HC Deb 30 November 1976 vol 921 cc682-4
Q1. Mr. Christopher Price

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his engagements for 30th November.

Q2. Mr. Rifkind

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 30th November 1976.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is attending a meeting of the European Council in The Hague.

Mr. Price

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is a pity that the Prime Minister is not here today? Had he been here, he would have been able to attend the debate on the Address and to be made fully aware of the complete inability of, at any rate, the official Opposition to put forward policies capable in any way of maintaining the social contract with working people. Is he further aware that, in respect of the speech today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there are many very moderate Members on the Government Benches who will oppose tooth and nail any further deflation either through tax increases or through further public expenditure cuts?

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friend uses the word "moderate". I am not sure whether it ought not to be outlawed from the language altogether, because it has been misapplied in so many instances. I certainly take note of what my hon. Friend said. As for discovering the economic policies of the Opposition, I am doubtful whether my right hon. Friend would have been able to discover them even had he attended the debate.

Mr. Rifkind

Has the right hon. Gentleman actually read the 166 pages of the devolution Bill published in his name today? If he has, does he accept that it is manifestly unfair and absurd that complex and conflicting proposals for Scottish and Welsh Assemblies should be included in a single Bill? Will he undertake to reconsider this, so that Parliament can consider each set of proposals on their merits rather than as a single party political package Bill?

Mr. Foot

I certainly could not claim truthfully that I had read every word of every clause of the Bill presented to Parliament, and in that I think I am no different from many other Ministers who have presented substantial Bills to the House. The Government considered very carefully whether the proposals for Wales and the proposals for Scotland should be presented in separate Bills. Since they both deal with the same subject and the same undertakings that the Government have given to the people of Wales, Scotland and, indeed, to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, we thought that it was better to have one Bill and to pass the proposals for Wales and Scotland through the House at the same time.

Mr. Sillars

At his Press conference on devolution, did my right hon. Friend explain why there is such a vast difference between the Bill presented—the Scotland and Wales Bill—and the Labour Party policy statement "Bringing Power Back to the People" which was published in the autumn of 1974 in order to get Scottish workers' votes?

Mr. Foot

I think that when my hon. Friend studies the Bill further he may be able to see that his remarks are not really borne out by the facts, in terms of what we have included in the Bill. The Bill gives considerable economic powers to the Scottish Assembly. It gives great powers to fix priorities in expenditure, and I believe that when the people of Scotland have the Assembly in operation they will feel that we have fulfilled the pledges that we made at the last General Election.

Mr. Grimond

Is the Leader of the House aware that it is rumoured that he attended a Press conference this morning at which he explained this Bill, which we now hear that he has not fully read? When he has considered the Bill further, as we hope he will, will he examine not only the point made about separate Bills for Wales and Scotland but the extraordinary position of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is going to continue as a sort of floating kidney in the body politic? Will he also bear in mind that Scotland will be hopelessly over-governed unless the regions are abolished?

Mr. Foot

I certainly said, in response to the hon. Gentleman's question—in order to be truthful to the House, as I always am—that I have not read every word of the Bill, but it appears that the right hon. Gentleman has hardly read a clause or any provision of the Bill. If he did so, he would discover that the powers of the Secretary of State as proposed in the Bill are very different from his description of them. When he has had an opportunity to study the Bill, I trust that we shall have his support, as well.