SCOTLAND AND WALES BILL (Hansard, 2 February 1977)

§ Mr. Griffiths
I was saying that I understood it to be common ground between the Government and most of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we all wish to maintain the undoubted supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament. Experience in election campaigns, whether by-elections or General Elections, will have led many hon. Members on both sides to note that many British people do not pay as much attention to 680 their elections as we do, understandably so. In the case of local elections, they frequently pay so little attention as not to bother to turn out at all. In the case of General Elections, in spite of all the coverage in the Press, on television and all the speeches made, it is within all our experiences that we find many ordinary people who could not care less.
At the end of the day, I believe that the British people regard the decision about this House as the most fundamental political decision that they ever take. They regard it as different from any other decision made by them. It is indispensable that we preserve that unique separate supreme decision as something that our people value and treasure.
Nevertheless, as I have seen from living many years in the United States, if there are too many elections or if the supreme election takes place on the same day as a large number of other elections, there is no doubt that the proliferation of such occasions, whether in time or in number, devalues the whole process. It may be a perverse thing to say that a democracy requires a sparing use of elections, but if there are too many elections the process can be devalued. I am concerned that the proliferation of elections that this Bill will engender could devalue the process.
Whether it is devalued or not, it is crucial that the supreme choice, that is, of the United Kingdom Parliament, should be set apart very clearly in the psychology, in the minds of our people, as well as in the process. That is why I think it would be wholly wrong if, as Amendment No. 109 suggests, an Assembly election in Scotland were to take place while this House was not in Session.
Let us consider a few practical possibilities. Let us suppose that during the period that this House is dissolved there were to be some major economic crisis. No Government would seek an election in these circumstances. But it might be said that in the early part of 1974 there was something not far short of a national crisis during the period of the election. The sterling moved down by about 10 per cent. in a matter of six days. In the words of the late Prime Minister, economic crises can blow up suddenly and push many a Government off course. There could be a 681 sudden event in the international arena. such as an invasion of Korea, intimately involving the United Kingdom.
What is to happen in such circumstances if the whole country is involved not in one election but in three or four? The conduct of affairs would temporarily be in the hands of Ministers, who remain in office irrespective of the fact that a General Election is taking place. They would be required to deal with whatever problem of international, economic or social significance arose. At the same time, they would have an overriding responsibility for ensuring that the Scottish or Welsh election, going on at the same time, was conducted properly.
I realise that in the Bill the responsibilities for the conduct of Assembly elections are clearly set out, but there is the overriding responsibility of Ministers—specifically the Secretary of State—to see that the powers in the Bill are properly used. When a General Election was called, Ministers would be partly in their office but most of the time would be popping out to their constituencies, hoping to preserve their majorities, which may be a difficult task from time to time, often more difficult for Ministers than for any other hon. Member. They would be rushing back and forth, dealing with an international economic crisis and facing demands on television and from whatever opposition existed to deal with the problem differently. At the same time, the Secretaries of State would be responsible for overseeing the conduct of the Assembly elections.
I cannot think of a more caterwauling hullabaloo. It would confuse and—even worse—irritate the British people very much. Therefore, it must be right as a matter of principle to ensure that there is a clear separation in time and in approach between the supreme election of this House and any other elections. In that Amendment No. 109 seeks to achieve that, I believe that it should have support.
I come now to Amendment No. 111. I should possibly be out of order if I took exception to some of the things the right hon. Member for Downside said—[Interruption.] I meant the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I beg 682 the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I understand that that is rather a long way from his proclivities. I was about to say that I disagreed with what he said about the European Parliament, but perhaps I should stick strictly to the amendment.
For some of the reasons I have just given, it cannot be right that there should be an election first for a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, subsequently for the House of Commons and then for the European Parliament, in a matter of six or eight weeks. It would be totally confusing. Unless such an amendment is passed, one possibility would be to have all the elections on the same day, as happens in the United States, where one pulls a single lever and it clicks all the way across when one votes the straight ticket. In the United States, that means electing everybody from the local dog-catcher up through the Assemblyman, Congressman, Senator, Vice-President and President.
It would be possible for these elections to be held on the same date, but it would devalue in the minds of the British people the supreme election, which is the election to this House. I cannot accept that there should be simultaneous elections. If they are not to be simultaneous, it follows that they must be separated by fairly long periods of time so that the campaigns do not get mixed one with the other. We must consider the advertising that is involved, television spots and arguments on the various issues. It is essential that they should be separated if people are to understand the choices.

§ Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Moray and Nairn)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the proposal which has emerged from discussions on the European budget—namely, that a large number of units of account, amounting to about £3 million, should be allowed to assist political groups in the Parliament to advertise their wares in the coming elections—is a good idea? On the other hand, does he not think, as I do, that that is absolutely wrong and that the parties should stand up for themselves and be counted, and that they should win or lose according to their own efforts, without any assistance from taxpayers' money from the EEC countries?

§ Mr. Griffiths
The hon. Lady puts me in something of a dilemma. I never 683 think as she does. On the other hand, I agree with the point she makes. It would be unfortunate if large sums of money were to be milked from any group of taxpayers whether they be in Europe, England or Scotland, in order that the competing parties should be able to hawk their wares. I would find that process objectionable. However, I find it difficult to understand where that argument fits into considerations involving Amendment No. 111. Perhaps it arose from my point that confusion would be caused if the various campaigns were to be held in such a fashion that one ran into the next.
It follows as a matter of principle that either we have simultaneous elections—which for the reasons I have given would be wrong—or, alternatively, they must be staggered at sufficiently wide intervals so that one would not butt on to the other. This would enable the issues to be clearly set out and the British people would not be subjected to a constant repetition of elections within a relatively short period of time. That would thoroughly anger them and confuse the whole issue.

§ Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham and Heston)
That is an interesting point, but it is not the experience of the British in a whole host of local government elections. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that in many cases the most virtuous of local governments, whether Tory or Labour, have still fallen when they have been subjected to national propaganda pressure. Does that not make a nonsense of what the hon. Gentleman is arguing?

§ Mr. Griffiths
I do not think that is right. If local elections, local democracy and local government are to mean anything, elections should be fought and issues decided at that level. What is happening more and more—and I regret it—is that national issues are determining local elections. I am seeking to avoid that situation. Simultaneity as a principle in all elections would give offence at local levels. The spirit of the Act would be stood on its end if decisions in Scotland were to be contested wholly in terms of the United Kingdom elections. Therefore, there is merit in separation. 684 Therefore, far from disagreeing with the hon. Gentleman, I am virtually saying the same thing as he is.

§ Mr. Budgen
This is a crucial issue. It is by no means certain that what we regard as overridingly important United Kingdom issues would be regarded as the most important issues by those who would have simultaneously to take part in elections to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies and to the United Kingdom Parliament.

§ Mr. Griffiths
I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Although he is saying something different from what I said, he is making the same point. The reason why one elevel of election would affect another election does not matter. I imagined that the wider national issue would overwhelm the lesser regional and local issues, but my hon. Friend suggests that the small matters at local level or the mediumsize matters at regional level would interfere with the national decision. My. hon. Friend could have a point, but whichever of those propositions is correct, they both illustrate my argument that the elections should not be held at the same time. I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my argument, even from a diamatrically opposite corner of the field.
I reiterate what I said at the beginning of my speech. The Government tell us that the Bill is founded on the two propositions that nothing in it will affect either the unity of the United Kingdom or the supreme authority of Parliament. That is no more than an assertion, an opinion offered by the Government. My opinion is that it will affect the unity of the United Kingdom and that it will reduce the supreme authority of Parliament. We have two different opinions, and nothing that the Government have said has altered the view held by those of us who disagree with the Bill.
If we implant into the minds of the British people a confusion between one set of elections and another, and if we devalue the supreme choice that they make in a United Kingdom election, we shall most certainly affect not only the 685 unity of the United Kingdom but also the perceived supreme authority of Parliament. Therefore, it is important, if these amendments in their precise 686 language are not agreed, that there should be something similar written into the Bill to ensure that there will be no simultaneity of elections and that there will be reasonable separation of election dates.

§ Mr. George Thompson
My remarks will be brief but I hope that they will help the Minister in replying to the debate. I hope that the Government will resist both amendments. Parliamentary elections are normally fixed by Prime Ministers juggling with various factors in their mind in order to achieve the maximum political advantage for their parties. I am sure that at times Prime Ministers even consider when local government elections will take place in any part of the United Kingdom when coming to a decision on when they will call a General Election.
I see that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is here. I want to point out to him that it could well be argued that the cheapest way to get all the elections over would be to hold them all at the same time, on one day, in the same polling stations, with the same returning officers. Provided polling was done on different coloured pieces of paper, it could all be sorted out and much time and money would be saved. I know that that would appeal to the hon. Member

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)
If we accepted that there should be elections in Scotland for the European Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Assembly, regional councils, district councils, and—in some areas—community councils all on the same day, would decide the day?

§ Mr. Thompson
I have no doubt that the Price Minister would be able to do just that. But of course the hon. Member will have noticed—although I realise that, because of problems of English punctuation, it is not possible to record this in the columns of Hansard—that I am speaking with my tongue in my cheek. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour since becoming Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland.
Are some hon. Members trying to say—though they are too discrete to say it in so many words—that the Scots and Welsh electors are too stupid to know what they would be doing if one or two elections fell at around the same time? On at least one occasion we have had 688 district and regional elections in Scotland on the same day and, as far as I know, the electors did not experience enormous difficulties.
If this situation occurred several times in a person's lifetime, he would become used to it. Some hon. Members are making a great song and dance about the possibility of elections on the same day or at about the same time. I do not believe that this would happen often and if it happened only occasionally I am sure that the electors would be able to distinguish between the various bodies to which they were electing Members.
Alternatively, are some hon. Members trying, indirectly, to suggest that Scottish local authorities are too inefficient to run more than one election at the same time?

§ Sir Raymond Gower
Cannot the hon. Gentleman imagine the predicament of an elector faced with five election addresses for a parliamentary election, three or four addresses for Assembly elections, two or three for elections to the European Parliament, half a dozen for county or regional authority elections and two or three for district elections? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his proposal is absurd?

§ Mr. Thompson
I do not think so. Many electors would solve that problem by using all those addresses to kindle the fire. I have used addresses for that purpose myself, although I have found them less effective than daily papers for kindling.

§ Mr. Onslow
The hon. Gentleman's riposte to my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) indicates the levity with which he is treating this subject. That is unfortunate because there is a serious point at issue. If parliamentary elections were held at the same time as Assembly elections and one man was standing in both elections, he would enjoy a considerable advantage over his rivals in the expenditure that he was allowed to incur in his election campaign. We are rather careful in this country not to allow money to buy votes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will turn his attention to this matter, which is capable of considerable abuse.

§ Mr. Thompson
In Scotland we have a slightly different sense of humour from 689 that enjoyed in England and we often find it possible to treat serious subjects in what appears to be a lighthearted way. We have had this faculty for many centuries, as the hon. Gentleman would know if he had studied Scottish literature, and we do not lose it merely by our coming to this House. I am not treating the matter as unimportant, although I am dealing with it in a humourous way.
We had an interesting debate last year on the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill when we discussed the fact that from now on parliamentary elections in Scotland will be run by local authority officers instead of by sheriffs. I remember the Minister chiding us gently because, in our desire to praise the previous system, we did less than justice to the ability of local authorities to handle district, regional and parliamentary elections and, in due course, presumably, Assembly and European elections. I am sure that the Minister will draw the same conclusions tonight as he drew from our discussions on the Returning Officers (Scotland) Bill.
It seems to me that at least some hon. Members are very busy patronising the Scottish people. We are continually being treated as though we are a lot of savages who cannot understand complicated things as people in other parts of the United Kingdom can, or as though we are so uncivilised that they have to condescend to us to save us from our unfortunate evil natures. I can only assure those hon. Members that what they say in this Chamber will be carried back to Scotland and the Scottish people will draw their conclusions from what they have said.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) when he says that the unity of the United Kingdom is an expedient. It is not some sort of mystical factor in the constitution of these islands, but it is an expedient which was found useful at one time, and which my hon. Friends and I believe is becoming less and less useful. If authority drains away to Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg, on the one hand, and drains away to Edinburgh, on the other, we in Scotland will eventually reach the conclusion that much the simplest way to deal with these matters is to deal with the one lot in Edinburgh and the other lot in Brussels.
690 I have often put that point at election times when speaking to people on the doorstep. I have said "Think about this. We want something done which has to be done in the European Economic Community. What do we do? We send it to Edinburgh, it goes to London, and then it goes to Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg. What do you think would be the most economical and easy way to deal with it?" Of course, people say "Send it straight from Edinburgh to Brussels, Luxembourg, or Strasbourg." It would certainly simplify matters if Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg were amalgamated.
Therefore, I put it to hon. Members that, since authority has manifestly drained to the European Economic Community, which is why we shall need direct elections, and since, through devolution, authority in a certain measure will be removed to Edinburgh, the position of this honourable House becomes more and more problematical. This is a matter to which the Scottish people and the people of England will have to direct their attention in years to come. I am fairly confident of the solution upon which they will eventually resolve.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
I hope that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson) was not offended by my remarks but, quite frankly, although he kept saying that he was dealing with the subject in a lighthearted and jocular way, my problem was that I could not see the joke. We are, in fact, discussing a serious issue.
The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that we ought not to be patronising to the Scots as though they could not cope with something with which the English could cope, but surely the whole point of this debate is that we are creating a problem for the Scots and the Welsh with which the English will not have to cope. [Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means by that.

§ Mr. Andrew Welsh (South Angus)
I was simply trying to point out that the hon. Gentleman should be addressing the Chair and not my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson).

§ Mr. Taylor
The trouble is that I am saying nasty things, and when I do that I always prefer to look at the nationalists rather than at you, Mr. Godman Irvine.
691 We are dealing with a very serious subject. There is no doubt that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) said, unless we get this right we might face a serious problem, and we are moving into entirely uncharted seas.
In Britain most electors are used to having elections for Parliament and elections for their local authority. But even that can cause some problems. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others pointed out, there were problems of one kind or another in 1955 when we had elections for local authorities and for Parliament at the same time. There were conflicting views about it, and even with only two elections coming roughly at the same time certain problems for some people did emerge.

§ Mr. Hooson
The hon. Gentleman is grossly exaggerating the problem. The Americans, who are, after all not noticeably brighter than the people of Britain, vote for everyone from the President downwards in one place. They have a great list and they have no difficulty.

Hon. Members
And all on one day.

§ Mr. Taylor
Yes, all on one day, with voting machines and the rest. The trouble is that we are here creating a system in which, unfortunately, certain things are not for our determination. We have in this clause a procedure for having elections every four years for the Scottish Assembly, subject to certain variations. We have restrictions on local authority elections being at specified times. Even if we wanted to have them all on one day it is not something that we could do under the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
I would ask the Government whether where there are six kinds of elections for six separate authorities these problems have been looked at and overcome. Apart from America, where there is a different procedure for the chief of police and the president, the only other place I can think of is Albania, and things are simple there because there is only one party and voting is compulsory. Have the Government, in moving into the uncharted seas of having a lot of elections within a limited period of years, considered the experience of other countries and whether this problem has been overcome?

§ Mr. Thompson
Has the hon. Member been to Albania?

§ Mr. Taylor
I have not been to Albania, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends who have been ejected from the Scottish Labour Party can give me plenty of advice about Albania and what goes on there.

§ Mr. Thompson
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that since certain elections are held at fixed periods, or nearly fixed periods, the Prime Minister of the day would choose a different time for the Parliamentary election? Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is not likely to occur.

§ Mr. Taylor
It may well be that it is not so likely, but if we have elections on fixed days we have the scope of four months during which the Assembly elections can take place. The possibility of making the voters punch drunk with elections always arises when we group together more elections and more powers and authority and when we have European elections as well.
I find that when we have elections coming very closely together other problems can arise. The dangers are pretty obvious. First, if these elections take place within a limited period there is the danger of denigrating the whole basis of democracy and doing damage to the ballot box. Up to now our experience has been that we have parliamentary elections and elections for local authorities. We have not had a situation where we have had Assemblies in Edinburgh and London with certain concurring and conflicting powers. This is a matter that we must get right.
I can see the problem about some of the technicalities in the amendment. Like the right hon. Member for Down, South I can see problems with regard to Amendment No. 111. What would be the position if an Assembly election had been held and there was a parliamentary election within two months? Under Amendment No. 111 it might mean that the result of the Scottish Assembly election would have to be declared null and void.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will accept from the excellent speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and others, that we see 693 real problems occurring if elections for the Westminster Parliament and the Assemblies take place within a certain period too close to each other, or if we have an Assembly election when Parliament has been dissolved.
It is interesting that the persons who feel there is no real problem are the representatives of the SNP. The reason is quite clear. Most of us are anxious to get this right because we want to preserve the basis of British democracy whereas SNP Members are concerned with breaking up Britain and creating a separate Scottish State. If an Assembly were created and our democracy were brought into disrepute, obviously the people who would not be greatly concerned are the representatives of the SNP.
But I hope that the Minister will accept that many of us feel that major problems would emerge. We want to arrive at the solution. If the Minister will not accept my hon. Friend's proposals, I hope that at least he will agree that there is a problem and will say that the Government have thought about it and have some answers to the problem.

§ Mr. Harry Ewing
Both the amendments are fraught with difficulties. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) was out of the Chamber for a short period during which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) took apart the amendment dealing with the relationship between the elections to the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies and parliamentary elections. The right hon. Member explained all the difficulties.
Perhaps I may put on record the position from which we start in relation to the holding of the elections. I do not intend to be drawn into a debate about direct elections to the European Parliament, or into any matter relating to EEC policy. This is neither the place nor the time to discuss these matters.
We begin from the position that elections to the local authorities are held on fixed dates which are known. We start from the position that if and when EEC direct elections take place, they will be held on a fixed date which is known. We start from the position that the elections to the Assembly will be held on a 694 fixed date within the flexibility allowed to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, as contained in Clause 3(2).
That brings us to the parliamentary election. The Prime Minister of the day would obviously take into account all these factors when he was deciding the date of the General Election. So, against that background I do not see the problems which have been presented in the various speeches during what has been a very reasonable debate.
In a sense the relationship between direct elections to the EEC and the Assembly elections is not nearly so important as the weight which has been attached to it during the debate would seem to indicate. I say that for the simple reason that those elections would take place every five years on a fixed date. Therefore, if there were to be a clash—and that is hypothetical—it would occur only once every 20 years.

§ Mr. Onslow
I am naturally sorry that I missed the total demolition of my argument by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I look forward to reading it in Hansard. Am I to understand that the Minister sees the Prime Minister as always being free to choose a date for a General Election which does not conflict with the date, which appears to be regarded as something of a fixture, on which the Assembly elections will be known to take place? That is an odd sense if priorities. It is difficult to accept the proposition that it is so important not to disturb the dates forecast, if not necessarily pre-ordained, for Assembly elections by allowing the national interest of the Union as a whole to take first place.

§ Mr. Ewing
To a certain extent the hon. Gentleman has anticipated the next part of my argument. I was coming to the point about what would happen if an Assembly election had been set in motion and if, for various reasons, it was necessary to dissolve the House of Commons. If the amendment relating to the relationship between the parliamentary election and the Assembly elections were accepted, the Scottish and Welsh Assembly elections would have to be suspended. I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking will see tremendous difficulties if that situation arose.
695 The great doubt is about the date on which a General Election is likely to be held. The Government felt that the right and proper way to approach the whole problem—we do not say that there is not a problem but, having considered the matter, we do not regard it as being a great one—was by giving the flexibility to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales that is provided in Clause 3(2), which enables them to vary the elections by two months either way for the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked how much notice the Secretaries of State would require to give of his or her intention to use the varying powers contained within Clause 3(2). The answer is—I am sure it is the one that the right hon. Gentleman expects—that the timing of the Assembly elections would obviously be one of the matters for discussion. The uncertainty about the parliamentary election would be one of the issues for discussion between the Secretaries of State and the Assembly. There would be discussions on whether the date should be varied—for example, whether it should be varied two months either way, or even one month either way.
I say in all honesty to the right hon. Gentleman that it is not possible to give the sort of definitive answer that Ministers normally like to give to such questions. I have to rest my case on the answer that I have given to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that this is a matter for discussion. However, in the interests of certainty for the Assembly, for Parliament and, most important of all, for the electorate—it is the key to democracy in this country—the Secretaries of State would want to give as much notice as was humanly possible in all the circumstances.

§ Mr. Onslow
I understand that on account of the mechanics—namely, the tasks that have to be carried out by the returning officers in the conduct of an election—the absolute minimum period from start to finish for a parliamentary election is about five weeks. I do not know whether the Minister can confirm that, but I believe that that period is incapable of being telescoped further. From start to finish a parliamentary election occupies five weeks because of the process of getting ballot papers printed, nomination papers printed and getting the whole 696 thing set up. If the Minister dissents, I shall be interested to know what he believes to be the minimum period.

§ Mr. Powell
Twenty-two days.

§ Mr. Onslow
I think that my right hon. Friend is being a little optimistic from the point of view of the returning officers. Does the Minister say that the same period applies for an Assembly election as for a parliamentary election? If an Assembly election has been put under way, for how long can there not be a General Election?

§ Mr. Ewing
I stand to be corrected, but my memory is that the February 1974 election was called on about 10th February.

§ Mr. Powell
The 7th February.

§ Mr. Ewing
Yes, it was called on 7th February and polling took place 21 days later, on 28th February. That is a recent example of a three-week interval between the date on which an election was called and polling day taking place. By 2nd or 3rd March Members had begun to be sworn in. Five weeks would be an extraordinarily long period and not in common with recent practice. I do not see the time factor being a problem.
The Government are content to rest their case on the flexibility that is contained within Clause 3(2) for the timing of Assembly elections because of all the factors that I have mentioned—namely, the fixed dates, the other series of elections with which we are concerned and, conversely, the uncertainty of the date of any parliamentary election.
10.45 p.m.
I suspect that the Committee knows that these amendments would not be acceptable. I always take amendments at their face value. I realise that they are moved to try to improve the legislation. These amendments would not do that. Therefore, I invite the hon. Member for Woking to ask leave to withdraw them. If not, I must ask the Committee to reject them.

§ Mr. Onslow
I am not sure that I should accept the precedent of the February 1974 election as the ideal to which we should aspire in either timing or other ways. I prefer to adhere to my figure of an average of five weeks from 697 start to finish. Discussing the other aspects of the February 1974 election would be out of order, which is perhaps just as well.
I should like the Minister to give more thought to this matter. There is a point here about which I think he may need to satisfy the Committee at a later stage.
This has been a useful and constructive debate. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move Amendment No. 115, in page 2, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert— '(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 96, in page 2, line 13, after 'State', insert 'and approved by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'. No. 105, in page 2, line 17, at beginning insert: 'Subject to affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament'. No. 116, in page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (4).

§ Mr. Page
Subsection (4) provides that A statutory instrument made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament". The amendment would substitute for that subjection: '(4) No Order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament'. Under the provisions of Clause 3 the Secretary of State can make two kinds of orders. First, by order he can fix the day for the first elections of the Assemblies. Secondly, by order he can alter the statutory date for any subsequent elections by two months either side of that date. I submit that no order could be of more importance than the initial order setting the Assemblies on their way—that is, appointing the day of the first elections.
698 The earlier debates on Clause 3 have shown only too clearly the considerations which the Secretary of State would have to take into account before making any such order for the first elections of these Assemblies. I feel sure that the House of Commons, having created the Assemblies, would wish to ensure that the time was right and that all the preparations had been properly made for the first elections. In other words, having built the ship, Parliament would not wish to launch it unless the economic tide were right and the political wind were blowing correctly. We want the elections of these new Assemblies to take place at the right time.
That has been recognised in Clause 3 which says that the first elections shall be fixed by an order by the Secretary of State laid before this Parliament. If it is laid before Parliament and is subject to the procedure by annulment, it will be open to any right hon. or hon. Member to pray against the order. That would enable the House to debate it.
The second type of order which could fix dates for elections subsequent to the first and involving the period between two months on either side of the fixed date may be of vital importance under certain economic circumstances, in other times of crisis affecting the country or in any conditions applicable to the Assemblies themselves—for instance, when there are disputes between the parties in the Assemblies.
The time at which the order is made may be of great importance. Yet Clause 3 says that either of these orders, that which sets up the first election or that which varies the fixed date in subsequent elections, shall be relegated to the status of a second-class, subordinate piece of legislation. I say second class because I put in the first class the type of order that comes before the House of Commons on an affirmative resolution and which is tabled by the Government. When an order is merely subject to annulment, there is doubt about whether it will be debated under our present procedures. But if an order is subject to the affirmative procedure, the Government must bring it before the House on a motion to approve it and hon. Members will be able to debate it.
We are now discussing a type of order which we have never seen in the House 699 before. These are orders which fix elections for new Assemblies in the United Kingdom. I admit that there is no rule about what should be subject to affirmative procedure, or negative procedure, or whether a matter should be laid before the House at all. There is no fixed, specific criterion to which we can point. Such matters have always been decided by common sense, but when a matter is of such importance we should ensure that the House has the opportunity to debate it.
When an order is creating new law and breaking new ground the House should be ensured of that opportunity. The acceptance of my amendment cannot do the Bill any harm. There is no reason why the affirmative procedure should cause delay. The clause already recognises that the issue is worthy of debate but, because our procedure is as it is at present, that debate is not ensured by the Bill. I want to ensure that these orders will be debated and that the Government will have a statutory obligation to bring them before the House of Commons to move that they be approved and to allow the House of Commons to debate them.

§ Mr. Powell
I trust that the Minister of State will not treat the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) simply as being one of the run-of-the-mill "substitute 'affirmative procedure' for 'negative procedure'" amendments that customarily punctuate Committee stages. In this case there is a very clear practical reason that tips the scale in favour of the affirmative procedure. It is additional to the consideration of importance that the right hon. Gentleman adduced and argued.
The practical reason is this. I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that it is of great importance that there should be certainty, as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has taken the decision, about what will in fact be the date for the election. Under the negative procedure, after the order has been made, and after, therefore, everyone is entitled to act upon it, there will be 40 parliamentary days—if I may use that abbreviated expression—at the very end of the which the House of Commons can come to a different decision.
I am sure that the Minister of State would accept that in dealing with such a 700 matter we must assume that it is possible for an annulment to take place—otherwise it is a pure waste of time to legislate at all. He will also agree that it can happen that the debate on a Prayer takes place at the very end of the available statutory 40 parliamentary days. On this very morning the House of Commons voted upon a Prayer which was at the last gasp of its prayable period. If, therefore, the order were to be annulled under the negative procedure, about five or six weeks after the order had been made all might well be thrown into confusion again.
I know that these orders provide that nothing done under them up to that point of time shall be invalid. However, the fact is that if the order were annulled and the Government, for good reason, did not lay it again the following day—which has been known to happen—all the arrangements for the election would be rendered nugatory. That would be wasteful, tiresome and absurd. I am sure that it is not a result that the Minister of State could defend.
If the thing is done by the affirmative procedure, until the order is made, at any rate, until the draft is approved by the House of Commons—it is usually a day or two before the actual making of the order—no one would have the right to assume the date, but from the moment when the draft was approved by the House of Commons, everyone would be in a state of complete certainty.
If this is an aspect that has not been examined, the Minister of State may wish to reserve it for reconsideration. However, I put it to him that this is a very practical matter. It is not just an amendment for the sake of finding some amendment to propose. It is very apt to the circumstances in which these orders will be made.

§ Mr. Brittan
I find myself persuaded by what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said. As a purely practical point, it is desirable that anyone interested should know for certain and as soon as possible when the elections are to be held. However, points of principle were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), and I support what he said about those aspects of the matter.
701 We are not talking about an ordinary, routine exercise of a power. Nor are we talking about a mere procedural matter—the issue of detailed regulations in the exercise of some power given by the Bill. Whether we like it or not, in both cases these are important political decisions. The date of the first election of a constitutional innovation such as these Assemblies is a matter of great constitutional importance affecting both Scotland and Wales, and we think that the House of Commons should be a party to what will be a political decision.
I understand that the variation of the ordinary elections after the first election is meant to be a kind of reserve power to operate in the event of an emergency, or for special reasons, and to be a variant to be applied to the normal operation of the elections on the date prescribed under the Bill. If that is so, and if there is to be a disturbance of the prescribed pattern of elections in Scotland and Wales and the constitutional procedures set up by the Bill, it is not unreasonable to require the Secretary of State to persuade the House of the reasons for his variation, albeit within the narrow ambit of the date laid down by the Bill.
For all those reasons, I hope that the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend will commend itself to the House.

§ Mr. Hooson
I should explain on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that I do not propose to move Amendment No. 116, which has been selected for debate with these other amendments, for the simple reason that it is a consequential amendment which would have arisen only if we had been able to remove the Secretary of State's discretion.
It seems to me that the debate on this subject illustrates the confusion that enters into these matters when a discretion is given to the Secretary of State. Subsection (4) is necessary only as a safeguard, and a safeguard is necessary only because the Secretary of State is allowed a discretion. If it were a fixed term, as it should be, simpliciter, none of these safeguards would be required.

§ Mr. John Smith
It is always a matter of judgment whether the safeguard that Parliament has is the affirmative procedure or the negative procedure. As 702 the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, we are familiar with this argument in nearly every Committee that sits on nearly every Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee upstairs. I have had a fair share of arguments about this type of procedure.
I have listened with great care to the case that has been made. I think that there is a distinction to be drawn between the first election and subsequent ones. I hope that the exercise of the power by the Secretary of State for the elections subsequent to the first will be almost automatic, following consultations with the devolved Administrations. In those circumstances—I am talking only about elections subsequent to the first—I think that there is an argument for saying that the House would have a sufficient safeguard in the power of hon. Members to pray against orders, and it might not be appropriate to make provision for the affirmative procedure.
On the other hand, I think that the right hon. Members for Down, South, and Crosby (Mr. Page) and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) have made a case with regard to the first election. I should like to consider that, because I confess that althought they put forward an argument that I knew existed, they put it forward more persuasively than I had heard it argued before and with a force that I think obliges me to consider the situation. What I am saying is that I shall reconsider the position on the first election, which I think is in a different category from the subsequent ones. It is the intention of the Governments that have been put forward the soon as possible, and that is likely to be in March 1978.
I hope that because of the assurance that I have given to consider the arguments that have been put forward the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

§ Mr. Graham Page
I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for supplementing my argument in favour of an affirmative resolution to approve these orders. Of course I am not fully satisfied with what the Minister said. I hope that the affirmative procedure would apply to both kinds of orders. If he is going to think again 703 about the application of this to the order fixing the first election—I take it from the way he spoke that he will find that the affirmative procedure is appropriate—will he think again about what he said in justifying the annulment procedure for the orders relating to subsequent elections?
The Minister said that the orders would be merely on technical subjects. In previous debates we have thought of these orders as providing for a crisis clause if there is an emergency over the fixed date. If they are emergency orders, we should be assured of a debate in the House upon them. The argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South applies particularly to orders of that sort so that the Government may be certain that they themselves control the date on which that order becomes completely effective. The Government cannot control the date on which the order subject to annulment procedure will never be subject to annulment within the 40 days for which the procedure applies.
I hope that while the Minister is thinking about the one he will also think about the other and perhaps eventually accept my amendment. But for tonight, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.