minutes past six before rising to speak. I apologise to the Minister whom I have obviously kept up for a similar length of time. Nevertheless, that is the way that we run these matters in this House. We had a long debate on devolution, which must have been the third occasion on which we have debated that subject.
I wish to raise a subject of vital importance to this country—I do not propose to go into it at any great length—concerning the future of food production. The aspect to which I wish to refer is fish farming.
I am a stock farmer. I am not a very good stock farmer, but I am an even worse fisherman. Nevertheless, I profoundly believe that this country will face a real shortage of food within a few years and that it is our duty to maximise our production in whatever ways we can.
There are reports emanating from the United States and Canada about large
2344
sales of wheat to Russia. It is obvious that this year we shall have a much smaller harvest than is customary. Indeed, stock farmers in the South—myself included—and probably in other parts of the country are having to feed their hay crops because of the drought. The Minister cannot be blamed for that. They have had very small crops of good quality hay, but small crops do not augur well for the years ahead.
In Newtown, the old capital of the Isle of Wight, we have oyster beds, and the managing director of the firm operating them is chairman of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain. He has restored the tradition of oyster fisheries and is building up his business into a successful enterprise. Turnover last year was £150,000 and most of the production goes for export.
I was further stimulated in my interest in fish farming during a lengthy conversation on the lovely journey from Mallaig to London two years ago. On that beautiful stretch of railway line, I fell in with a gentleman who held a senior position with the White Fish Authority and he told me of exciting developments in a loch on the west coast of Scotland. I do not remember the name of the loch and our Scottish hon. Friends have left now, so they cannot remind me. It was on the coast above Fort William. I was told that after the initial breakthrough and the breeding of turbot and halibut, they were being held back through lack of research finance. They were first in the field and had attracted visitors from the United States, Japan and other countries. They showed great interest and, with the knowledge we had imparted to them, went back to their own countries and forged ahead more quickly than we did. Regrettably, this has not been an unusual occurrence in this country in recent years. We seem to do the spadework and others cash in on our research. I have an Adjournment debate at 4 p.m. today on hovercraft—another field in which we have allowed ourselves to be overtaken after doing all the spadework.
The Scottish Inshore Fisheries Committee issued a report in 1970 in which it said:
"Fish is the only major source of food which is still obtained mainly by the exploitation of naturally occurring stocks of wild

2345
creatures, but, as the human population increases and its standards of living rise, the demand for fish grows and it seems certain must ultimately exceed the reproductive capacity of the wild stocks. Indeed, there is some evidence that this situation already exists in relation to certain species of fish in certain areas. Fish is also a major source of protein in a world which is currently suffering from a deficiency of protein."
This report, which is also known as the Cameron Report, was written in 1970. That deficiency has become very much more serious since then. The report continues:
"These facts—a rising demand and a static or perhaps even declining supply—have stimulated not only scientific but governmental and commercial interest in fish farming and it is believed that the next five to ten years will witness considerable progress in this direction."
I fear that the confidence predicted at that time has not yet been justified by what has come to pass and I will be explaining why I think this situation has arisen.
The same report set out in paragraph 227 the great potential for commercial exploitation of various types of fish farming and highlighted the disastrous fall that had taken place over the years in stocks, particularly of oysters and mussels, due to over-fishing and the lack of adequate protective legislation.
If I journey too much into the realms of legislation I suspect that I shall be ruled out of order, although such expenditure as has already been committed by the Government into research—reputed to be £400,000 per annum, judging from a debate in another place two years ago—might well have been largely wasted without the legislative protection which the fish farmers so badly need.
I hope that soon we shall have a full debate in this House on the unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists and that much-needed legislation will be introduced. There must be greater investment by the Government. Research and development is unlikely to be followed by the large-scale commercial exploitation which is so necessary until the marine farmer's position in law is properly defined in a way which will remove existing anomalies.
The industry believes that it should be classified as agricultural, thereby establishing parity with the land-based farmer for grant aid, rating relief, planning dispensations, reduced vehicle licence
2346
charges, capital transfer tax and similar matters. Some of these advantages already obtain in many EEC countries. Moves in this direction would provide both the necessary solutions to many particular problems and a more favourable general climate, which would in turn promote the growth of important national resources. There is a great need for practical measures of this sort if we are to exploit the very real contribution that fish farming can make to the national larder.
Baroness Emmet of Amberley has long been campaigning in another place for more urgency to be given to the expansion of fish farming. Like her and Lord Thurso, I was disappointed that the White Paper "Food From Our Own Resources" made no mention of fish farming, except by drawing attention to its absence by referring to the value of fish and fish preparations imported in 1972, 1973 and 1974 on page 18. The cost is put at £122 million for 1974, which represents a rise over three years of about 27 per cent. There was no mention of how we could improve food supplies by fish farming, which is surely a grave omission in that otherwise highly desirable White Paper.
It is nonsense that a nation surrounded by water, with suitable havens such as estuaries, lakes and streams, and whose most favoured meal is supposed to be fish and chips, should not be actively encouraged by the Government to concentrate its efforts on the production of suitable species of fish for home and export purposes.
The Royal Society of Arts held an important one-day conference on the whole subject of fish farming on 10th June. I commend to the Minister the various papers read at the conference. Mr. J. B. C. Simmons, B.A. set out at some length many of the anomalies to which I have referred about the legislation situation.
Our friends in Northern Ireland for example, are able to obtain certain grants and loans under the terms of an Act passed in 1972, a situation which causes some envy to the fish farmers in the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Messrs. Kerr and Howard concluded their paper with the words,
"The nature and extent of the United Kingdom coastline offers the embryonic fish farming industry great scope for development.

2347
Given some further progress with technical problems,"—
I imagine that that means further Government aid—
"the right climate for investment and marketing, fish farming could one day become an industry earning over £50 million annually."
They pointed out how the cultivation of oysters had fallen from 100 million annually a century ago to roughly 5 million today, although I gather that there has been some progress to report in this area and that some expansion is now taking place.
In that same paper they dealt with mussels, clams and scallops and went on to talk about the likely production targets for Dover sole, turbot and halibut among other varieties, some of which make the mouth water.
Other papers on the same day dealt with salmon and trout, disease prevention, the design and construction of fish farms and marketing. Apart from the edible species to which I have just referred there are also the valuable byproducts which derive from the non-edible parts of fish which are associated with animal feeds and fertilisers. The expertise is there. All that is needed is the necessary encouragement.
Last year the control of Pollution Act passed through this House with all-party approval, but, regrettably and in some respects understandably, because of the cost, it has not yet been implemented. For fish farming to succeed every effort should be made to bring Part II of that Act into force. We could make a good start by trying to clean up the Solent, where I live. With a high rate of unemployment is it not possible to devise ways and means whereby those unhappily out of work could play a part in carrying out socially desirable projects, such as cleaning up our rivers and canals?
As the chairman of the Shellfish Association so rightly pointed out in a recent speech at that association's annual dinner,
"Now that we have made up our minds to remain in the EEC we have less than 10 years before the full effects of the common fisheries policy come to be realised. We also have to face ever-increasing claims from many directions on the rapidly diminishing sites most suited for fish farms."
One can think of oil rigs, recreations and other sports which make claim on some areas which are suitable for fish farming.
2348
Time is, therefore, not on our side and the sooner the Government formulate their policy on this subject and take action the better. I understand that the National Farmers' Union has taken up the cause of fish farming. Perhaps this will bring about more action from the Government. For the sake of our country's food reserves I sincerely hope that it will be so.
6.28 a.m.
The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Although the House may deplore the rather late or early hour of this debate, I wish to be brief out of consideration to those who are yet to follow.
I am glad to have this opportunity of replying to the points made upon this important subject by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). There have been a number of discussions about fish farming, both in this House, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in another place in recent months. These have provided the opportunity to examine the various problems in some detail.
I should like to underline the fact that the Government are well seized of the problems which are of concern to those engaged in this activity, whether in the marine, shellfish or freshwater fields. More recently I made it clear in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) that my Ministry is responsible for fish farming in its various facets in precisely the same way as for agriculture, horticulture and fisheries. I hope that this will have made clear a point about which there seems to have been some confusion in the past.
Within this broad framework, fisheries departments are responsible for the oversight of the subject. In this they have paid, and will continue to pay, very close attention to the shellfish activities which I know are of interest to the hon. Member.
Considerable attention has been devoted to the question whether fish farm-should be deemed to be agriculture. The hon. Gentleman made this point. We do not think that this is the best approach. We consider that it is far better to look at the different aspects of the very wide field and see where there is difficulty. We accept that some analogies can be drawn between fish farming and agri-

2349
cultural pursuits. This analogy is obviously closer for freshwater activities, but we do not believe that it would be productive to attempt a blanket application of agricultural legislation to fish farming any more than to fisheries in general.
It is necessary to examine the different aspects of fish farming to determine precisely the specific problems. Whilst there is undoubtedly some overlap, different considerations arise between shellfish, marine and freshwater farming. On shellfish, the cultivation of molluscs is well established and, broadly speaking, research in the Ministry's laboratories has now reached the stage where we think it is for industry to exploit existing resources more fully. On the freshwater side, we are looking very closely at the research and development work required over and above what is already done. On the marine side, which with shellfish has received the greatest emphasis, work on the problems of rearing sole and turbot will continue at the present level. Disease control research on all aspects also continues.
Mr. Stephen Ross: Can the Minister give me some idea as to the extent of the research into turbot and sole? Is any further finance going in that direction? I think that it is the White Fish Authority that is doing that experimentation. Is that experimentation likely to be increased at all?
Mr. Bishop: I am aware of the work being done by the White Fish Authority and by the Ministry in this field. I am not able at this stage to give the details which the hon. Gentleman has sought, but I am prepared to look into this matter and write to him about it in more detail.
These are the areas where my Ministry is most active. But it should be borne in mind that, notwithstanding the progress that has been made, there remain major problems to be overcome in the raising of marine fin fish—that includes turbot and sole, of course—before they are likely to make any contribution to our supplies.
We know that shellfish farmers, and fish farmers in general, are concerned about their treatment in relation to planning and rating matters, as the hon. Gentleman said, and, indeed, about the
2350
security of their operations when these are undertaken in sea water. On rating we recognise that anomalies occur. As the hon. Gentleman may know, this matter is under a very detailed examination by the Layfield Committee on rating in general and it would not be worth while trying to deal with fish farming issues until the conclusions of the Committee become available. On shellfisheries, the security problem has special significance because the law is not entirely clear about the situation of shellfish reared above the sea bed.
I want to say something now, which I think is of some importance, about progress.
Officials of my Department met representatives of the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, the Fish Farmers' Union and other organisations recently, when we had a full discussion of these and related matters. The Ministry is now circulating what may be termed a consultation paper on these issues, with particular emphasis on legal problems which arise. We shall be anxious to hear what organisations have to say about this. By this process we can determine where action is possible or where it has to await the outcome of other decisions, for example on rating, or whether legislation is in fact necessary to up-date the existing provisions.
In the nature of things it is not possible to provide the complete or quick answer to many of the difficulties. I hope, however, that what I have said will be sufficient to assure the hon. Member that we are actively pursuing matters in consultation with the Shellfish Association and other organisations with the intention of assisting their members to the maximum extent.

SQUATTING (LONDON)
6.36 a.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I, too, am glad to be able to raise an important issue and to find my constituent Minister, the hon. Lady the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill), looking as fresh as a daisy at this ungodly hour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) has attracted nearly 160 signatures from Members of all parties to a motion drawing attention to the need for some action to deal with the problem of squatting. I wish to make a brief

2351
speech, so I shall exclude any reference to what I call "licensed" squatting, by those who have reached agreements with local authorities and who cause no problem.
There is growing public anxiety over this issue, which it is no exaggeration to say is turning to anger. The borough in which both the Minister and I live has been conducting a series of consultation meetings on a new borough plan. At one such meeting, in the area where I live, although officials outlined what was in the plan, the main public concern was over the lack of attention that the local authority was giving to dealing with squatters. At least half the evening was taken up with discussion of a problem that no one had anticipated being raised.
The worry about squatters is not confined to London. Constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Bowden) for example, are desperately worried. They are unwilling to go on holiday because they are not certain whether they can regain possession of their home if they return to find it occupied by squatters.
A case came to my notice last weekend which received a fair amount of publicity in the Paddington area of Westminster. A widow and her three children were about to move into a flat on which the local authority had done considerable work. They had been living in bed and breakfast accommodation—expensive for the ratepayers and undesirable for such a family. On almost the very day they were to move in—the widow had been gathering furniture and so on—the flat was broken into by squatters. They refused to go and that night a fire broke out in the flat. More than £1,000-worth of damage was done. The widow and her three children are still in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. That situation repeatedly occurs in the various parts of Greater London.
At the last meeting of the Greater London Council questions were asked about properties owned by the council, and its experience of squatting. The GLC acquired a series of properties in Hemstal Road, Hampstead, some of which were illegally taken over by squatters. At that meeting information was given that 22 other properties which had been acquired by the GLC under its municipalisation
2352
programme at a cost of £449,000 were unlawfully occupied by squatters.
The phenomenon of squatting is not new. It came first to notice in the early 1950s after a substantial number of large blocks of flats, mainly in London, had been derequisitioned. While the flats were being renovated by the owners, they were occupied by squatters. That phase did not last very long, possibly as there was little or no public sympathy for the squatters. Those incidents died down but recommenced at the end of the 1960s with less pleasant manifestations.
As a result the last Conservative Government referred the question of squatting and the law on entering property to the Law Commission, which produced an interim report 13 months ago. That report was issued for consultation and comment. It disappeared into the musty pigeon holes of the Law Commissioners. We are told that the Law Commissioners are working hard and will produce a definitive report. However, it appears to the general public that the Government are waiting like Godot or Mr. Micawber for something to turn up and for the Law Commission to tell the Government what should be done.
My information is that the final report of the Law Commission will not be available until the middle of next year. Knowing the legislative problems, I think that the proposals will not find a place in the legislative programme until at least the 1976-77 Session, which means that they will have no effect in law until 1977 or 1978. People are not prepared to wait that long.
The police are in an impossible position. Aggrieved persons have some rights under civil law, but there is a long wait before cases can be heard in court. It is fair to say that the courts have recently been taking a more practical line by speeding up hearings. Even so, the growing number of cases is putting a heavy burden upon the court officials who execute the court judgments. There is too much time between the judgment and its execution, in which properties are vandalised. Owners are unable to obtain compensation from the evicted squatters.
"A primary duty of the police is to protect citizens and their property against criminals. It is thus not entirely easy to explain why the

2353
police have become so beguiled by other facets of the law concerning possession of premises as to ignore that which is plain. If they see a gang of wrongdoers taking away possession of the contents of a house, they act: if they see the same gang taking over possession of the house itself—in general they look the other way."
The Under-Secretary of State will not have seen that quotation before because it appears in the correspondence column of The Times today in a letter from a most eminent jurist, Sir Eric Sachs. I am not ascribing blame to the police. The police are doing their job under impossible circumstances, and no one should seek to blame them.
That quotation leads me to ask the Minister a simple question. Will she tell us whether any instruction or policy guidance has been issued by her Department to the Metropolitan Police on what to do in the case of squatters? There has been much argument whether a directive has been issued. It is important for the Minister to clear that up. If she cannot do so this morning. I hope that she will write to me about it. I appreciate the problems of putting questions at this hour. Many people have been saying that the police are not acting because the Home Secretary has told them not to do so because he has given certain parameters of guidance within which the police must operate. It is necessary for this matter to be cleared up once for all.
Lord Harris, who speaks for the Home Office in another place, was completely unable to tell noble Lords what the police were able to do if called by the owner of a property who found his home occupied when he returned from a brief period away. The noble Lord repeatedly said "This is hypothetical". It may be hypothetical to those who sit in Ministry offices, but it is not hypothetical to people who find their properties taken over illegally and who, if they try to re-enter by force, are regarded as breaking the law. This is sheer lunacy of the sort that brings the House and the law into disrespect. I am sure that the Minister will want to put the matter right. I hope that she will not give virtually the same answer as her noble Friend gave on 23rd July in another place. With the greatest respect to her, it was of no use
2354
to anyone. I happen to have a high opinion of the Minister and I do not think that she will repeat that non-answer.
Equally, the House and the public do not want to be told too much about the problems which beset this issue. They want to be given some hope that the law is available to protect the ownership of property, both private and public. I stress that not just private property is being attacked by these vandals but public property as well. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being wasted in doing-up properties, and people are kept on the waiting list for far longer than they should be, because of the inhuman attitude of squatters who have no interest in housing queues and the needs of other people.
I exclude those who go through organisations to get permission from local authorities.
The public and the House want a statement from the Minister that the law will be enforced by the police and the courts. If it is not possible to enforce it because the law is uncertain—much of it dates back more than 500 years to a time when conditions were very different—it is right that the Minister should say "Yes, the law is deficient; yes, the Government will change it and yes, the Government will do so, not when the Law Commission has finally reported but at a much earlier date.
6.50 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summer-skill): The subject to which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has drawn attention is one aspect, and an important one, of a serious social problem about which there has recently been increasing concern. As the hon. Gentleman's constituent, I have some knowledge of the local situation. As he said, it is a problem which is affecting both private and local authority property.
Squatting is a problem with many facets, which touches on the ministerial responsibilties of several of my right hon. Friends, and also, as nearly every social problem seems in some way to do, it affects the work of the police. In replying to this debate, I speak from the standpoint of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's responsibilities in regard

2355
to the police and the general maintenance of law and order. I can assure the House, however, that he and other Ministers—including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor—are well aware of the wider ramifications of the squatting problem and the strength of public concern.
The action which the police should take when incidents of squatting are brought to their attention is a matter for which, as with all other matters of police operations, responsibility rests with the chief officer of the force concerned. The Home Office has no power to give orders to the Commissioner in matters of this kind, but the police are doing all they can and should do to deal with squatting. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Commissioner recognises the public concern about this matter.
Within the Metropolitan police district responsibility is vested in the Commissioner. On such matters my right hon. Friend has no power to give the Commissioner or any other chief officer directions on the action to be taken by his force. It is a matter to be decided by the chief officer, first, in the light of the relevant provisions of the law—and on a matter such as squatting obviously the state of the law and its effect in a particular case is a highly relevant consideration. Secondly—and this again applies throughout the whole range of police activity—the chief officer is bound also to take into account other considerations, such as the extent of the resources at his disposal and the many other calls which are properly made upon them.
Although my right hon. Friend has no power to give orders to the Commissioner on a matter of this kind, the Commissioner recognises the public concern which has been aroused over whether the police are doing all they can and should to deal with squatting so far as it affects observance of the law and the ordinary citizen's sense of the security of his own home. The Commissioner has naturally been in touch with my right hon. Friend, and is understandably anxious that the position of his force and the police generally in this matter should be better understood. I am glad to have this opportunity to promote that understand-
2356
ing within the House and, I hope, among the public at large.
The main criticism of the police made recently in the Press and other public comment—and by the hon. Gentleman to some extent, although he said that he was criticising not the police but the situation in which they found themselves—has been that they are reluctant to assist a property owner whose premises have been occupied by squatters and who wants help in turning them out. The first point that we must bear in mind in considering the validity of that criticism is that the true extent in law of the right of self-help, as it is called, is far from certain. A great deal has been made in public discussion of what Lord Denning said in the case of McPhail v. Persons Unknown in 1973, to the effect that the existence of a general right of self-help, whatever dangers its exercise might entail, was undoubted as a matter of law. I am not qualified to question or dispute the authority of that ruling.
As the hon. Member has said, in 1972 the Law Commission proceeded to examine the offence of entering and remaining on property. Its consultative working paper was published in June 1974. It is right to remind the House that the Law Commission, in paragraph 21 of the working paper, after referring to Lord Denning's view and stating its effect, went on to say that, nevertheless, on the authorities as they stood, there was still some confusion about the circumstances in which it was lawful for a person to regain possession of his property by force. It is, I am advised, still far from clear that the right of self-help is available in any case other than that of the houseowner deprived of residential occupation of his house by trespassers who have not been there long enough to establish themselves in possession.
The proposals of the Law Commission resulted in a great deal of comment and criticism. The Commission is now revising its proposals and hopes to publish its final conclusions in a report on conspiracy early next year. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government recognise the urgency of this matter and the strength of public concern over it. On the other hand, it is an extremely complicated issue. There are differences not only of lay opinion but of legal opinion. It is important that we get the

2357
matter right and do not act so hastily that we get things wrong. Every effort will be made to deal with the matter urgently after the Law Commission's report early next year.
A further point to be borne in mind is that not only have the police no legal duty to assist in the ejection of trespassers where the criminal law has not been infringed but, if they do intervene, they have no special police powers to support them, nor the protection which attends a police officer acting "in the execution of his duty".
In cases where would-be squatters oust a houseowner from the occupation of his home, perhaps while he is away on holiday, the police will normally respond to a request for their assistance in ejecting the trespassers. But in other cases of squatting, particularly in unoccupied property, the existence of a right of self-help is more doubtful. The police, who are in no way above the law, must be careful to take account of the legal uncertainties and limitations I have described. Another point which they have to bear in mind is one to which Mrs. Audrey Harvey drew attention in a letter in The Times on 17th July—namely that
"it is by no means easy to distinguish people who have or haven't a right to be living in a house".
It can obviously be a risky business for the police to act on the word of one party to a dispute, unsupported by a court order. The risk they run is, rightly, that of being sued by the alleged squatters for damages for the unlawful use of force against them.
Sometimes squatting is accompanied, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, by the commission of criminal offences, such as the offence of criminal damage. It is, of course, the duty of the police to investigate such offences. But often it is not possible to prove that such an offence was committed by a particular person, especially as there was usually no independent witness present on the property when the offence was committed.
If a court has made an order granting an owner possession of his property as against squatters, the situation is quite different. In the case mentioned by the hon. Member, of 22 properties acquired by the council which are now in the unlawful possession of squatters, it is a matter for the council to seek a court
2358
order, if it deems that to be the appropriate course. If the order takes the form of a High Court writ, the police have a duty to assist in its enforcement. If it is a county court warrant for possession, the police have no specific duty to assist the bailiffs in executing it but retain their ordinary duty to deal with any breach of the peace which may occur.
One of the matters which will need to be considered when the Law Commission's final proposals are available is whether the police should be given a specific duty to assist in the enforcement of county court orders for possession. This would be preferable to the intervention of the police on a wider scale on the side of people having recourse to self-help, with all the dangers attendant on the police appearing to take sides in private disputes.
Much of the recent concern about the rôle of the police has arisen from another letter in The Times on 11th July from a Miss Elizabeth Harper, in which she described how squatters had taken over her house in Kensington and committed criminal offences, and she claimed that the police had been unhelpful. The Commissioner has made inquiries into the incidents and has found the writer's account of the events and of the police reaction to have been seriously misleading. I shall not go into the details now, but some hon. Members have written to my right hon. Friend and we are giving them a full explanation of the case.
As regards the Paddington case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, we shall look into the matter if he will provide us with full details in writing. We shall look at any other case which hon. Members might like to send us wherever the police may have been concerned or are concerned. All these cases have their individual circumstances and each has to be considered in the light of these.
In conclusion, the action which the police take in London, as elsewhere, is influenced partly by the facts of each case and partly by the uncertainties and admitted limitations of the law. This is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend has authority to override the discretion exercised by chief officers of police. We are always ready to look into particular cases, but I hope that in the light of what I have said the hon. Gentleman will agree

2359
that there are good reasons for the general lines on which the police seek to deal with the requests made for their assistance in connection with this most difficult problem.

HOMELESS CHILDREN
7.3 a.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: In raising the problem of runaway and homeless children, I am conscious that I am raising only one part of what is a major problem. Nevertheless, I think there is general agreement on both sides of the House—certainly it is the view of my hon. Friends and myself—that we should give special priority to policy concerning children, and for very good reasons. The interests of children need our concern and protection. If we fail to give that protection, that omission cannot be easily corrected or repaired. Failure to deal adequately with the interests of children can have serious repercussions on adult lives.
The problem of runaway children is perhaps one of the most difficult with which to deal. Each year hundreds of children leave home and make for the big cities. In many cases they go to London, but we must remember that London is not the only big city in Britain. This is a problem that is shared by other major cities such as Birmingham, where the St. Basil Centre runs a night shelter. It is the problem faced by the runaway child in Britain's maior cities upon which I shall concentrate.
Public concern has been aroused by the television programme entitled "Johnny Go Home" and by the newspaper reports following that film, and rightly so. What has been revealed is nothing less than a major scandal. It is not my intention to apportion blame, it is not my intention to offer instant solutions, rather my argument is that the case establishes the need for a full and detailed inquiry to be set up by the Government into policy in this area. It is my case that a full-scale inquiry would serve best the interests which this House should seek to protect. They are the interests of the children.
Let me briefly recap on that case. In the late 1960s a man called Roger Gleaves decided to start a series of hostels for
2360
homeless men and boys in London. With disturbing ease he registered three charities with the Charities Commission and progressively built up a chain of hostels, with the co-operation of both Government Departments and local councils. Children and young people were referred to him by official agencies and voluntary organisations, and with the co-operation of British Transport Police he regularly visited stations such as Euston and Victoria to offer shelter to new arrivals.
Unhappily, there was one major defect. That was Gleaves' record. In 1959 Gleaves had been sentenced to three years in prison for an offence concerning an Army cadet, and in 1971 he was given a two-year suspended sentence for an offence involving a 14-year-old boy. That was the man who was not only operating hostels for children and young people but also receiving official help and public money for so doing.
The story was completed this year when three men working with Gleaves were sent to prison for life for the murder of Billy McPhee, a former resident at one of Gleaves' hostels, while Gleaves himself is currently serving a four-year sentence on charges of buggery and assault.
I would suggest that those facts alone make out the case for an inquiry, for there is no disputing the evidence, and no one, I imagine, would dispute the seriousness of the offences which have been established.
Let us remember that when the Home Secretary set up an inquiry into the Court Lees approved school, what was alleged there was an excessive use of corporal punishment. What is established here is something on a far greater scale—perversion, violence and murder. But the case goes even further than that. It raises at least three specific and important questions which the Government must seek to answer this morning.
First, Gleaves had a criminal record in the very area in which he was working, yet substantial public funds were allocated to him. Will the Government say what checks are available to them before such funds are advanced in cases of this kind, what access they have to criminal records and what use they make of them?
Second, Gleaves received these funds because of the hostels he ran. Supplementary benefit was paid out to the young

2361
people staying at the hostels to cover board and lodging. There is a legal requirement upon the Department of Health and Social Security to inspect the accommodation which is provided and which it is helping to finance. How many inspections of the hostels run by Gleaves actually took place, and what did those inspections reveal?
Third, the Governor of Pentonville Prison suspected something was wrong. He checked with the Home Office and found that indeed Gleaves had a criminal record. The Home Office then issued a circular to institutions with young offenders warning them of the danger of this man and the hostels that he ran. But the Home Office did not warn the Department of Health and Social Security. It did not warn local councils. It did not warn the railway police. It did not warn voluntary organisations. It did not even warn its own institutions dealing with adult offenders. Indeed, a discharged adult prisoner from Pentonville was referred to Gleaves' hostel a week or two later after the circular was issued. Why was no action taken, and what communications links exist in this area? I think that merely to state these questions adds to the case for an inquiry in this area.
However, it is not my intention simply to rake over the past. The fundamental case for an inquiry is to act as a guide for the future, to prevent men such as Gleaves prospering and to prevent the exploitation and ill-treatment of children and young people which has taken place here recurring in future cases.
Clearly it is possible for the Government to take some action prior to an inquiry. Certainly they should set up advice centres at some of the main travel points in our cities—at stations such as Euston, King's Cross and Victoria, and at New Street in Birmingham. There is no dispute about that, and it could be argued that the Government should have done it already. It is also important for the Government to circulate their own staff and local authorities on some of the obvious lessons of this case. Both actions should now be taken, and we could argue that they should have been taken already.
But in my view such actions by themselves are not enough. They only scratch the surface of this problem. There are still fundamental questions which have to be answered. There is, for example,
2362
the question of inspection. The Department of Health and Social Security already has powers to inspect addresses to which it sends supplementary benefit payments. Yet it seems that such checks do not always take place. Thus, we have a position where substantial public funds are being used without an effective check. Purely from an economic point of view, this cannot make sense.
However, there is another issue, and that is how standards and methods are monitored. Previously, there was the Children's Inspectorate in the Home Office. Now, in the DHSS we have moved over to the advisory function. In many cases, that is right. But it should also be considered whether that advisory function by itself is adequate in all cases and whether there is not also a place for inspection. Inspections and inspectors can still guide and advise, but they can also check, and it is checking that was so desperately needed in this case.
An inquiry can also examine the kind of alternative accommodation which is required. We tend to think in terms of formal hostels, but that may not be the best solution. We may have to work towards less formal kinds of units. We should also remember that many of the children who run away are in need of help which goes much further than a roof over their heads and a meal.
One member of staff at one of the hostels working in this area made the point in a report published only recently He said:
"I estimate it would take at least six months to unscramble some of the kids with whom we work, and at least another six months for any kind of rebuilding process."
I think that that is very true. It is not just temporary accommodation that is required but in many cases something more profound and much more lasting than that.
One further point concerns the role of the Charity Commissioners. Gleaves was undoubtedly helped by the ease with which he was able to register as a charity. I shall not make too much of the specific process, but he tricked a lot of people, and it is possible that, even without that help, he would have succeeded. However, what concerns me is that the very good voluntary organisations working in this area should not be tarred by

2363
the brush of men like Gleaves. That would be totally unjust. Indeed, it would be a tragedy.
It is for that reason that I would support a tightening up of the rules in the charity area. We now have two committees considering the reform of charity law. Inquiries are being made by the Goodman Committee and by the Select Committee of this House. They may be of assistance to the inquiry which I hope the Government will agree to set up. I believe that the inquiry should also examine the rÔle of the voluntary organisations, because without their voluntary effort the situation in this country would be much worse. We rely on them in this area as in so many others.
We sought to point out in a debate a few weeks ago that many voluntary organisations at present face a crisis. I should like to refer briefly to the report of the St. Basil Centre in Birmingham. It mentions that it is constantly under the threat of closure for one reason or another. However, it makes the fair point, in these cost-conscious times, that its annual budget is now in the region of £46,000. It reckons that it will be assisting approximately 1,000 young people in need per year. At the rate of £46,000 for 1,000 children, there will be £46 per child, per year, or 88p per week which, as it rightly points out, is quite a reasonable rate on anyone's calculation.
Therefore, I believe that an inquiry of the kind I am advocating should also examine the role of the voluntary organisations and how best they can be helped. The voluntary organisations working in this area are making tremendous contributions. If they go, the position of runaway children will become desperate. As we have pointed out on previous occasions, this is perhaps one of the unfashionable areas in which voluntary organisations work, and it is often in this area that problems of finance are so difficult.
This is an important and difficult area. The television film "Johnny Go Home" exposed the violence of the Gleaves case. However, the more serious aspect concerned the pictures of children sleeping in cardboard boxes and doorways—pictures which would seem more appropriate to a scene in Calcutta rather than in the West End of one of the world's most famous
2364
and prosperous cities. That is how some children are now existing.
I believe that it is the duty of the House to protect the interests of children and it is in their interests that an inquiry should be set up into runaway and homeless children.
7.18 a.m.
Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I am glad to have this opportunity to raise the subject of runaway and homeless children. I echo all the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler).
I should like to congratulate Michael Deakin and Yorkshire Television on the film "Johnny Go Home" which has brought this problem to a head. The fact that two men walked out of a cutting studio in the middle of the night into a cul-de-sac off Wardour Street and stumbled upon two children may have saved many other children who would otherwise have come to grief. Some of them will have learnt a grave lesson from looking at what happened to Billy McPhee and realising the hopelessness which many young children face when they arrive at a city centre, be it in this country or abroad.
I should like to extend the scope of the problem wider than just that displayed by the film and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. This is not just a problem concerning children under the age of 17 years as covered by the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The majority of single homeless people in London are between 17 and 25 years of age. However, if we can do something about the youngest end of the range, we might reduce the number of so-called adults over the age of 17 years who face homelessness and all the dangers that any capital city or major city centre can present. At least when they are over 17 one hopes that they have had a little experience and are a little wiser. But when they are 8, 9 and 10 years old and coming to London that is not the case.
It is Parliament's responsibility to make sure that all the authorities concerned with the care of children do the job which is carefully laid down in the statutes and for which we need no new law. We merely need implementation of the existing law

2365
As a non-parent I believe that a great deal more responsibility and consideration is required from the parents of children who go missing for weeks on end and whose absence is not reported to the police often for a considerable time.
Looking at the figures of homeless people in London and their roots—I apologise that I cannot give separate figures for those under and over 17 years of age—we know that about 85 per cent. come from Scotland, the North-East and the North-West. They come to London because they are bored. They are searching for adventure. There is nothing quite like London. I have seen many similar sights—similar to those seen in Soho—in Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds, but nothing quite like London. These young people are attracted by the bright lights and the smell of adventure. When they come to London, it is not usually the first thing they have done in getting away from home.
I think that we should begin with those who need our protection. They may not consider that they need our protection. One is aware of the problem of trying to get some wayward youngsters to listen to their parents. I hope that we can learn some lessons from what is now going on so that the problem does not continue at the same rate and these youngsters are not exposed to the dangers in city centres.
The need goes right back into the schools. It often starts with the kids who go home to no one, and that develops into truancy. As some hon. Members know, I have been a school governor in inner London for quite some time. The truancy figures in many of the inner London schools are frightening. But what is more frightening is the lack of success in getting those children back to school for a full day on a regular basis. I know of one school—not my own—where 20 children over the last two years have had less than a term's education. Indeed, most have had less than five weeks' education. It makes one wonder what our education welfare officers are doing and why there is so much lack of liaison at local level between the education welfare service and the social services departments of local authorities.
Although this matter may not be in the Minister's province in the sense that
2366
it covers the local authority and the education sphere, this is the one grave problem which "Johnny Go Home" identified. The problem time and again is the lack of liaison between education, social services in the boroughs, the DHSS, the Home Department, and so on, in involving the people concerned with the problem.
We notice this time and again when we discuss children's legislation, as the Minister will know. That is one area in which the Government could do something concrete to assist liaison between education welfare officers and the social services departments when there is truancy at school, which is where the runaway situation first starts.
I should like to put in a word for the parents. I do not blame them all the time. Many of them are at their wit's end to know what to do with their children. They need advice and help.
It is only a few weeks since a marriage guidance councillor said to me, "We are becoming more of a family guidance council for the simple reason that the families who come to us with marriage problems find that many of them are the result of the children causing grave difficulties in the home". They find that there is a grave need for help to sort out the disruption which young people seem to be bringing into so many marriages today.
If children are in this situation and parents do not understand them, there seems to be a great problem at a local level. We can rightly say that this is not the province of the Government, but it is a reflection on our society when parents cannot cope with their children. Little Tommy, the Scots boy in the television film, was taken home, but his mother did not know what to do with him so he went off again. We need to help at the roots, otherwise we shall end up with problems we feel we cannot solve.
Many of these children are bored and seeking adventure. We have got away from having goals for children to achieve. Getting prizes is not the done thing in some schools, and there is an area in education at which the Government should be looking to try to give children a better sense of achievement. That might be one of the things that would stop them wanting to run away.

2367
As children become bored and their thirst for excitement increases, they get money, from whatever source, and set out on their adventures. It is said that two-thirds of the homeless and runaways in London are girls, but this problem is hidden. Girls are taken into people's homes more easily and there is more concern if a boy is taken from Euston station by a man than if a girl is taken. It is a tragedy that girls disappear at such a rate.
The boys become cardboard box boys. I could take hon. Members to Soho and show them the boxes. It seems almost mean to disturb the boys and the real problem is that there is nowhere else for them to go. Maybe this is the heart of the problem.
This does not just affect London, but am pleasantly—if that word can be used in this context—surprised at the few young people hanging round Liverpool Lime Street station. The police seem to have got on top of the problem there.
I am disturbed at the number of children and young people who are still around Euston station late at night. Even since this man Gleaves was committed to prison, there does not seem to have been an appreciable improvement on the station. Surely this is something the Home Office should have looked into long before "Johnny Go Home" was publicised eight days ago. The film showed someone who was apparently a community service volunteer and nothing to do with the proper organisations, and the danger now is that some people may think that volunteers who try to help with overnight accommodation may have shady backgrounds. The voluntary organisations are the problem solvers. I pay a great tribute to them and their work at what I call the grotty end. It is unfashionable and no one wants to know.
The Voluntary Service Unit has given a grant to the West End Co-ordinated Voluntary Services to improve its coordination and staffing to increase the help for young people. They are not the only ones doing a good job at the moment and some of the others should be put on the record. They include New Horizon, Centrepoint, the Soho Project, Intake, the Kingsway Day Centre, After Six, the Girls Alone in London Service and the Camden
2368
Council of Social Service. Many of them are co-ordinated by the Campaigns for Single Homeless People, known as Char. There are others doing in a less conventional way a great deal of good work. I gather that there have been discussions between Char and the Department of Health and Social Security, and I am told that there is a chance that resources might be released to provide information or travellers' aid centres at stations. I know that the Department is already talking with Westminster and Camden councils and with British Rail.
However, a great deal more can be done to find out what is going on at stations where young people are met. The practice seems innocent enough, which is why many of us do not intervene when we see people approaching young persons. More could be done, because I fear that there may be more men like Gleaves around. Not only hon. Members, but many people in the social services sphere share that anxiety, and they are viewing each other a little suspiciously about that at the moment. I would hate to think that an obvious clean-up caused men such as Gleaves to be driven underground. That is one of the things we fear in trying to solve this problem where it becomes exposed in city centres.
I echo the amazement already expressed that the 1973 Home Office circular about the man we have been discussing was not sent to the DHSS offices or other agencies. It went only to borstals and approved schools. Again this is a lack of co-ordination between the various groups involved. They have shown a lack of imagination.
I rarely criticise civil servants because they are not here to answer, but the Minister is here to answer for them. Surely if a circular is sent out about a man who is convicted of buggery, those concerned with the circular think of the people he would naturally go after and where they would gather. Not to have sent the circular to the sources of information, the sources of money or the sources of care for those people that such a man would seek out is beyond my comprehension.
It is up to every hon. Member and to people outside to keep their eyes open to solve this problem and do something about it. As long as children of 8 or 9 years are seen—passing ticket collectors at stations—with a cigarette in their

2369
mouths, fobbing off the policeman they walk past, we shall have a continuing problem in our city streets. We know of the points put forward by Char, which I know have been received by the Department. For example, there is the need for information centres at stations and at Victoria coach station because, coaches being a cheaper form of travel to London, many young people use them. Perhaps taxi drivers could help—not that these young people can afford taxis, but frequently they ask taxi drivers where to go.
One of the problems is that there are insufficient hostels and that those which exist are not supervised or investigated. Then there are the vouchers giving free social service assistance at hostels. There are vouchers for up to 20 lads—in one case I gather the number was 60—worth £9 a head and paid out on forged or certainly on incorrect national insurance cards.
There must be some way of spotting these boys. Perhaps the situation demands more vigilance. Certainly there is a great area of investigation which can be undertaken.
There are many other aspects to this problem and one in particular arises when children get to 16 and there are no jobs for them. We have been taking up this side of it with the Manpower Services Commission, and I shall continue my push on the Commission to do something about it.
However, in addition to all the points that have been raised with the Minister, I ask him to accept the suggestion that we have a thorough investigation into this matter. The short, sharp shock of return to a community home if the parent cannot cope is not always what will curb the wish of these lads and girls to be away and independent.
A great deal can be done by unconventional means, which means non-established institutions and bodies—in other words, the voluntary bodies. It is through the voluntary bodies, together with inspection, that I am convinced that we shall best cure the problem. St. Mungo's Marmite House in Vauxhall does a marvellous job for old men, but it is not the place to send youngsters. For the 16-to-17-year age group and for those who are away working or away with their parents' permission—I restrict my re-
2370
marks to the age to which the Act applies—specific hostels are needed where people are not contained and not institutionalised, because this is the one thing from which they want to escape in a city centre. They need the information and a roof over their heads.
If we can persuade local authorities and the school psychologist service of the need to give more support to the parents, which means doing something about the school psychologists' income, we might get to the root of the problem.
I end on a rather sad note. Yesterday I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment
"if he will encourage local authorities not to reduce their support for voluntary organisations, in view of the need for voluntary assistance at a time of high inflation."
I had a complacent and disappointing reply in which it was said that the Secretary of State accepted
"the importance of continued voluntary effort in many fields. But the degree of local government support for particular voluntary organisations is entirely a matter for local decision."—[Official Report, 31st July 1975; Vol. 896, c. 563.]
I suggest that unless the Government want a major problem at the door of their Departments in London, they should do something about helping and advising the local authorities to get at the root of the problems which face our society.
In this debate there has been particular reference to the run-away and homeless children who start from a home or a base somewhere. It is there that we should be solving the problem in the long-term, whatever palliatives and answers we may have to give in city centres in the short-term.
7.37 a.m.
Mr. Roger Sims: The subject of homelessness is an age-old one and one that we can see close at hand. We need look no further than Charing Cross to see every night several dozen people who seem to prefer a life of drifting and sleeping in the open. For many of them it is their established way of life, despite all the efforts of local authorities and voluntary services.
Our concern this morning is with children who are not yet committed to living in this fashion—youngsters and

2371
teenagers who, perhaps because of a broken home or some emotional disturbance at home, at school or at work, have decided to leave home to seek the excitement, the bright lights and the imagined wealth and anonymity of London. Some, alas, fall into the hands of the likes of Gleaves. Some adopt a casual way of life, perhaps squatting and getting the odd job here and there. Some, unfortunately, drift into a life of crime and finish up before the courts and are sent to borstal or prison.
To cope with the pattern I have described we have the framework of the social services. We have the Children and Young Persons Act to aid in identifying and helping the disturbed and the delinquent child who exhibits these tendencies at home or at school. In this way we seek to deal with the problem before it has reached the point of leaving home. But if the child does leave home and comes, as it may well do, to London, if it is lucky it may be contacted by one of the voluntary bodies and helped, but it may pursue one of the courses I have just described. The crucial point, surely, in that particular pattern is just after leaving home, and what happens to the child in those first few hours after arriving in London.
In the film that has given rise to our debate today, Tommy arrived at Euston with a suitcase, no plans and no ideas of what to do. His is not an isolated case. I am told that there are at least two or three such cases every week at Euston alone. Where can a lad like Tommy, or a girl, find help or advice at Euston?
Some eight hours ago, when it appeared that some of our colleagues were temporarily turning this House into the Scottish Assembly and intending to do so for several hours, I took the opportunity of going to Euston to see for myself exactly what services would be available to Tommy were he to arrive there last night. The answer is that there is an office of the Transport Police on the edge of the concourse. There may be two or three Transport Police constables patrolling around the station, but it is hardly likely that a runaway lad would approach them. The Salvation Army, on their nightly patrol of the stations, can offer hot soup, but alas, little more. Their
2372
hostels are for older men, and with their limited resources they have little to offer for younger boys and girls.
Just outside Euston Station there is an advice centre run by the organisations GALS, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) referred—the Girls Alone in London Service. Unfortunately, this particular centre suffers from two limitations. One is that it is open only from Mondays to Fridays from 9.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m.—inevitably, because it is obviously operating on a very slender budget. The second limitation, again perhaps obviously, is that it is geared to deal only with girls. For the likes of Tommy there is no advice centre at Euston at all, and no help is offered. This is where Gleaves came in.
Should we not encourage the establishment, without further delay, of some sort of advice centres at these main line stations? There are several voluntary organisations which, given funds, could provide staff to patrol the stations, to find the boys and girls, give them a cup of tea, to talk to them, to listen to them and to help them. And not only at stations. Why not elsewhere in areas where youngsters congregate?
It is unlikely that these youngsters would want to go to official-looking centres run by the Government or the local authority. They would need to be informal places where the young people feel free to go, where they could meet others with similar background and situation, where they could find a sympathetic ear and receive understanding and guidance.
Such a centre was opened in Amsterdam by the young people themselves. It is run by voluntary social workers and receives a State subsidy. At this centre the children are assured of anonymity. Children on the run from home, even children who have absconded from institutions, can go to this centre and be sure of a considerate and confidential hearing. They are given advice. It is up to them whether they follow it. They are not handed over to authority unless they agree. The need for such a centre has been amply demonstrated because when this particular centre in Amsterdam was opened it was expected that in its first year it might have about 500 cases to deal with. In fact, after the first six months,

2373
the estimates are that the first year's attendance will be about 7,000.
I agree that this approach may be an unconventional idea, particularly with its emphasis on anonymity, but of course, it is the only way to ensure confidence and that the children and young people will go there. Certainly this scheme appears to be filling a need.
My proposals will cost money. I accept that. The Department of Health and Social Security has the power, under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, to grant aid to a number of voluntary organisations for exactly this type of work. I urge the Department to use that power very extensively. I hope, too, that my words may prompt one of the bodies with experience in this field to come forward with some concrete proposals.
Children who get into trouble cost the taxpayer a great deal of money. It costs, for example, £25 or so a week to keep a child in a community home—not to mention the human misery and distress they cause to themselves and others. If modest resources could be devoted to this type of preventive work, it would be a real investment in the future, and if they saved only a proportion of these children from spending several useless, miserable and possibly dangerous years as part of London's sub-culture, it would be money well spent.
7.46 a.m.
The Under Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Meacher): This has been a valuable and timely opportunity to debate the very grave problems, which were highlighted in the recent Yorkshire Television programme "Johnny Go Home", of runaway and homeless children. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and his hon. Friends on the reasoned and understanding manner in which they put their case.
The public conscience has been stirred, and rightly so, by the vivid way in which the almost Dickensian existence of many runaway children in London was revealed by this film. I think that we are right to be grateful to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I echo what she said in her thoughtful and understanding speech. We are also grateful to Yorkshire Television for its initia-
2374
tive in making this programme. Although the television programme focused on runaway and homeless children, the hazards of a rootless life are as real for many newcomers to London who are 17 and over as they are for children.
Those familiar with the problem in the centre of London tell me that the focus of the programme may have misled us: there are considerable numbers of vulnerable young people living in this strange sub-world of the rootless—and seriously damaged by their experiences in it—who are older, being in their late teens or early 20s. The hon. Lady said that the age range was between 17 and 25, which probably encompasses the majority. Most of those who used Roger Gleaves' hostels, including Billy Two-Tone and Tommy Wyley, were neither "children" nor "young persons" as defined by the legislation—that is below the age of 17—but their vulnerability was almost as great as though they had been children.
The problem is bound up, I think, with the undoubted magnetism which the metropolis and the South-East generally have for young people wishing to start life on their own, with the better job prospects for young people there than in many other regions, and with the problems of social deprivation and environmental poverty which make it hard for some young people to find sources of satisfaction in the lives offered to them by their own home towns. The problem must be bound up with the many changes which we have seen in young peoples' way of life and in their relationships within the family.
Along with all these factors bringing young people to London we find great changes and new pressures in the sphere of housing, and especially a significant loss of so much of the cheap rented or communal accommodation in which young people have traditionally started their lives as adults. Frankly, we do not know how much decline there has been in the availability of cheap private lodgings and the landlady sector, but a study of hostels and lodging houses undertaken by the office of the population and census surveys in October 1973 found 10,600 hostels and lodging house places in the GLC area in 1972 compared with 12,200 in 1965. That is a reduction of 13 per cent. over seven years, which can be compared with the 17 per cent. reduction

2375
found in England and Wales as a whole. That is a considerable reduction over a short period of time.
There has been a considerable loss of places in the big commercial and voluntary lodging houses, balanced only in part by the growth in the number of small voluntary hostels, many of which cater for specialised groups. None of that accommodation caters, except in emergencies, for children. The proportion of young people in this accommodation was very low.
Most of the homeless or rootless young people in London do not use this type of accommodation or—apart from that in Dean Street—the reception centres provided by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but drift from friend to friend, use shelters and crash pads, join squats, and sleep where they can, in derelict houses, parks, and other haunts used by the dossers.
My Department has funded a three-year research project to find out what happens to a sample of young people, not children, newly arrived in London, and is using some of the agencies which are trying to help those who are homeless. We are hopeful that this project will tell us more about how and why these young people are vulnerable, how many fail to find their feet during their first year in the city, and in what ways they can be helped more effectively. I hope that the House will appreciate the importance of this because there is a great lack of knowledge about what happens to these persons, and why.
The problems are not to be found only in the big cities. There are other questions which we must ask. How is it, for example, when so many young people think ahead in planning a move to London, and achieve it satisfactorily, that others come relatively unprepared? Why is it that some have personalities or backgrounds that make them especially vulnerable and so shy of the proffered help of the statutory and voluntary agencies which are trying to help them? Who are the young persons on the run? To what extent are their problems, which are so familiar to the helping agencies in Central London, a result of their experiences in London or of something much
2376
more deep-seated before they reach London? To what kind of help will they respond? I think that is an important question. How can the helping agencies best reach out to contact them?
Although we have not yet received the interim results of this DHSS study, we are hopeful that we shall do so shortly and that it will give us some early help in the planning of services to assist these groups. The Department of the Environment recently agreed to sponsor a research study, under the auspices of Char, the campaign for the homeless and rootless, of what is known about the accommodation needs of homeless young people. My Department is in the middle of a similar study of what is known of the variety of counselling and advisory services, of which there is a great variety, and which have developed, and are still developing, help for young people with a great range of problems—personal, psychological and practical. We believe that it is important to have much greater knowledge of the range of these services so that they can be called upon more effectively.
For many the prime need is simply decent accommodation, perhaps with the initial support of some understanding and knowledgeable person who will help them to find work and to cope with a new way of life. The accommodation needs of others may be met within the general pool of accommodation used by other single people, although I accept, as the hon. Member for Wallasey said, that much of this accommodation is unsuitable for this very young age group. There is accommodation for other young people including students, young workers and young people of all nationalities on their travels.
The Department of the Environment is actively encouraging local authorities and housing associations to provide more single person accommodation, including flexibly designed or adapted projects, often with some element of shared accommodation or communal life which may make them especially suitable for the young. Here again, with the constraints on resources, there is competition within that scarcity to provide more places for homeless families, and I am sure the House will agree that there is perhaps an even greater priority here.

2377
For the first time, the Housing Act 1974 makes local authorities and housing associations providing hostels eligible for the subsidy and grants available for other types of housing, and there are special arrangements for deficit grants for housing associations providing hostel projects for groups not likely to be able to claim rent allowance and capable of paying only low hostel charges.
Furthermore, a working party of the GLC and the London Boroughs Association has been studying for some time the accommodation needs of single people in London precisely to find means to afford higher priority for their housing needs. I place great emphasis on that.
Other young people, especially those whose backgrounds and personalities make them especially vulnerable, may need somewhat more support in the early stages of their life in the capital. Some may have, or acquire, problems calling for skilled health or social services assistance. But even many of these could be helped by a well and sympathetically run hostel able to offer some degree of protection in a way which takes account of the resident's own life style and aspirations to be treated as an adult and of the difficulty that many—though by no means all—find in accepting a too structured environment. I pay tribute to the work of many voluntary agencies in providing suitable accommodation for this purpose.
I have sketched this wider background because it seems to me relevant to the problem of the runaway and homeless children who form part of this wider central London scene. Among the many drifting youngsters are some who are still children in the statutory sense, that is, under 17, whom local authorities have a duty to take into care in a variety of circumstances if they seem to be at serious risk. Some of these children may, and others may not, admit to their true age. Indeed, contrary to the impression that was perhaps given by the television programme, Tommy Wyley, I understand, was not below the age of 17, But it is perfectly true, as the programme indicated, that many children gave a false impression of their age.
In the legislation relating to children, local authorities have wide powers—indeed in certain circumstances duties—
2378
which enable them to take steps to prevent children from getting into trouble—particularly under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963—or to help them when they are in trouble or at risk. The extent to which individual authorities are able to exercise these powers depends on the resources available to them. Nevertheless, in general, local authorities take a broad view in practice of their responsibilities and will try to offer practical advice or help to all young people who seem to them to be at risk or in trouble. For example, they would help them to return home to find accommodation or work, or get into touch with one of the many voluntary agencies which might be able to help them.
There may be some misunderstanding of the duties of local authorities, so perhaps I should here spell out more precisely their powers and duties, and the limitations on them. First, the law provides clear powers for dealing with persons who entice a child under 14 from his parents, and with children in the care of local authorities who abscond. There is, however, no obligation on anyone to report to any authority the knowledge that a person over school age has left his home, unless other circumstances give grounds for thinking that the intervention of the State is necessary. Persons who are over the compulsory school attendance age are entitled to seek work, and there is no obligation on persons or local authorities to seek out those who may be in trouble, though there is an obligation to assist them if they come into their hands as needing assistance.
That is an important point, which needs further consideration, but there is this important distinction. A runaway, whether or not in the care of a local authority, may be expected to seek to avoid coming to the attention of a public authority for fear of being returned to his home, but if he comes to the attention of a local authority the authority has certain responsibilities to him through its child care functions. If it appears to the authority that the child is under 17, that he has been abandoned or lost, or that his parents or guardian are unable to provide for his "accommodation, maintenance and upbringing"—here I am quoting the technical words of the

2379
Children Act 1948—and that the intervention of the authority is
"necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child"
the authority has a duty to receive him into its care under Section 1 of the Act.
Perhaps it is relevant to say here that Westminster, for example, one of the boroughs concerned because of the number of railway termini in its area, in 1972 found 220 young persons who were drifting, and therefore exercised its powers under the legislation. But that gives no indication of the full numbers who may need assistance.
Local authorities may discharge their duty to provide accommodation and maintenance for a child in their care by boarding him out with foster parents, maintaining him in a community home or registered voluntary children's home, or making such other arrangements as may seem to the local authority appropriate. A young person considered by a local authority to need to be housed in a hostel would ordinarily be placed in a community home with hostel facilities, if a place in a suitable home were available. This may not always be possible, as the demand for the hostel places exceeds the supply. If it were not possible, the authority would try to place him in other suitable hostel accommodation. I shall come to the question of vetting such hostel accommodation. It would be the authority's responsibility to ensure that it was suitable. Authorities have powers to inspect premises for that purpose. This is in respect of community homes which may have hostel facilities.
To give some quantification, I should add that according to the plans prepared by children's regional planning committees there were on 1st April 1974, 146 hostels in the community home scheme, which together provided some 1,600 places for children in the care of local authorities who needed that type of accommodation. Those are national figures.
The plans propose the provision of a further 85 hostel-type community homes to provide 975 additional places for children in care. That is considerable increase on the existing provision, but I would not claim that it is necessarily adequate. At a time when resources for
2380
additional investment for the personal social services are so limited, progress in providing additional hostel places cannot be as rapid as either Government or local authorities would wish.
After that more general introduction to the background, particularly in respect of accommodation, I turn to the problems highlighted by the Gleaves affair. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield concentrated his speech on the problems which arose from that affair and I understand why. I am sure he would agree that we should be wrong to focus too strongly on the problems relating to the Gleaves hostel empire, because there is no evidence to suggest that the kind of emphasis presented in the film is general. It is proper to present it but there is nothing to suggest that is is typical of the problems.
There are problems dealing with how to secure accommodation—especially hostels suitable for young newcomers to the city—how to ensure that such hostels are well and responsibly run and how to bring their existence as well as the existence of other advisory services to the notice of drifting youngsters. There is the problem of how to achieve co-ordination between the voluntary and statutory services working to identify and rescue children at risk and help other vulnerable, older youngsters. I realise that these problems are not peculiar to London but are common to many other urban centres. There is no doubt that the scale of the problem in London is greater. It is with London in mind that I am first exploring possible solutions.
My Department has been actively concerned for some time about these general problems because of its responsibility for the adequacy of the health and social services response to the needs of particular groups such as this and because the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in exercising its responsibility towards those with an unsettled way of life, encounters some of these youngsters and makes grants to a number of voluntary organisations which try to help them.
I again correct the hon. Gentleman's statement that the Commission has a responsibility for assessing and in some sense registering or providing a bona fide for the accommodation where many of these young people are living. It does not have a direct responsibility of that

2381
kind. Since the Gleaves case was concluded there have been several discussions—
Mr. Norman Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman is to make that kind of statement and then move on I must ask him at this stage to say what responsibility the Commission has. I was not claiming that it had a responsibility to assess. I was saying that it had a responsibility to inspect the accommodation, which is not the same.
Mr. Meacher: It does not have the responsibility to inspect the hostels in which persons may be living who claim supplementary benefit. I will return to this point. I am not dodging it. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to return to this later.
Since the Gleaves case was concluded there have been several discussions between the Government Departments concerned, bodies such as the Charity Commissioners and the Housing Corporation and some of the voluntary organisations caring for the homeless. The London Boroughs Association has also been involved and there have been separate discussions with the social services departments of Camden and Westminster in particular—the boroughs who share responsibility for the central Soho area and the main receiving area for newcomers to London which is bounded by main line termini including such places as Victoria, Paddington, Euston and King's Cross. These discussions are continuing urgently and already have identified a number of areas about which there is general agreement that changes and better co-ordination are needed. My Department has written to the chief executives of Camden and Westminster welcoming the manner in which the authorities are now, approaching, the problem in their areas and seeking their co-operation in working out the further steps that need to be taken.
As regards co-ordination, I must add, as the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field made particular reference to the need for some inquiry, how it was that information which was available to the Home Office was not fully disseminated within the Government. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary has instituted a full internal inquiry to investigate what action was taken by the
2382
various departments of the Home Office and related services in connection with the Gleaves affair. We are mindful of the problem which the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. We are seeking to find out exactly what happened and why there was not the dissemination of the information to other Departments.
Mr. Norman Fowler: I am grateful for that assurance. That is an important announcement. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the results of the inquiry will be made public?
Mr. Meacher: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend is conducting the inquiry as it was the Home Office that had possession of this information, and the hon. Gentleman should address his question to my right hon. Friend.
On the question of hostels, I am satisfied that some of the problems seen in the Gleaves hostels stem from the shortage of cheap accommodation suited to the needs of the young, and that the pressure on those who use these hostels to stay in such unsatisfactory surroundings would have been much less nad they been confident of being able to find alternative accommodation. The truth of the matter is that they were constrained to stay in such accommodation for lack of alternatives.
Housing for single people, especially the young, has not traditionally been part of the main stream of public housing. There are as yet fewer local authority hostels than are needed provided by social services departments for young people who have left school. I have given the figures. This area, and particularly the provision of hostels for "difficult"—if that is not too perjorative a word—young people is by no means an easy one in which to operate.
I am sure that it is right to pay tribute to the many voluntary organisations which provide so wide a range of different projects for young people starting life on their own. My Department grants aids to a number of organisations, and support may also be given by local authorities in a variety of ways—for example, by grants or loans, by providing property to serve as a hostel, by making use of the hostel by placing these persons needing residential care.

2383
A recent example of help given in this area—and the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly drew attention to this—is the grant given by the Voluntary Services Unit of the Home Office. The hon. Lady said that it was not enough, and I would agree, but it is one important contribution given by the Home Office, together with Camden and Westminster, to the West End Coordinated Voluntary Services, a consortium of five projects which has amassed considerable experience of working with young newcomers to London.
Other projects have been helped through the urban programme, and as the Department of the Environment's arrangements for housing association grants gather momentum I am sure that many projects will benefit and many new projects will be started.
However, it is not enough to provide an adequate supply of such accommodation. Quality is just as important, and this is perhaps a more difficult issue. I fear that the Yorkshire Television programme may have given us an unbalanced picture of the work of voluntary hostels. I do not think there would be any doubt that the great majority are undoubtedly trying in a responsible way, and with some considerable degree of skill, to do what is in many cases a difficult task. But there is a need to guard against the possibility of occasional projects run by individuals whose motives and behaviour must cast a doubt on all that they do. There have been suggestions—this is an obvious lesson which the programme suggested—of registration. There is at present no statutory system of registration for hostels designed to meet the needs of homeless adults, or those who are simply seeking short-term communal accommodation and use hostels because they provide what they need. That is a very important point. One is not allocating blame but stating that that is the situation.
Hostels of any kind will need planning permission if a change of use is required for the property they are using, and they are subject to the requirements of the legislation on multi-occupied houses and to public health and fire prevention provisions.
I am at present examining means of monitoring the standards of hostel accommodation, but I am particularly
2384
concerned lest a system of registration by concentrating on physical standards and attempting to set standards of supervision or support, might lead to a loss of some of the voluntary projects which are succeeding, often in less than ideal physical surroundings, in going half way to meet and help some of the most alienated and difficult young people who would be unlikely to get help in any other form.
There has to be concern about physical standards, but we need to be careful that we do not set them at such a level as to force some of the valuable work being done to close. I do not intend that to be a complacent remark, but that is one of the difficulties. The other is the question of assessing the quality of relationships in these hostels, which is a much more important and difficult question to regullate.
Obviously, we cannot afford any loss of good responsible projects and must not do anything which would limit the scope for experimental work in this field, where needs are still barely understood and skills still evolving.
There are problems, too, in regard to whether registration in itself is effective in controlling such intangible things as the quality of the management in a project where, although it may be clear that all is not well, proof of illegal activity or gross misconduct may be very difficult to get.
It is worth pointing out that Osterley Park had a relatively high standard of physical provision. The question of the quality of care, which is much more relevant there, is by far the more important issue, but very difficult without intensive and prolonged relationships, which demand considerable skilled manpower to establish.
As most hostels cater for adults, it may be that there are limits beyond which it would be wrong to go in seeking to protect them from the risks of the situations in which they choose to place themselves. That is not meant to be a complacent statement, but we are dealing with persons who in the eyes of the law are adults and not children. There are, therefore, difficulties in taking steps appropriate to their health and welfare which do not diminish their rights to a proper privacy and freedom from over-structured supervision.

2385
I accept, however, that much better means are needed of sifting and responding to complaints and other signs that all may not be well in a particular hostel. This emerges very strongly from the film. It is very difficult nowadays for any except the largest and best known charities to run any form of hostel project without a considerable degree of help from one or more of a wide range of statutory sources—providers of funds or sometimes property, like the local authority, Government Departments—the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and my own Department—and referral agencies, statutory and voluntary.
We are very conscious that assistance of this kind, or even some pure formality like registration as a charity, may be taken by others as a sign that a particular project provides services of an acceptable standard, and it is obviously important that those bodies which give practical aid to voluntary groups should accept a continuing responsibility for monitoring their work and ensuring that their aid is put to good use. The mere fact of registration does not imply that the services provided by a particular agency which is registered are necessarily of an acceptable standard. That is not at the present time an implication of registration with the Charity Commission.
Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman said that co-ordination was necessary. I suggest that to have consulted only two boroughs—Westminster and Camden—when the problem is beginning to grow in Kensington, Lambeth, Wandsworth and Islington, is doing only half the job. I suggest that he extends his conversations with chief executives. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman spoke about finding where the problem was. I do not have the relevant provision before me, but I am sure the Department is responsible for inspecting premises to which it sends money or vouchers. That is another area which might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman in seeking out the wrong sort of hostel provision.
Mr. Meacher: I had intended to return to the registration and regulation of premises used by persons in receipt of supplementary benefit grants. Perhaps I might deal with it now.
2386
I sought to make it clear in what I said earlier that we had been in touch not only with Camden and Westminster, though these are two critically important London boroughs. There is a working party which has been in operation for some time between the GLC and the London Boroughs Association. We are not concentrating uniquely on these two boroughs.
It is not for me to say anything about the role of the Charity Commissioners in registering charities. Obviously that is a matter for the Home Department. However, it must be emphasised that the commissioners are not empowered to pick and choose the organisations which they register. Organisations have a perfect right to registration if their objects are charitable in law, and registration as such cannot and should not be taken by anyone as a guarantee a the bona fides of an organisation, although I realise that that is how this is seen by the general public. However, the commissioners concern themselves to see that trusts are properly carried out, and they try to satisfy themselves about the financial activities of charities. But that is a very long way from regulating the precise relations which operate in a given hostel.
As the hon. Member for Sutton Cold-field said, the Goodman Committee is at present reviewing the law on charities. We shall have to wait to see whether it deals with these problems in its report.
That brings me to the responsibilities of the local offices of my Department. The programme suggested that the Department's local social security offices inspected Mr. Gleaves' hostels, referred men to him, accepted him as someone worthy of support, and paid him a considerable amount of money, some of it as a result of fraudulent claims.
I must put the record straight. Local social security officers have to take claims for and pay any benefits to which claimants are entitled. They cannot direct claimants to stay at particular addresses, and they do not inspect accommodation to assess its standard. If they are asked where accommodation may be found, they may suggest addresses or areas where rooms are usually known to be available, but it is up to the claimant to decide whether or not to stay at any particular place. The Supplementary Benefits Commission has no grounds for interference in

2387
this respect, and I do not think that it is right that there should be any direction as to where people should go. The regulation or registration of premises to which claimants go is not a matter for the commission, though I accept that it may be a responsibility for other sections of my Department.
Care is taken to deal with claimants direct and not to accept claims on their behalf without seeing them and obtaining full details of their financial circumstances. Here again, there may have been some misapprehension as a result of the programme. There is power in Section 17 of the Supplementary Benefit Act to pay all or part of an award to a third party, and this is sometimes used to pay a hostel warden direct for board and lodging provided for a claimant. This was done by the use of board and lodging vouchers in cases of residents at Mr. Gleaves' hostels. But board and lodging vouchers were issued for each individual for one week only, and not until the person concerned had first been interviewed each week by our officers. Before actual payments were made, the individual vouchers had to be returned to the issuing office with the claimant's signature to the effect that he had received the board and lodging. Payment was not made on presentation only of a list. The vouchers had to support the list. If a claimant had left the hostel without signing his voucher, payment was made up to the date of leaving, which could be represented as a day or two after the actual date. But no renewal voucher for a further week would be issued, and leaving dates could be ascertained from the claimant if he made a claim from another address after leaving.
I should also add, because it is important, that the letter of thanks to Mr. Gleaves was in response to a letter from him commiserating with the office on some adverse publicity. It had nothing to do with his hostel activities.
I cannot comment on the suggestions in the programme that men claimed more than once each week, without being given the opportunity to examine any supporting evidence. There is always that possibility, but we have certain procedures which are deliberately designed to counteract it.
2388
I turn to the question of how to make contact with homeless young people.
Mr. Norman Fowler: Will the Minister concede that his description of the present system used by his Department indicates that it is absolutely wide open to abuse? Will he also concede that once again his lengthy speech has conveyed perhaps not personal complacency but certainly a very departmental attitude and has further emphasised the need for a full inquiry into this whole area?
Mr. Meacher: I do not concede the hon. Gentleman's allegation of complacency. I have indicated that an inquiry is being undertaken concerning the dissemination of information available to the Home Office. I have also said that an important working party is about to reach some early conclusions, based on consultations with the GLC and the London Boroughs Association, about the provision of extra accommodation for homeless single persons. We are also contacting Camden and Westminster.
We are examining the question how registration might need to be tightened up. I have indicated that there are certain difficulties which I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises. We do not want to tip out the baby with the bath water. At the same time we want to prevent a recurrence of what happened in the Gleaves case, which in any event I do not believe is typical. I have mentioned many other initiatives, but I shall not repeat them. In all fairness the hon. Gentleman cannot say that we are being complacent about this matter. I am convinced that we are taking firm action in each of the main areas, consistent with the undoubted constraint on resources in which we have to operate.
I come to the question of how to make contact with homeless young people, especially the runaway children who are the subject of this debate. We must realise that this is by no means as simple as it sounds. It is the local authority for an area that has the duty to accept responsibility for the under 17's who are in trouble and whom their parents cannot help. Runaway young people of this age cannot legitimately be helped by any other agency than the local authorities, unless in an emergency, at the authority's request.

2389
Identifying and contacting these children is very difficult. Central London, and the centres of other big cities, are full of young people of every kind. The youngster who is trying to avoid attention may well be at pains to avoid looking lost or seeking help from an official looking source. I do not say that that is a reason why we should not examine the situation and why we cannot improve our means of locating and identifying young persons in need of help, but I hope that it will be admitted that it is not easy.
Undoubtedly the London main line termini are the entry point for some young people who have nowhere to go on arrival, but others come by bus, many must surely hitch-hike, and some—by no means the smallest group—leave home in or near London. I am aware that a number of voluntary bodies have taken or are contemplating new initiatives in contacting newcomers to London, particularly at rail termini, but I cannot expand on that matter at present, because it is a matter for them.
I am anxious that any new facilities which emerge should be sensitively and realistically planned in conjunction with the statutory bodies, particularly local authorities, the police, British Rail and the transport police, and that they should enjoy their full backing or they will not be effective. I hope that such facilities would have access to broadly based, reliable and up-to-date information about hostels and other short term accommodation. I agree that is another gap. Such information is kept by the National Association of Voluntary Hostels. That information, whilst given to agencies and social workers, is not broadly made available to the persons themselves. There is no statutory attempt to fill that gap. If such information were made available it would be able to count on the cooperation of all voluntary bodies working with the homeless.
I have made a very long speech.
Mr. Sims: I do not want to prolong the debate unnecessarily, but some of us are particularly interested in this subject and have been up all night in the hope of having this debate. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the initiative may rest with these voluntary organisations, it would encourage them if he indicated that he would like to receive
2390
positive proposals from them regarding advice centres and that he would be willing to finance acceptable projects?
Mr. Meacher: I have spoken at considerable length on the initiatives that we are taking. We wish to receive proposals from voluntary bodies. There is a great deal of experimental work which local authorities may be able to take over.
The provision of finance, at a time of great public expenditure constraints, will depend upon competition from other demands on the resources. But we shall look at the proposals very sympathetically and we shall seek to assist them so far as we can, given the constraints on manpower and finance.
I am concerned that there should be better co-ordination—I concede that it is not as good as it should be—between Government Departments in dealing with the issues raised by the Gleaves case and the problem of runaway children. Indeed, my Department is holding a further meeting today—it is purely by accident that it coincides with the debate—of all the Departments with an interest in these special problems of homeless young people. I assure the House that we shall continue our efforts to find new methods, approaches and solutions to the ugly problems revealed in "Johnny Go Home".

DISABLED PERSONS (EQUIPMENT)
8.33 a.m.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am glad of the opportunity to raise, briefly I hope, the important question of the activities of the Department of Health and Social Security in the provision, financing and planning of electromechanical and hydraulic equipment for registered disabled people.
Naturally, I should be delighted to have the Minister's attention on this subject. If he is to continue to be interrupted by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), I shall not be able to get his attention at all.
Without in any way wishing to be churlish at this early hour in the morning, I should like to express some dismay that the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for the disabled is not on

2391
the Front Bench to answer any points I make. I appreciate that the exigencies of productivity nowadays apply to the public service. Therefore, the idea that one very competent Minister, who has made a lengthy speech on one subject, should immediately switch his mind to another rather complicated subject should not be too surprising. However, I must, without overdoing it, express my regret that the Minister's distinguished colleague, who has so much experience and knowledge of disabled people, is not here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me a proper explanation for his absence.
This is an important matter. The continuing problem of constraints on public spending, to which the Minister referred in the previous debate, will affect many areas of spending on health, social and welfare services. Therefore, there is a natural anxiety, shared by many people, that it will affect equipment for disabled people. One hopes that it will not. Some of this equipment is not exactly one-off, but limited in application and scope because so few people need it. None the less, the global expenditure figure for such items of equipment can be modest compared with the vast total expenditure by the Department and by local authorities on other services and equipment.
I should not be offended if the Minister did not speak at the same length as in the previous debate. but I would like a progress report on his Department's work last year and plans this year in the provision, financing and planning of equipment for registered disabled people. Perhaps he could also give us a progress report on how the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is functioning and how the links between his Department and local authorities are developing. He could take this opportunity to assuage the anxieties that progress has not been sufficiently rapid to meet the needs of the disabled. These needs are often individual, even esoteric, and applicable to only one person or a small group, but they can also apply to larger groups.
In the last debate on the homeless, the Under-Secretary used the phrase "gross misconduct and illegal activity". I thought that he was describing his Government's record over the past 12 months, but I am sure he would deny that. I would not use the phrase about the
2392
problem I wish to raise, but it is causing considerable anxiety. I would guess that 45,000 registered disabled people could be affected by a decision on a particular piece of equipment—the raising seat wheelchair. This is a tiny item compared with all the activities and provision of equipment of the Department, the area health authorities and the hospitals, but I consider it to be very important. On all the available research and evidence of the past 10 years, it is clear beyond all but unreasonable doubt that a wheelchair that does not have a seat fixed at a certain height can make a tremendous difference to many registered disabled people, including those with sclerosis and even high degrees of paralysis.
Apart from being interested in the problems of disabled people, I am also a governor of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital. All this began in the context of the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital's work on the subject, which began eight years ago. This is not the exclusive preserve or achievement of that hospital, and similar work has been done elsewhere and by specialised engineering companies which engage in medical work and have a high degree of experience and knowledge.
In spite of repeated pressure to get on with this work and to get the Department to overcome its irrational timidities about the merits of the project and begin marketing it efficiently—perhaps in limited quantities in view of the money difficulties—there has been successive bureaucratic delay without reasonable explanation. This situation is not the responsibility only of this Government, because there were equally infuriating delays under the previous administration.
In 1971 I saw an early model which had been developed at the hospital works by a dedicated team. One of that team is a shy self-effacing person whose name will not mention but who has done many years of selfless work for disabled people. That team is in despair at the lack of encouragement by the Department for this vital work.
There could be a tremendous argument among engineers about the best means of raising the seat. The normal system is battery operated, but the size of the battery could present difficulties. There is also the relatively primitive hydraulic type by which the disabled, provided

2393
they have strong enough arms, can pump the platform up. There is also a combination of both systems, but the electrical system is of prime interest. The cost of each unit is just a few pounds. Evidence not only from the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital source but from other sources indicates that the unit could be fitted to existing wheelchairs, although that modification is more expensive than fitting a unit in a tailor-made chair.
I am alarmed that this piece of equipment has made such slow progress. Information in my files shows that it was provisionally approved last April, and the hospital thought it had the go-ahead and that there would be a marketing contract and full encouragement by the Department. The Minister knows far better than I what that means for a piece of equipment. However, in the last few days I have been approached by the engineering companies and the hospital asking for an explanation of the delay. There has been no explanation from the Government. We want a proper explanation and an assurance that the project will go ahead as fast as possible.
I should be grateful for reasonable answers on these points and a wider progress report, but my gratitude will not be as great as that of the many thousands of disabled people who eventually, with full marketing and supply, could benefit from this project. The Minister will appreciate the diffierence to a disabled person who is not totally immobilised but who may be established in a wheelchair and can move himself along in the normal way if, by raising the platform of the wheelchair, he can more easily launch himself into a walk with crutches. It enhances and increases such a person's independence of movement in a dramatic fashion. It renders him less reliant on nurses and other assistance in institutions, hospitals, nursing homes or even in a domestic environment. Therefore, the saving psychologically as well as in other resources would be considerable.
I hope that the Minister will respond to what I have said. I have qualified it by saying that I do not expect him to give the detailed explanation that his colleague the Minister for the disabled could provide, but I should like to hear a reasonable explanation, as would many others.
8.46 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Michael Meacher): In replying—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. By leave of the House. Mr. Meacher.
Mr. Meacher: By leave of the House. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for prompting me.
In replying to the succinct and reasonable points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may I, first of all, indicate that the reason I am replying to this debate rather than my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is that my hon. Friend has had a long-standing engagement to participate in an important conference in relation to the disabled and although he had hoped that it might be possible to speak, had this debate taken place earlier, it has not proved possible. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he understands.
I fully share the hon. Gentleman's concern that every available technique should be harnessed to achieve the improvement of the quality of life of disabled people. All such techniques, including those in which electro-mechanical and hydraulic principles are applied, are recognised by the Department as essential contributors to that end.
However, before turning to equipment of these particular kinds and the elevating chairs to which the hon. Gentleman made special reference, I shall give a brief progress report on the provision of aids of this kind.
Such aids are usually classified according to their purpose rather than the particular kinds of engineering involved. There are: prostheses or externally worn aids which replace a missing part of the body, orthoses or aids designed to strengthen or correct a defective part of the body, mobility aids, nursing aids and aids to daily living. Equipment of all these kinds could include equipment involving electro-mechanical or hydraulic systems.
The degree and nature of the Department's involvement in planning and supply varies. At one extreme, in relation to prostheses, the Department is very closely and directly involved in work on

2395
artificial limbs, at all stages from research into untried new ideas to contracting for manufacture and supply. On the other hand, many aids to daily living are supplied by local authority social service departments, who buy them from commercial sources. The Department may have no direct role in relation to a particular item, though we do promote the circulation of information about all such equipment.
One problem is that an elaborate device may be produced which is not closely enough related to real and practical needs. We have found that in general it is more satisfactory to identify the needs and problems and then seek out the best ways for meeting and solving them. In some cases this approach may well point to desirable changes in the environment rather than to elaborate equipment. To give an obvious example the effort put into, say, kerb-climbing wheelchairs, needs to be related to the progress being made in making wider provision of dropped kerbs at road crossings. Therefore, it is a question not only of greater sophistication of equipment, but possibly of changes in the environment.
I want to say somethinig about the implications of this general approach, and what sorts of things the Department does in carrying it forward.
First is research into needs. Following the very valuable basic survey of handicapped people undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the Department five years ago, that same office has recently undertaken, and will soon be reporting on, a survey of wheelchair users which included a number of questions designed to disclose unmet needs. The Department is also supporting a major study by Professor Warren at Canterbury into the needs of disabled people.
Secondly, research and development with new devices is undertaken at units wholly or partly financed by my Department, such as the Biomechanical Research and Development Unit at Roehampton which has a special concern with artificial limbs, or by way of special projects also sponsored and paid for by the Department which are carried out by individuals or institutions on an ad hoc basis.
2396
Thirdly, the Department may undertake or sponsor the evaluation of existing and newly developed equipment. Those who are seeking to prescribe equipment need to have detailed information about such things as performance, mechanical efficiency and safety, ease of operation by the user, maintenance, and suitability for installation in domestic premises.
Finally, and perhaps most important, they want to know that the equipment does what the manufacturer claims for it. A great deal of information about available devices has already been collected and the facilities of my Department are available to social workers seeking advice on particular problems in relation to the disabled. In this way we hope that the disabled who have special requirements will be supplied with the type of equipment, often of a very specialised and individual kind, which is suited to their needs.
Some progress is also being made in devising British Standards for items such as wheelchairs and walking aids; and such work may be extended into the field of lifts and stairlifts. This I admit, is fairly unspectacular work, but it is of great importance in securing that well-designed and well-made articles are widely available from a number of makers.
Fourthly, the Department arranges for contracts for the production of equipment for which there is likely to be a widespread demand. These contracts are either for a specific number of items for direct purchase by the Department for the National Health Service or on a "call off" basis, by which I mean that health and local authorities, other public authorities and approved voluntary organisations may order items against them.
In going on to refer to particular items of equipment, and moving nearer to the focus which the hon. Gentleman chose, I shall in some instances be able to refer to specific costs. The hon. Gentleman asked me to do that. But I must stress that it is not possible to name a total figure for the spending on research and development, or on supply, for electromechanical and hydraulic equipment. As I have said, we do not classify our expenditure in these terms.

2397
I have mentioned the point that electromechanical and hydraulic devices are not dealt with as a special field, with a special role for the Department. Powered wheelchairs are an important field. My Department supplies electrically-powered wheelchairs for indoor use by people who are so severely disabled that they cannot walk or propel themselves by hand and who can, by use of a powered wheelchair, achieve some degree of independence—of ability to look after themselves through the daily routine of eating, bodily functions and so on—in the home. Altogether over 5,000 such chairs are on issue: we supply about 1,800 new ones a year at an annual cost of rather more than £400,000 a year.
We also supply attendant-controlled electrically-powered outdoor wheelchairs to severely disabled people who cannot propel themselves outdoors and who have an attendant who is able to go out with them and control the chair but is not strong enough to push it. Of these, there are nearly 4,000 on issue, and we supply some 2,500 annually at a cost of over £200,000.
I come to the subject to which the hon. Gentleman gave great attention, namely, elevating wheelchairs. Several designs of wheelchairs fitted with electrically and hydraulically operated elevating seats including one designed by the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital at Stan-more have been tried but these have not generally been received enthusiastically. This is a problem. It may well be that, on balance, the more satisfactory solution for most people is to adapt the environment so that a disabled person can use an ordinary wheelchair. This is a reference to the difficulties of an ideal design, which suggests that there may be better ways of solving the problem. In the case of a disabled housewife, for example, the lowering of cupboards, worktop heights, light switches and so on may be more satisfactory than propelling herself around the kitchen elevating and lowering the seat of the wheelchair in order that she may carry out her normal everyday domestic responsibilities.
After that discouraging start, I should say that the Department has not turned its face altogether against extending its range of wheelchairs, which have not been close enough to the ideal. They include
2398
one fitted with an elevating seat as well as a hydraulic lifting device which, when fitted to a normal wheelchair, will lift it when occupied to a height of 12 inches. Possibilities of improvement are still being explored but with the present pressure on resources, I cannot promise that we could introduce this extra benefit for wheelchair users even if we could get the ideal design. There is the constraint on resources to be considered as well as the difficulty of design, which we have not yet overcome.
Before leaving the subject of powered wheelchairs I must say something about occupant-controlled powered wheelchairs for outdoor use.
Mr. Dykes: Before the Minister does that, may I repeat the basic principle behind the elevating wheelchair? I appreciate what he says about someone raising and lowering herself to attend to cupboards in a kitchen, but that is not the main point. The main point is to enable disabled people to get into and out of the wheelchair more easily by putting themselves into a quasi-vertical position more easily.
Mr. Meacher: I accept that. That is why we believe that there is still a great deal of point in trying to get the most suitable design, but I am advised—I am not a technician—that we have not yet achieved a design which would be considered ideal for this purpose. But I agree that that remains a purpose which will not be solved by changes in the environment, by changing the physical configuration of the disabled person.
On the question of occupant-powered chairs for outside use, my Department does not supply such chairs, but I am very well aware that there are commercially produced electrically-powered chairs of this kind and that they can bring very great benefits by providing independent outdoor mobility for people who cannot achieve it in any other way. A good many of the potential users of such chairs are people who cannot drive on the roads and so have never benefited from the vehicle scheme, but as the mobility allowance is phased in, starting next January, I look forward to some recipients of the allowance who may feel they need one of these useful machines being enabled to afford to buy one.

2399
It has been suggested to me from time to time that we should issue these machines free. I can hold out no early hope of this becoming financially feasible, and in any case we have not yet felt so persuaded of the technical merits of any particular model to look on it for provision as a standard issue. But as hon. Members are aware, we have made provision—in subsection 5(b) of the new Clause 37A of the Social Security Act, 1975—for abatement of mobility allowance if such a wheelchair is issued in the future, and if an individual elects to have one instead of drawing the full allowance. This provision may bring within the range of financial feasibility a development which otherwise could not he afforded and we are keeping it in mind.
There is also the family of electrically-operated "possum" devices, which enable people who are so disabled that they have little or no movement in their limbs to control a range of domestic systems and appliances such as telephones and television sets, heaters and so on. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the techniques of minimal movement required to operate them. These environmental controls for the severely disabled are available under the National Health Service in cases agreed by regional health authorities. Typewriter controls are available to those severely disabled people who, in addition, are unable to communicate verbally.
It was estimated that the cost of central supply for 1975–76 would be £150,000, but development of new equipment might well increase this estimate. Time does not allow me fully to enumerate all the items of equipment. However, I should like to comment on one point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman. I refer to the question of registered disabled people. My Department's responsibility and concern is not limited to those who are registered. Although we monitor progress on local authority registration and encourage registration, we are well aware that by no means all disabled persons are registered.
Whatever the pattern on which research and production is conducted, I am sure that it will be beneficial if we can do much more by way of evaluation of new developments. Imaginative evaluation
2400
will spark off ideas for further development. But such work makes heavy demands on resources, especially on the professional and technical people who must work together—some of them being expert in the medical and social problems of handicapped people, while others are skilled in the technologies involved. Even within the constraints on Government expenditure, which unavoidably prevent us from doing as much as we would like, we intend to deploy our resources to ensure that, amongst other aims, we make the most of the scope for applying electromechanical and hydraulic techniques in the service of the disabled.
Even though I may not have answered all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I hope that I have given a progress report on our efforts and how we are focusing our limited resources on this problem.

JEWISH MILITARY GRAVES (BAGHDAD)
9.3 a.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I am happy and relieved to have the opportunity to raise a matter which causes concern not only to the Jewish community in the United Kingdom but to ex-Service men of all faiths and those who are concerned with the preservation of the dignity of the memories of those who have fallen in the service of our country.
I declare an interest. I am the acting President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Vice-President of the Association of Jewish Ex-Servicemen and Women.
The Jewish community is united in its dismay and indignation at the way in which the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has seen fit to carry out its functions in the preservation of the graves and the memories of fallen British Service men in the Baghdad North Gate War Cemetery. The difference of view about tactics should not be taken as showing any lack of appreciation of the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission or of that of the British commissioners, who include among their number the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), whose presence I appreciate this morning.

2401
We recognise the difficulties involved and the excellent work which has been accomplished. I do not wish the Government to view this as a personal criticism of the Department, which has been kept in blissful ignorance of what has been happening but which I believe takes a mistaken view.
We may have a difference of view as to tactics or the proper method of dealing with the matter, but, just as I accept that the Department is doing its best, I hope that it will accept that the view that I am about to put forward is held very deeply and sincerely by many people, by no means only by those who are members of the community of which I have the honour to be one of the leaders.
The matter came to light in a curious way. I received an anonymous telephone call from a gentleman who said that he had just returned from Baghdad and thought that it would be a good idea for me to make inquiries, as he put it, into the disgraceful way in which certain graves had been vandalised in Baghdad North Gate British War Graves Cemetery. He declined to give his name. He said that he was not Jewish but felt very strongly that this was a thoroughly shocking matter. He would give me no details. I should like publicly to pay tribute to this gentleman, to say how much his approach is appreciated and how greatly I regret that I cannot thank him personally.
I investigated the matter and asked whether the graves in the war graves cemetery in Baghdad had been vandalised. The answer was one of the most curious, and in many ways one of the saddest, one could conceive. Briefly it was this. In 1969 a single headstone on a Jewish grave was vandalised. Apparently, there is a secondary school nearby. There has been some vandalism over recent years. Since 1969, 39 Christian graves, one Indian grave and this one Jewish grave have been vandalised.
When a headstone is destroyed one would expect it to be replaced, and one would expect a complaint to be made. But that did not happen. What happened was that all the other Jewish gravestones in the cemetery were removed, thus preventing any possibility of the vandalising of those headstones. This was described
2402
in a series of letters from the Minister to me as being a temporary measure.
That occurred in 1969, and no change would have occurred had this matter not come to light, thanks to my anonymous informant. Since 1969, not only has the damaged headstone been replaced by a temporary marker but the undamaged headstones have been replaced by temporary markers. Those temporary markers were to be replaced by marble headstones which were to bear no indication of the religion of the deceased.
I am no expert in this matter. It may be that there are religions whose adherents believe that it is not important that a symbol should mark the last resting place of the deceased. There was one headstone of an Indian national with no religious symbol. But that is certainly not so in the Jewish religion. It matters to the families of men who have fallen in defence of their country and are lying alongside their comrades in arms that the graves, even if not in a Jewish graveyard, should at least be marked by a symbol of their faith. It matters very much, and it is totally contrary to Jewish religious lore, observance and tradition that the graves should be unmarked.
I assumed that there would have been consultations at least with the senior Jewish chaplain, the deputy chaplaincy, the Chief Rabbinate or other Jewish bodies to explain the difficulties. Inquiries revealed that there were and had been no such consultations.
I next assumed that at least there had been consultations with the Association of Jewish ex-Servicemen and Women because this is a matter with which that association normally deals. Again there were and had been no such consultations.
I then assumed that the next of kin would be informed. When graves are vandalised one would expect the next of kin to be told, but I understand from my inquiries that they have not. The excuse given was that this was an interim measure. The families had not been informed because it would cause them unnecessary suffering and it was a matter about which they could do nothing.
First, they can do something. Their father, grandfather, brother or son fell in the defence of this country, and they can protest at the behaviour of the Iraqui authorities and the Commonwealth War

2403
Graves Commission. They are not—thank God!—powerless in this country, even though the commission may regard itself as powerless in Iraq. Nothing could cause them more suffering than to come across the information in the wrong way.
My first appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister is quietly to inform the next of kin whose gravestones have been injured —one of them by the Iraqis and three by our own War Graves Commission—so that they can decide for themselves what steps they wish to take. I ask for an assurance that there will be consultations with the families.
Secondly, I ask that even at this stage there be consultations with the Jewish religious authorities, particularly the Rabbinate, and with the Association of Jewish ex-Servicemen and Women and the Chaplaincy Service. After all, these are comrades in arms, people who were in the same battle, people with whom we are on the most friendly terms.
I am most anxious that there should be no apparent secrecy in this matter. The emergence of the story is part of the fascination of a matter which was apparently kept well hidden. My right hon. and hon. Friends knew nothing about it until it came to light in the way that I have described.
While we face a difference in tactics, it cannot be the answer to the vandalism of headstones to remove the headstones. It cannot be the answer to the destruction of the windows of the police station in my constituency to put the police station in an air raid shelter or to have no windows. It cannot be the final solution —here I bring in a sad echo—to the Jewish problem to remove the Jews, and it cannot be the final solution to the problem of the vandalism of Jewish headstones in Iraq to remove them. Without unkindness, and fully appreciating the total sympathy, kindness and friendship of approach of my right hon. and hon. Friends and the commissioners, whom I acquit of any desire other than that for a quiet life, I feel that that is not the best way to have a quiet life simply to keep silent and adopt what I and those to whom I have spoken about the matter, who are not in the Government or the commission, regard as a craven and insensitive attitude.
2404
Having brought the matter to the attention of the House, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to say that the problems are considered seriously, that the worry and sensitivity of ex-Service men of all faiths is appreciated, and that immediate steps will be taken to replace the present gravestones with those marked in accordance with the ordinary Jewish religious tradition. I hope that he will say that if the civilised standards of behaviour are not adhered to by the Iraqis, and they do not allow the gravestones into the country, as has been suggested, it would not be, as one Minister wrote to me, a provocative act to try to get the gravestones into the country, but that it would be most provocative, uncivilised and typical if they were kept out of the country.
This is a matter which can be put right. Although it concerns a few men who died in the service of the country it could become symptomatic of much more. While I recognise that in most cases my right hon. and hon. Friends in the War Graves Commission do their job with kindness and sensitivity, I feel that they have made a serious error here. I am glad to have been able to bring it to the attention of the House. I hope that we shall have the assurance of the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner) and the Minister that steps will be taken to put the matter right, to inform relatives, to consult with those most concerned and, above all, to ensure that no such occurrence happens again.
9.16 a.m.
Mr. Edward Gardner: I am one of those ex-Service men to whom the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) referred. Not only ex-Servicemen and women but anyone who appreciates the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the beauty that these cemeteries represent and the memories they inspire would be deeply offended by the desecration of any grave, no matter to what faith, creed or nation a person belonged.
I have to declare an interest because I am a non-official member of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was appointed in 1970 to represent the then Conservative Government. My hon. and learned colleague Mr. George Wallace, as he then was, now Lord Wallace, represented the then Opposition. Lord Wallace is still a member of

2405
the Commonwealth War Graves Commission.
The House will recognise that the commisison is an independent organisation acting on behalf of seven participating governments, of which the United Kingdom is one. It has responsibilities in 144 different countries. There are two points I wish to make, from personal experience and knowledge. The first is that these cemeteries are memorials to a multitude of men and women of widely differing faiths and races who gave their lives in two world wars. The over-riding interest which the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has lies in the fact that all these people gave their lives for a common purpose in a common sacrifice.
I can assure the House from personal knowledge that the commission's staff, most of whom I know well, are equally concerned to solace the bereaved as to honour the fallen. To my knowledge they carry out duties with compassion and sensitivity. They pay scrupulous regard to the traditions and customs of the many faiths with which they are called to deal.
The task of the commission is a nonpolitical, humanitarian task. I cannot believe that there lies behind what the hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to address to this House any intention to imply that the commission is motivated in any way by any unworthy sectarian considerations.
Mr. Greville Janner: I thought that I had made that plain. If not, I am happy to do so. The commission, as I said many times during my speech, carries out its task in the main with compassion and understanding on behalf of all those who were proud to serve their country and on behalf of their surviving relatives. My case is that it has here made a mistake.
Mr. Gardner: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that assurance. I have visited graves in cemeteries looked after by the commission in many parts of the world. I am particularly interested in Europe and the Far and Middle East. I am sure that those people who have had the experience of going round these graves will agree that they have a rare beauty, and that their purpose is fulfilled in providing a memory of a sacrifice and a warning of what war can mean. I am sure they will be the first to acknowledge
2406
the wonderful work that is being done and has been done by the commission in keeping the graves.
Unhappily—and I have seen this, and I would impress this upon the hon. and learned Gentleman as forcibly as I can —in Europe, the Middle East and the Far East, I have seen vandalism of the graves, vandalism that has been indiscriminate and in all cases shocking. It is the kind of vandalism that must cause grief to any relatives or next of kin of the people whose graves are affected. It is easy enough to say that the Governments of the countries concerned should ensure that vandalism does not take place. but everyone knows that it is impossible to provide a police force to keep guard over a cemetery, for example, and prevent vandalism. There is no way of preventing it.
Sometimes the vandalism is no more than outrageous and wicked behaviour. Sometimes, although I have no evidence of this, it may be provoked by a political grievance. The fact is that in Iraq the commission has to face unusual difficulties. Wherever we have had vandalism of headstones and other memorials, may I make it plain that it has been a settled practice of the commission not to inform relatives and next of kin. That has been the commission's practice because it is felt that it would do more harm than good to give notice of such vandalism to the relatives concerned.
Mr. Greville Janner: Does that apply to cases where the gravestones have not been replaced in due course with similar ones with the marking of the religious symbols of the faith concerned?
Mr. Gardner: I shall come to that. I am sure that the Minister will be able to give the factual background which will provide an answer to that matter. As I was saying, it has never been the practice of the commission to get in touch with relatives to tell them that vandalism has taken place. It is felt that to do so would be to add to the grief and distress that would obviously flow from such an act.
As regards the vandalism that has taken place in the Baghdad North Gate War Cemetery, like all vandalism it is an appalling act that must give rise to indignation of the very deepest kind. However, I am saddened to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman talk about the

2407
craven act of the commission in not doing something about the headstones in the cemetery. I do not want to be offensive, I want to be responsible and I want to keep the debate on the smoothest level possible, but I am bound to say, as a matter of fact, that if it had not been for the publicity and the stirring up of feelings here and abroad which has been caused by the complaints which the hon. and learned Gentleman has made, the commission feels that the headstones would not only be back in the Baghdad cemetery but the religious markings on them would also by now be restored.
Unhappily, there are now difficulties. These have nothing to do with the attitude of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. The commission has been trying to replace these headstones with their markings as soon as it could. In every case of vandalism, a temporary marking is put up to replace the headstone that has been vandalised and damaged, and it is left there until a new stone can be brought in and affixed there.
In Iraq, because of the political situation, there has been difficulty in importing certain articles or goods, and one of the difficulties which we anticipated was the importation, for the moment at any rate, of a headstone with certain religious markings on it.
I believe that if we could have handled this matter discreetly—that is not to say in any craven way—we could by now have had the headstones restored, and we could have had back the religious markings on them.
I am wholly in sympathy with the indignation felt by the hon. and learned Gentleman, on his own behalf and on behalf of all ex-Service men, about what has been done, and I can assure him that his indignation is felt and shared by all members of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. We are determined to put right what has been wrongly perpetrated against the memory of the men and women who lie in that cemetery. I can assure him—I hope that he will accept my assurance—that it is no craven fear that is inspiring what we have done. We have done what I believe is in the best interests of the next of kin. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that at the first opportunity we shall put
2408
right and resore to those headstones the religious markings which he quite rightly wishes to see back there again.
9.26 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Frank Judd): I am sure that the whole House will want to express its appreciation to the hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardner), with his very special knowledge, as a member of the commission, of all the many aspects of this case.
I appreciate the deep feelings of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), but before I deal with the matter in detail I think it would be helpful if at the outset I reminded the House of the history and the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in its full international perspective.
The commission was established by Royal Charter in 1917. Its duties are to mark and maintain the graves of the members of the Forces of the Commonwealth who were killed in the two world wars, to build memorials to those who have no known graves, and to keep records and registers, including, after the Second World War, a record of the civilian war dead.
One million seven hundred thousand men and women of the Commonwealth Forces died in these wars. Over 900,000 are commemorated by individual headstones, and the remainder, who have no known grave, are commemorated on memorials. There are war graves in 144 countries, mostly in the commission's 1,500 cemeteries and plots, but there are also war graves in civil cemeteries and churchyards throughout the world.
The cost of the work is shared by the partner Governments—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan. Other Commonwealth countries contribute by bearing the cost of maintenance of graves and memorials in their own lands.
The commission is composed of official members representing its participating Governments and non-official members appointed by Royal Warrant, one of whom we have been glad to hear participating in this debate. The Secretary of State for Defence, on whose behalf I am replying, is by virtue of his appointment

2409
an official member of the commission and, ex-officio, its chairman.
My hon. and learned Friend has criticised in no uncertain terms the commission on specific points this morning. He has also recently written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army. I recognise the deep anxiety and commitment of my hon. and learned Friend. The facts behind the matters about which he complains are as follows.
In 1969, a headstone in the North Gate War Cemetery, Baghdad, bearing the Star of David was destroyed by vandalism. Since then, 39 Christian headstones and one bearing no religious symbol have been similarly desecrated. These incidents have been reported to the local police, diplomatic representations were made in 1970, 1972 and 1973, and special representations were made at top level by the commission to the Baghdad municipality in July 1974.
Until the destruction of the Jewish headstone, however, there had been no headstones destroyed in that war cemetery, where there are 6,000 graves altogether, for nearly five years, and it appeared that the headstone had been singled out. The incident was regarded, rightly or wrongly, as a manifestation of the anti-Zionist feeling that was particularly prevalent in Iraq at the time.
In view of the circumstances, therefore, the three remaining headstones bearing the Star of David at the Baghdad Cemetery and nine others elsewhere in Iraq were removed, in order to protect them from the risk of further vandalism, and were replaced with temporary markers. The intention of the commission was and is to replace these markers with headstones as soon as possible, and that they should bear the Star of David as soon as circumstances allow. It had in any case been decided earlier this year, and before my hon. and learned Friend began his inquiries, that the time had come to replace the markers with permanent headstones. Because of the lack of suitable local materials the stones must be imported into Iraq. As it seemed that the Iraqi customs authorities would almost certainly have refused to allow headstones bearing the Star of David into the country, the intention was to erect
2410
plain ones and to engrave the religious emblem on them as soon as it was considered feasible. As a consequence of the widespread publicity now surrounding these headstones, the Iraqi authorities have undoubtedly been alerted, and this plan, which I believe was once a reasonable possibility, has now been seriously undermined.
Following my hon. and learned Friend's criticism, the Association of Jewish ex-Servicemen and Women has called the commission's plan a calculated act of appeasement. If by this it is urging the commission to engage in a deliberate confrontation, I must point out that this cannot be the role of a body with the objects and aims of the commission.
As I have said, over the past five years representations have been made formally and informally to the Iraqi authorities through diplomatic and other channels. As a result, there has been increased police surveillance, but the authorities, as in any country, could not undertake, or be expected wholly to prevent acts of vandalism, however regrettable and despicable these acts may be. The commission remains in touch with the British Ambassador, who has over the past year visited the site on a number of occasions. But their task is made more difficult by continuing restrictions on access to and movement within the country by its supervisory staff.
I am quite certain that all member Governments of the commission, and indeed the great majority of ex-Service associations which hold the commission in very great esteem will agree with me that the decision taken over the headstones in question was, in the light of conditions prevailing, sensible and understandable. It is never easy to pick one's way through religious minefields but I am sure that after 60 years' experience the commission does it much better than most.
There remains the question of informing the religious authorities and next of kin of the steps taken over the grave markings. I fully appreciate the concern about the principles at stake here. We shall, of course, look very carefully at what my hon. and learned Friend has said. However, the graves were still tended and the erection of plain headstones was intended to be a temporary

2411
expedient to be rectified as soon as practicable. It was not seen as a permanent decision of principle which would make it necessary to approach the religious authorities in Britain. The same kind of considerations apply to informing the next of kin. Indeed, the general question of informing the next of kin about incidents of this sort, as I am certain my hon. and learned Friend agrees, is clearly one that always needs the most delicate handling. From many years of experience the commission believes that the effect would be to cause needless distress to people in a matter over which they have no control.
In the case in question it seems that to have contacted the next of kin would probably have proved impossible in any case. One grave was that of a First World War soldier, and the last next-of-kin address dated from the 1920s. Of the three 1939–45 burials there are no recorded next-of-kin for two, and the third was recorded as Indian domiciled in the 1950s.
All decently minded people deplore the desecration of a grave, wherever it happens and whatever the circumstances. However, I cannot accept that any condemnation whatever can be attached to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for its handling of the Iraqi problems in recent years. It has worked under most difficult and trying circumstances. It is the view of the Government that it would be wrong for them, as one of the commission's participating Governments, to advise the commission just at this time, particularly after all the recent publicity which has been given to the matter, to seek the agreement of the Iraqi Government to erecting headstones with the Star of David on these war graves. In the context of recent publicity it is perhaps not without significance that, after a lapse of two years without vandalism, a report was received this week that three other headstones at the North Gate cemetery had been broken. A further message was received yesterday evening that there had been widespread vandalism involving at least 25 graves of various denominations at a nearby smaller war and post-war RAF cemetery, for winch the British Government are responsible.
I must draw attention to the considerable harm that has been done by
2412
certain statements which have recently been reported in parts of the Press, alleging that the Iraqi authorities demanded the removal of the Star of David from headstones bearing it. At no time has any such demand been made by the authorities of that country.
I also remind the House that the commission depends upon the good will of the host country in carrying out this important task.
I believe that my hon. and learned Friend will endorse my view when I say that we must all be extremely careful lest the way in which these matters are raised in this House and elsewhere should adversely affect the commission's ability to continue to carry out its obligations to the Commonwealth war dead buried in Iraq.
However, I should like to assure my hon. and learned Friend that we recognise his deep feeling about this issue. We have listened carefully to all that he has said in this short debate. I am able to assure him that the Director-General of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission wrote to the chairman of the Association of Jewish ex-Servicemen and Women yesterday saying that he would be willing to discuss the issues at stake with him. I also understand that he would have no objection to meeting the Chief Rabbi to discuss the issues.

W. & C. FRENCH (CONSTRUCTION) LTD.
9.39 a.m.
Mr. Robert Taylor: I want to inquire deeply, but briefly, into the expenditure which we are asked to approve under Class VI Vote 1.
We are told in the sub-head detail to this proposal that the £1,000 for which approval is sought, is a token provision to make available a loan of up to £4·5 million to a single firm of civil engineers and building contractors as was announced to the House on 22nd May. Those of us with reasonable memories will recall that 22nd May was the eve of our recess for the referendum. If we turn up Hansard for that day we will find that the announcement was made by way of Written Answer, not in this Chamber.

2413
That is surprising because the announcement referred not only to the loan of £4½ million, but to ex gratia payments of £10 million to the same company. Therefore, under this heading we are looking at a total of £14½million being made available by way of ex-gratia payments and loans to one particular firm in the building industry.
I make no lengthy comment on the fact that it seems to be a negation of open government to announce the distribution of such substantial sums of money by way of Written Answer on the eve of a recess. But I understand that this money relates to fixed-price contracts for motorway work.
In answer to a subsequent Parliamentary Question which I put to the Minister for Transport I was told that the total sum involved was £87 million. Thus, if the Government have made £14 million available to this firm, it represents a 17 per cent. increase over the original tender figure.
It would seem that the firm concerned put in the lowest tender on a competitive basis for a substantial amount of motorway construction. Because it was unable to meet the figures upon which it based its tenders for one reason or another—they may have been very good reasons; inflation is certainly of great importance in this respect—the Government went to its assistance and offered these substantial sums of money.
In the original Written Answer on 22nd May the Minister said that this was the cheapest solution to the problem from the point of view of the public purse. I am not absolutely certain that that could be so in the long term. The Minister has in effect said to any future competitive tenderers in the construction industry on a fixed-price basis that they will take the lowest figure and, if the tenderer cannot complete at that figure, they will help him to fulfil his obligations.
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Redditchl): Does my hon. Friend agree that this is destroying the whole basis of competitive tendering for motorway contracts? Does he agree that we ought to be told whether consideration was given to inviting other contractors to complete these works? Would not that have been the preferable way to proceed instead of
2414
handing out further grants to a yet unnumbered series of further contractors?
Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that point later. I certainly should have preferred the work to go to other tenderers rather than have companies feel that if they run into trouble on fixed-price contracts the Government will always be there to help them out.
In addition, it must be aggravating for other firms in the same industry which entered into fixed-price contracts at about the same time and completed their obligations without turning to the Government for assistance to know that out of the taxes on their profits they were contributing to making up deficits which their competitors had incurred.
I should like to know how much we are sanctioning by this Vote this morning. The sub-head states:
"Token provision is required to secure Parliamentary authority for this service."
It does not say "this loan". It implies that there are other amounts which may subsequently come to light and be covered by this Vote which we are approving this morning.
I asked a Question of the Minister of Transport, who I am pleased to see here this morning, about this matter. My Question was:
"whether any ex-gratia payments or loans under the Highways Act 1959 other than those to W. & C. French (Construction) Ltd. are under consideration at the present time; and if so what is the maximum possible liability to public funds."
The Minister's reply was
"A number of requests for assistance are currently under consideration but I cannot assess the amount, if any, of any grants or loans which may be made."—[Official Report, 4th July 1975; Vol. 894, c. 566.]
I presume that when we approve this Supplementary Estimate, all these applications could be covered by the token sum of £1,000. The House should be given some idea of the precise sums likely to be involved.
By coincidence, there was a statement in The Times yesterday by the chairman of Bath and Portland Group when presenting the interim figures. He said:
"Two motorway contracts with an original value of £15 million have already incurred extra costs of some £4 million, exclusive of

2415
inflation, but the claims cannot be finalised until completion later this year."
Is this yet another company that will have to receive assistance? The chairman does not say whether they are fixed price contracts. We should know or have some idea of the total sum to which we are being committed by this token sum of £1,000.
9.47 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I must congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) on the assiduity which he has shown on this subject. In the last month, he has put down five Questions to my hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport, and has again raised the subject today.
Perhaps I should begin by explaining the background to the assistance which the Government are giving this company. This was explained by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 22nd May 1975 when, as Minister for Transport, he answered the Question in this House put down by my hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
Following approaches from the company about the losses it was suffering on a number of motorway and other trunk road contracts, an examination of the company's financial situation and that of the group of companies of which it forms part confirmed that, without special assistance, the contractor would be unable to complete these contracts. Most of the 16 contracts involved are on a firm price or limited variation of price basis.
In view of the very large additional costs of having the contracts completed by other contractors, the Government decided in November 1974 to make an ex-gratia payment to the company of £3·5 million.
The information available at that time indicated that this amount was necessary and sufficient to ensure completion of the contracts. Unfortunately, however, subsequent forecasts revealed that more money was required. Interim additional payments of up to £3·75 million were made available to enable work on the contracts to proceed while a very full and detailed further examination of the company's situation and of the holding
2416
company French Kier Holdings Ltd., as well as its other subsidiary companies, was made. This examination was carried out by an independent firm of accountants and I can assure the House that it was exceedingly thorough. The examination showed that a further amount of up to £6·75 million might be required to ensure completion of the contracts.
On 1st March last, about £40 million worth of work, out of a total tender value of about £87 million remained to be done on the contracts. If the Government had given no further assistance and W. & C. French (Construction) Ltd. had ceased to trade, the costs of completing the contracts by bringing in other contractors would have been greatly in excess of the total amount of assistance of £14 million which is being made available. I stress that this is without taking into account the delays in completing the roads concerned and the economic loss and social disadvantages of those delays. There would have been delays of up to a year if we had had to bring in other contractors. In reaching the decision to continue to support the company, the Government took into account not only these compelling arguments, but also the total trading situation and prospects of the French Kier group of companies.
The Government's decision has of course been criticised. On the one hand all contractors who have also suffered losses on their highway contracts would have liked to receive assistance. We did look long and earnestly at the representations which the industry made for some general relief from the losses companies were suffering on trunk road contracts on a firm price and limited variation of price basis because of inflation and prolongation caused by the three-day week. But if such a concession had been made, similar concessions would have had to have been given on all other public sector contracts. The cost would have been prohibitive.
The Government therefore decided in the present situation of stringent control of public expenditure that they could not give general blanket assistance, but like successive Governments they have made clear that they are prepared to consider individual cases of real hardship on their merits under the normal ex-gratia rules.

2417
This is precisely what we did in the case of W. & C. French.
On the other hand there are those, with whom the hon. Member for Croy-don, North-West seems to associate him-self, who argue that a contract is a contract and that if a company cannot honour its obligations it should be allowed to go into liquidation. As a general principle the Government support the view that there should be no departure from the terms of a contract freely entered into by both parties other than in the most exceptional circumstances. But the Government, like any other responsible body, must have regard to their own interests and those of the tax-payer. As I have already said, had we not supported W. & C. French the company would have been unable to complete our motorway and trunk road contracts. The cost of getting them completed by other contractors in monetary terms alone would have been very much more than the assistance we are providing. In the face of this, Parliament and taxpayers would have had cause for justified grievance had we not acted as we have done.
In all we are providing up to £14 million in assistance to W. & C. French under the powers of the Highways Act 1959 to ensure completion of our con-tracts. £9·5 million is being made as an ex-gratia grant.
Thereafter the company can draw loan of up to a maximum of £4·5 million. We have, of course, imposed a number of conditions as part of our agreement to make this assistance available. Let me now set out the principal conditions. First, payment is being made in appropriate instalment on the basis of need. Second, loan payments will attract a rate of interest 1 per cent. higher than that charged to the company by its bankers. Third, my Department shall have the right to convert any amounts of loan outstanding after 31st December 1976 into shares in French Kier Holdings Ltd. and to nominate a director to the board of that company. Fourth, no funds can be transferred from W. & C. French (Construction) Ltd. or the holding company to other subsidiary companies in the group without the Department's consent. Fifth, the Department has the right, which it is, of course, exercising, to
2418
monitor closely the financial position of the holding company and its subsidiaries. Sixth, if the eventual loss on our contracts is less than the forecast loss, half the difference between the two amounts is repayable to the Department.
The seventh condition is that the company abandons a large volume of contractural claims against the Department. If they had been pursued they would have resulted in substantial payments to the company.
The action which the Government took in assisting this company was without any shadow of a doubt the right one. It was clearly in the interest of the taxpayers and of the economy as a whole. The nation needs these important roads as quickly as they can be constructed. What good would the very substantial amounts of capital already invested in them have been in the many months of delay which would inevitably have occurred had we said "No" to W. & C. French? Already five of the 16 contracts concerned have been completed. These are M23, Bletchingley to Pease Pottage; M18, Thorne to East Cowick; M23, Hooley to Merstham; A47 Kings Lynn bypass; and A108 (A19) Hylton Bridge. A section of the A45 Stowmarket to Claydon bypass will be opened in a week's time, and good progress is being made in completing the remaining work. This excellent progress alone justifies our decision.
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question accordingly put and agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

LOCAL LAND CHARGES [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make fresh provision for and in connection with the keeping of local land charges registers and the registration of matters therein, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any administrative expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in consequence of the said Act;

(b) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown or government department in the payment of any amount recoverable from him or them under the said Act by a registering authority;

(c) any increase attributable to the said Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).
TAXES
That the Regional Employment Premium (Continuation of Payment) (Winsford) (Amendment) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
That the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1132), a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Question agreed to.

SELECT COMMITTEES (ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE)
Ordered,
That whenever the House stands adjourned for more than two days, and any Select Committee having power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House shall have agreed to a Report, or shall have resolved that their Minutes of Proceedings should be printed or that the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them or before any Sub-committee appointed by them or any Papers laid before them should be reported to the House and printed, they shall have power to direct the printing of such Report, Minutes or Papers, and such printing shall be under the authority of this House; and any such Reports, Minutes or Papers shall be deemed to have been reported to the House and shall be laid upon the Table when the House next sits:
Ordered,
That this be a Standing Order of the House until the end of this Parliament.—[Mr. Walter Harrison]

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Stoddart.]

AEROSOLS
9.58 a.m.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: Every time I use a hair spray I have a little worry about its possible effect on my health or that of any other members of the family who may be in the vicinity. There is something inherently unnatural about spraying oneself with chemicals, the possible effects of which are not known. Many people feel the same.
It was not until scientists began to discover a relation between the fluorocarbons which are used as propellants in aerosols and the density of the unknown layer in the atmosphere which acts as a radiation screen round the earth that I and many others became alarmed —so much so that in America the State of Oregon has made the sale of all sprays containing fluorocarbons illegal after February 1977, and other American States are following suit, although I must say that the United States Consumer Products Safety Commission recently decided by three votes to two not to do the same.
So, what is the problem? First, there is the possibility of an increase in skin

2421
cancer cases through the increase in harmful radiation reaching the earth's surface and caused by the effects of fluorocarbons on the ozone layer. This is alarming enough, particularly as the increase in such cases was predicted as being very high indeed. According to an article in The New Yorker, the scientists Rowland and Molina calculated that after the year 2050 there would be 40,000 additional cases of skin cancer each year in the United States alone if fluorocarbons production continued to increase at its present rate of 10 per cent. a year until 1990.
However, the real scare is the fear that our human spraying from the billions of cans of aerosols now in use, and ever-increasing, may be seriously threatening our whole environment by destroying the ozone layer irreversibly. That is the real nightmare.
Of course, aerosols are not the only culprits in the use of industrial fluorocarbons. A large part goes into refrigeration and air conditioning, into use by dry cleaning firms and in other ways, and ground cleared of vegetation by burning also releases a substantial quantity of organo-chlorine compounds into the atmosphere.
All this is terrifying, but mercifully, since the original scare, further studies show that natural halocarbons enter the atmosphere in great quantity—probably in a ratio of about 80 per cent. to 20 per cent. of natural halocarbons to industrial fluorocarbons at their present rate of production. As these halocarbons are produced naturally in great abundance and do not appear to have damaged the ozone layer in the way feared for industrial fluorocarbons, it is now believed that there may he some mechanism not yet understood by which they may act as a natural way of keeping the ozone layer from growing too large.
If this is so, it must affect our estimate of the atmospheric effect of fluorocarbons also. What is certain is that the ozone layer fluctuates in concentration in a way that is not properly understood, and that we know very little about how it actually works. Probably all that we can say is that we know just enough about the upper atmosphere to know that we do not know nearly enough. But is this uncertainty any reason why we should
2422
continue to use fluorocarbons which may not be absolutely essential when there may be a risk involved?
When the whole subject is so new and uncharted, surely we should be extra-specially careful. It is almost as though we have looked doom in the face and suddenly been given the hope of a reprieve. But that does not mean, surely, that we can continue as before. We need to examine urgently every industrial process that may threaten our environment and be much more stringent in our criteria of approval than we have been in the past.
The commercial attitude is naturally always that we should permit use until proof of harm is produced. But where fluorocarbons are concerned, who is to be responsible for furnishing absolute proof whether they threaten the ozone layer, and is it safe to wait for absolute proof to be established?
From the consumer point of view, I do not believe that we should so wait. While some fluorocarbon uses would be difficult to change quickly, with aerosols that is not the case. In the first place, many products, like paint, do not need to be in spray form at all and I believe that their use as sprays should be discouraged. I know from the answer to a Parliamentary Question that 30 per cent. of aerosols in this country do not contain fluorocarbons, so alternatives are in use and that use should be extended wherever possible.
Finally, where alternatives are not possible—there are some difficulties about hair sprays and deodorant sprays—the aerosol industry and the appropriate Department—probably the Department of the Environment but several others are involved—should work out a timetable for producing alternatives and phasing out fluorocarbons altogether from aerosols. If Oregon can do it by February 1977, there would seem no good reason why we could not operate to a similar deadline, after which fluorocarbons would be banned in aerosols.
This would not be difficult, because many firms are American-based and will probably be phasing out fluorocarbons in their American area to meet environmental demands there, as one firm has already done. We should have regulations to ensure that similar action is taken here. I believe that all aerosols

2423
should in any case have adequate ingredient labelling so that the consumers may know what they are using.
It has been said that, because of the uncertainties, all this is unnecessary, but there is another point. In any case there is some evidence that fluorocarbons in aerosols are undesirable on ordinary health grounds as well, so their removal would be beneficial in this respect, quite apart from the environment worry.
I understand that the Department and the aerosol manufacturers have been engaged in discussions in recent weeks. I urge the Minister to give these talks a new urgency and to secure early agreement in the public interest.
I am not impressed by arguments that because the burning of plants to clear land for agricultural development makes a substantial contribution to the release of organo-chlorine compounds into the atmosphere, it is somehow wrong to select aerosols as our first line of attack on this environmental problem. Without ignoring other uses, we should make a start here. It can be done without damage to the industry and with great benefit to both personal and environmental health.
For myself, I am phasing out the use of my hair spray from now on.
10.8 a.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) always raises these environmental matters very attractively. I note that she intends to phase out her use of aerosol hair sprays. I am sure that that will not detract from the attractiveness with which she greets us in the corridors of this place.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important subject. She has often done us great service in drawing our attention to these matters, and this is not the least of her services to the country in this respect.
"Freons" is an American trade name for a certain class of fluorocarbons. It might help if I explained the properties and characteristics of some fluorocarbons, or, as they are popularly known, "freons". They are used extensively as aerosol propellants—that is, the gas which atomises the aerosol product—
2424
as the cooling fluid in refrigeration and air-conditioning plants and as the foaming agents to produce polyurethane foam. Other uses include fire extinguishers and solvents. These are the major sources for the release of fluorocarbons into the atmosphere which results from their use as propellants.
About 1 million tons of fluorocarbons are produced each year throughout the world—about half comes from the USA —and production is increasing at about 10 per cent. per year. Approximately 70 per cent. of fluorocarbons produced in this country are used in aerosol containers, and the rest go into refrigeration units and other applications. In the USA, about half the amount produced is used in aerosols, 30 per cent. as refrigerants, and the rest for other uses.
The particular types of flurocarbons which are now in common use were developed as refrigerants but their properties also made them ideally suited for aerosol propellants. They do not react with the products being discharged, and they have extremely low toxicity to the user.
But it has been suggested that these very features which make them valuable as aerosol propellants may result in eventual changes in the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere, as my hon. Friend suggested, in the way I shall explain.
We are all familiar with the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere—here clouds form and disappear and the whole weather pattern develops and fades. In other words, it is a region of movement —where by its very nature good mixing occurs of any material discharged into it and which is cleansed by the action of rain and snow, although fluorocarbons are unaffected by this action. At a height of about 15 km there is a discontinuity known as the tropopause, above which there is a region called the stratosphere, about which we know more. Unlike the troposphere, this is a region of high stability where vertical mixing is very strongly inhibited. Any compounds which enter the stratosphere are likely to remain there for a long time and this is the main cause of concern. The stratosphere is not just of academic interest—it plays a vital role essential to man.
In the upper stratosphere, at altitudes of 25 to 50 km, ultra-violet radiation from the sun causes the formation of

2425
ozone from oxygen. The ozone acts in turn as a barrier to the ultra-violet radiation, and prevents most of the harmful rays from reaching the earth's surface. For fair-skinned races like our own, this is important because ultra-violet radiation causes sunburn. Prolonged and excessive exposure over long periods can also lead to some people developing skin cancer, which is, fortunately, generally curable. The effectiveness of the layer as a barrier to radiation varies both with latitude—it is thinner near the equator—and with time. Both seasonal and longer-term changes occur in the thickness of the layer. Several natural ozone destruction processes occur to balance its photo-chemical formation.
In 1974 American scientists postulated that fluorocarbons would eventually diffuse upwards into the stratosphere where they would dissociate under the action of intense radiation and liberate active chlorine atoms. These would be added to the amounts coming from other man- made compounds, and from the natural load supplied by, for example, volcanic eruptions. The chlorine might catalyse the destruction of ozone, as one of the various destruction processes that natur- ally balance ozone production.
The point of all this is that a reduction in the thickness of the ozone layer would permit more ultra-violet radiation to reach the earth's surface, and might cause an increase in the incidence of sun-burn and skin cancer in man, especially near the equator. Therefore it is a matter of concern.
The Royal Commission on Environ-mental Pollution drew attention to the possible long-term effects of fluorocarbons on the ozone layer in their fourth report which was published in 1974, and in response to their report my Department commissioned an appraisal of the subject by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment. This appraisal has now been completed and is with the Royal Com-mission. It concluded that evidence presently available showed that freons might act as an agent for the destruction of ozone, and that there was a case for further studies.
'The Government therefore accept that there is a need for coordinated research and action on this question, and my
2426
Department is accordingly in the process of considering with the Meteorological Office, the Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell, and other Government Departments and bodies concerned what further work needs to be done to assess the problem adequately.
I emphasise that it is very difficult to determine whether fluorocarbons can have a deleterious effect on the ozone layer—there are problems in making deductions from measurements of the ozone layer, as I have already mentioned, because of the wide natural variations in the thickness of the layer. At present there are many gaps in our knowledge of the stratosphere, and the various chemical reactions that occur in it. Chemicals other than fluorocarbons probably contribute to the stratospheric chlorine as large quantities of other halocarbons are produced naturally.
If any problem does exist, it will be a very long-term one. Reductions in ozone, if any, are not likely to be noticed until towards the end of this century. It will then take many years of exposure to the increased ultraviolet radiation before it has any effect on man in terms of skin cancer. This form of cancer is, as I have said, generally curable. Nevertheless, we are not complacent on that score. Moreover, in this country it is relatively infrequent and is more likely to be used by factors other than ultraviolet radiation.
As my hon. Friend is probably aware, considerable work on the effect of fluorocarbons on the stratosphere has been carried out in America. An American committee of inquiry, the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Inadvertent Modification of the Stratosphere—a body known as IMOS—recently published a report which concluded that fluorocarbon releases to the environment were a cause for concern, and recommended that unless the National Academy of Sciences report, due out next year, showed to the contrary, the use of aerosols containing fluorocarbons should be banned from January 1978, and other uses restricted.
My Department has read the IMOS report with interest, but we feel that in view of the uncertainty of current evidence, the recommendations for a ban are premature. As I have indicated, we are carrying out studies of our own, and will take account of the results of the NAS report when it appears.

2427
As my hon. Friend suggested, the aerosol industry is not unaware of all the activity on this front and is undertaking research into suitable substitutes for fluorocarbons, but these are difficult to find. Despite long-term research into alternatives, fluorocarbons are considered to be the best available propellant at the moment, particularly in cosmetic and medical products.
There is, of course, the argument that aerosols are an unnecessary extravagance in modern society. I suspect that my hon. Friend sympathises with that view. I agree that life would not come to a full-stop without aerosols, but they are undeniably extremely convenient. Moreover, we used 18 million a year for medical purposes and here there is not an equally effective substitute for fluorocarbons. That is a very considerable number.
I might add that there would be a considerable loss to our balance of payments if we banned aerosols, and far-reaching repercussions on the aerosol industry. None of this is to be taken to suggest that we are in any way complacent. We are not.
Mr. Bruce Douglas-Maim (Mitcham and Morden): There is some evidence that the damage has already been caused and that it will not be apparent for a long time to come. Last year I sent to my hon. Friend evidence from the studies in America and reports in Nature that the damage had already been caused.
If other countries take the step of banning aerosols, surely our exports will be harmed if we do not ensure that the aerosols we export are permissible to be used in the countries to which they are exported?
Mr. Howell: We have great concern about the matter.
Mr. Douglas-Mann: Why not a ban?
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend probably wants to ban everything, but it is better first to find out whether there are any alternative substances which can be used, and obtain the facts on which to take action.
I agree with my hon. Friend that if there is damage the use of so many aero-sols already will have contributed to that
2428
damage. That is a reason, above all, why we wish to commission this extremely important further research from the most competent bodies that we have in this country, which I think certainly will be as competent as any other scientific bodies to be found anywhere else in the world.
We are looking at available information on the effects of fluorocarbons on the stratosphere, and are considering the further research that needs to be done to assess the problem fully. We hope to publish a report about the end of the year, but may not by then have sufficient information available to come to clear-cut decisions on the future use of fluorocarbons.
We must recognise that material which we have already liberated may not produce its maximum effect until many years hence—that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mr. Douglas-Mann) made—but, as I have explained, there is doubt as to exactly what those effects are and exactly what degree of danger exists, and there is at this stage no need for immediate and precipitate action.
What is necessary is to take the matter seriously as a potential problem and mount the necessary studies to improve our knowledge base. I assure the House that that is exactly the Government's approach. We take the matter seriously. We shall commission the best possible research and shall continue to keep it constantly before the House.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: Can my hon. Friend say anything about the possibility of some kind of phasing-out deadline, if he rejects banning altogether at this stage. in order to speed up research into alternatives?
Mr. Howell: As I have said, we expect to have a further report by the end of the year. In addition, we are commissioning further research. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend. The moment we reach the conclusion that action of a radical nature such as banning is necessary we shall not hesitate to take it. But that would be premature now. It is a problem which can wait until we have the fuller report in about four months.
I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to raise this matter in the House

2429
and, as I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) say attractively on the radio this morning, to prod the Government from to time. We do not intend to be complacent. This is a matter of serious concern. We accept our responsibilities, but there is no need for panic action. There is, how-
2430
ever, need for time for us to mount the important research about which I have made an announcement this morning.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Ten o'clock a.m.