HC Deb 18 January 1977 vol 924 cc211-44

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Abse

I was about to say that the second act of the Welsh Assembly would be to create its Civil Service. There has been a serious under-estimation of the number of civil servants that would be needed. The estimation was based on the assumption that the only civil servants would be those shared with Whitehall and the Welsh Office. But the Welsh Assembly is bound to want its own civil servants, not just out of prestigiousness and a whim, but because the Assembly will know that it will have to engage in battles—at least annually—with Whitehall in order to get money. There would be an intolerable conflict of interest, as the Kilbrandon Report points out, if the Assembly did not have a separate Civil Service.

It must be frankly acknowledged, as the Secretary of State for Wales has said frequently, "That is the cost of democracy". But people must be told that if this is what Wales is going to do, there are bound to be literally thousands of additional civil servants.

The third task of the Assembly would be to gather powers. The Assembly would devour existing local authorities. The Secretary of State for Wales has announced that he would expect the Assembly to review local government in Wales. That may not be an exciting subject for hon. Members who represent English constituencies, but they ought to know enough of the sensitivity of local authorities in their areas to understand that there naturally has been a serious reaction from all local authorities who find that a body is being created that will feed upon them and take their powers.

It has rightly been pointed out that planning responsibility could be taken from an authority in a distant part of Wales and concentrated in the Assembly in the capital. So it could come about, presumably, that the whole existing structure would ultimately be changed. In the meantime, our little Wales, with its small population, would be absolutely and ridiculously over-governed. If there must be cuts in local government and if there is to be an Assembly, any rational government would first try to put right what the Tories made wrong—that is, the reorganisation of local government in Wales—and then to give consideration to an Assembly—not to create an Assembly to act as a devourer of all existing authorities.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes

My hon. Friend may wish to remind the Committee that any legislation to reform local government in Wales would be a matter for the House of Commons.

Mr. Abse

Of course it would be, but is it seriously believed that, if the Welsh Assembly were determined to decide a scheme of local government, the House of Commons would get involved in a stand-up confrontation over those proposals? Of course it would not. By putting forward such a weak argument, my right hon. Friend reveals how much power is going to the Assembly and how residual will be the power left here.

I have been dealing with what I have seen as matters affecting hon. Members other than Welsh Members, but I cannot forbear, when I am aware of the attention being directed to this matter in the Principality, from turning to matters which some hon. Members may regard as the trivia of my contribution, but which, in Wales, may be regarded as the substance.

There have been a number of references to the advertisement in the Western Mail which demands that under no circumstances should we do anything but vote for the Government on this amendment. The advertisement has been read in detail and contains 600 or 700 names. As was confirmed earlier, the list includes the names of some people who gave no authority for their names to be used. The principal of a university says that the organisers had no right to use his name. One of the most distinguished Labour council leaders has said that his name should not be in the advertisement and we can see that, in order to swell the list, the name of one bishop apppears twice.

A motley crew has been gathered together. We see some of the people in the Liberal Party whom we call professional Welshmen joining with Communists, who are well known in their own areas, to say that Parliament must let Wales decide.

An extraordinary feature of almost all the people on the list is that they were as opposed to a referendum as was the Secretary of State, and no one could have been more opposed than he. Throughout Wales he insisted that there must not, could not, and should not, be a referendum. On what by-way or lane, on the way to which little Welsh Damascus did the conversion take place?

Perhaps I should be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport and say that no one was more passionately opposed to a referendum than he. But suddenly all these opponents of a referendum found an enthusiasm which excelled that of my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), Bedwellty and myself who took the initiative and managed to secure a referendum. When I am considering what I have to do about the amendment, I cannot be expected, except in one particular, to pay much weight to what comes from those firm opponents of a referendum now pleading that they should have one.

The point which, in one particular, begins to make me feel that perhaps I should vote for the amendment is that this highly publicised advertisement says: The need for a DIRECTLY ELECTED WELSH ASSEMBLY and the expectation that has been built up over the last ten years has reached a point where any frustration of the aspiration would dangerously threaten social harmony in Wales and relationships in Britain as a whole. Hon. Members know threats when they see them. When I am sometimes asked not to be intemperate when I speak in Wales, my reply is that of course I shall be intemperate about matters which concern Wales and are disadvantageous to my constituency. But I shall not be an inciter of violence, and I shall not pretend and affect to be so concerned as to what happens as to suggest that, whatever may be the results, violence in our peaceful Wales would come about. I am bound to say that, knowing as I do that in Wales or elsewhere there are inevitably irresponsible minorities.

Mr. Anderson

Is my hon. Friend aware that, certainly in my constituency, it is not the barricades but the flags that will go up if the amendment is carried?

Mr. Abse

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East speaks for Swansea as I speak for Ponty-pool, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport does not speak for his constituency.

Mr. Roy Hughes

The vast difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and myself is that while we both made promises, following endless meetings of the Welsh Labour Group before the General Elections of 1974, when it was unanimously agreed that the call for a Welsh Assembly should be inserted in the Labour Party manifesto, I have honoured my obligations while he has not done so.

Mr. Abse

When the claim is made, as it is by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, that what I and others are now not wanting to do—and I mean those who take my view of the Welsh Labour movement—is contrary to the manifesto, I am bound to say, as I have said elsewhere, that perhaps some of my hon. Friends will agree with me that there are some other matters in the manifesto which perhaps the Government have not been able to deliver. On no occasion in the last General Election was I even asked in Pontypool by anyone about devolution. On the previous occasion I was asked only once. The truth of the matter is that when people say that this was sold to the electorate—

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

Mr. Abse

My hon. Friend—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Order.

Mr. Roy Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. In view of the fact—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I rose to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that two hon. Members were on their feet at the same time but that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) had the Floor.

Mr. Roy Hughes

Will my hon. Friend now give way, please?

Mr. Abse

Very well, but I should tell my hon. Friend before I do so that this is the last occasion.

Mr. Roy Hughes

I wanted to draw my hon. Friend's attention, on the question of the promise made in the General Election manifestos of the Labour Party in both General Elections of 1974, to the fact that before our promise was inserted there were endless meetings of the Welsh Labour Group and eventually, on 6th November 1973, the group took a unanimous decision.

Twenty-six out of 27 Members were present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans). A unanimous agreement was reached on the need for the creation of a strong Welsh Assembly. I stood by that decision which was freely given. I still do and I shall do so in the vote this evening.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Abse

When people say that it was in the manifesto and was sold as such to the electorate of Wales, I am reminded of the cheap huckster who goes to the door and, having presented a contract for sale, carefully conceals by leger demain the small print. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport knows full well that the issue was not discussed in the constituencies of Wales.

I regret that the threats issued against me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport—my neighbour and comrade—on Second Reading were inevitably reported in the local newspaper that he and I share in our constituencies. In the face of those threats, and in the light of my hon. Friend's provocations contained in the extravagant attacks upon myself and other Labour Members, particularly in Gwent, there is a considerable temptation to respond in the way that I am sure the overwhelming majority of the citizens in the proud town of Newport would wish.

I have been deluged with letters from Newport. Nearly all of them were from Labour supporters declaring their total distaste for the Bill. I am not surprised.

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

Mr. Abse

No, I shall not give way.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order.

Mr. Abse

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport did not have the courtesy to give me notice of the highly personalised attack that he launched upon me on Second Reading. I need hardly say that he had full knowledge that I was going to speak.

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

Mr. Abse

No, I am not giving way.

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. If the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) is hoping to catch the eye of the Chair, he is not performing particularly wisely at the moment.

Mr. Roy Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Surely it is against the traditions of the House of Commons for personal insinuations to be made but for no avenue to be given for reply.

The Second Deputy Chairman

That is not a point of order for me. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can make an effort to catch my eye at some subsequent time.

Mr. Roy Hughes

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Abse

No, I shall not. The Committee may understand that the referendum campaign has begun.

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must contain himself.

Mr. Abse

I am not surprised that so many people in Newport, fearing, as they must. The ultimate—

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

Mr. Abse

No, I am not giving way.

Mr. Roy Hughes

rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman

Order. I have already advised the hon. Member for Newport on at least three occasions that only one hon. Member may be on his feet at one time.

Mr. Abse

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Godman Irvine.

I am not so surprised that so many people in Newport realise that the ultimate consequences of the Bill would be to reduce Newport to a frontier town hemmed in by a stockade of English prejudice and dominated from Cardiff by a Welsh-speaking bureaucratic elite and a veritable army of civil servants. What does not surprise me is the action of the people of Newport, who have written to me dissociating themselves from the views of their own Member of Parliament and the rather uncharacteristic insensi- tivity that he displays towards his constituents for whom, I acknowledge, he normally fights so bravely.

Like me and like my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport has the privilege of being a member of a great trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, although he has an advantage over me in that before coming to the House of Commons he was an official of that union. But I suspect that, since I was originally a member of the union, long before I became a solicitor, when I worked in a factory in pre-war years, my length of membership may be longer than his. To his constituency party, as is his right, he receives a substantial subvention from that union, which I do not. But I am sure that—

Mr. Roy Hughes

On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine. Seeing that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool is insinuating that I have actually been in receipt of money from the T & GWU, I should like it to be clear to the Committee that, although I was an official of that union for some years before coming to the House, I have never received a penny personally from that union.

Mr. Abse

I did not intend to make any suggestion of that kind. I spoke of my hon. Friend's constituency party. I said that he was a sponsored Member. That is his right, as I made clear. But I am sure that the very distinguished and able Welsh area secretary of his union, who is also secretary of the Wales TUC and who, since he came from the Midlands, has contributed so much to Wales, even though he is an enthusiastic devolutionist, would not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Newport to treat the Newport electorate like a branch of the Transport and General Workers Union.

I respect the views of some of the officials of that great union. That is one matter and one which those of us who have the privilege of being union members must take into account in our decisions. But to follow them slavishly is quite another matter, and I believe that the confusion in the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport arises because—

Mr. Heffer

Will my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) please desist from these unnecessary attacks on other hon. Members, because they are sponsored or otherwise, and keep to the argument about devolution? I am a sponsored Member and, frankly, it would not matter whether my union had taken one view or another; I should act according to my conscience. I know that other hon. Members would do likewise. I ask my hon. Friend not to continue that type of argument.

Mr. Abse

I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) would act in that way. I am asking why it is that my hon. Friend representing a town like Newport indulged in this extraordinary series of attacks on myself in the House on Second Reading. I have made my attitude clear in my constituency and in the local Press, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport must learn that the fact that I ignored his attacks on Second Reading does not allow him to assume that those who fight against the Bill should be referred to the Race Relations Board, as he has suggested I should be. He must not believe that he can bully me any more than I can be blackmailed by the type of advertisement to which I have referred.

I have attempted to deal with the major issues and some of those on the periphery, and I now come to my con- clusion and decision. I understand the position of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and for Swansea, East, who have indicated their dilemma quite frankly. They are in some difficulty, as I am, because, having fought to get a referendum, they do not want to be taunted by the accusation that they have then sought to deprive the people of Wales of that referendum by voting for the amendment. They are throwing themselves on the good offices of the Secretary of State for Wales in the belief that in the referendum, if it comes, they will not be accused, because they voted with the Government, of having, in fact, agreed with and shown by their votes that they supported the Bill when they have made it abundantly clear that they do not.

Knowing the polemics of Welsh debates and the dissonances which will grow in a Wales which feels passionately about both sides of the argument, I believe that they may be hostages to fortune, although I respect their motives. I cannot bring myself to take an action which could be interpreted as if I were supporting a Bill which I abhorred. It is a Bill which, I believe, is contrary to the interests of my constituents and affronts what I believe to be my democratic Socialist principles. Because of that, the Government will not find me in the Lobby with them this evening.

Mr. Foot

My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) has covered most of the issues which have been discussed in this debate and I shall do my best to reply to the arguments which he has presented, and which have been raised by many other hon. Members as well. If I concentrate in the main on what my hon. Friend has said, I do not believe that other hon. Members will think that this is a departure from the proper rules of debate, because he has covered most of the arguments.

My hon. Friend argued at the beginning of his remarks—and he has criticised Government spokesmen of alleged delinquency on a number of occasions—that not merely was it wrong to have Wales and Scotland dealt with in the same Bill but that spokesmen of the Government have never come forward and stated the reasons why the two countries should be dealt with in the same Bill. I have my responsibility along with other members of the Government in that respect. One of the first propositions I had to face when I succeeded my predecessor in this office was the question of how to proceed with this Bill. A number of questions had to be decided, and one of them was whether we should deal with devolution in two Bills or in one.

10.30 p.m.

I believed, on the merits of the matter, that it was better to have one Bill. Although there were to be different proposals for dealing with Scotland and Wales, it was still the same subject. It was devolution that had to be settled, with devolved powers to the new Assemblies to be established in Edinburgh and Cardiff. As the proposition was to deal with devolved powers in both cases, it was logical that the matter should be dealt with in the same Bill.

If we had decided on two Bills, some would have argued that the Scottish Bill should take precedence and be introduced first. The Welsh Bill would have had to wait for a considerable period. It might even be difficult to envisage introducing it this Session. That would have been an indication to the people of Wales that we were giving a secondary place to what was proposed for Wales, and the possibility of carrying forward the proposition for Wales which we were pledged to do in our election manifesto would fade from the picture in this Parliament.

Had we decided to have two Bills and to postpone the Welsh Bill possibly until the next Session, nobody would have been more pleased than my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool, who is opposed to any devolution for Wales. That consideration also weighed with us. Many people in Wales who are passionately opposed to any form of devolution would have welcomed the postponement of proposals for Wales. We were determined to prove to the people of Wales our good faith and determination to carry this matter forward as strongly as we could.

I shall not go into the arguments which have broken out between my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and for Pontypool but shall put the matter as unpejoratively as possible. We recognise the origin of the proposals. However much my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool may say that we should take little account of the discussions within the Welsh Parliamentary Labour Party prior to the February 1974 election, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Newport gave a perfectly accurate account, and that they should be set on one side as a matter of no significance, it is a matter which we who attach great importance to those discussions should take into account.

It was on the basis of those disscusions and our interpretation of the Kilbrandon recommendations that we went forward and put our proposals to the people of Wales. The fact that few questions were asked in Pontypool, Newport or elsewhere on these matters during the General Election campaign does not alter the fact that our commitment was absolutely clear. We had to take into account all these questions when we considered whether to have one Bill or two.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that many Labour Members who abstained on Second Reading are prepared to accept that the Government may have got the matter right and interpreted the feelings of the people of Wales correctly but believe that until we have a referendum we shall not know? Many of us are not prepared to support any changes or to support the Government's proposals in the Bill until there has been a referendum that will give us the opportunity of determining what the people of Wales and Scotland want. Until we have had such a referendum, it will be impossible for us to support the Government's proposals. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that some of us will support the Government tonight to ensure that there is such a referendum but that apart from that there is no support for the proposals?

Mr. Foot

I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend will support the Government tonight. He has made one of the best speeches I have heard from the Labour Benches today. I believe that he has put forward a good reason for supporting the Government. If the amendments were carried, any possibility of a referendum for Wales would be made almost impossible. It would mean that Wales would be removed from the Bill altogether and that it could be dealt with only by a separate and different Bill.

I have already given some of the reasons that led me and the Government to believe that it was right to deal with these matters as the Government propose.

Mr. Heffer

I return for a brief moment to the commitment of the Labour Party. My right hon. Friend is right to say that there were discussions among the Welsh Labour Members and the Welsh Labour Party, but it is not true that the question of Assemblies for Wales and Scotland, which may well have appeared in the Welsh manifesto, appeared in the manifesto on which Members such as myself fought. The issue was not in the Labour Party manifesto which covered the whole of Britain.

Mr. Roy Hughes

Perhaps my hon. Friend will read the document that I now hand to him.

Mr. Heffer

It was not in the February election manifesto. I know that it was not in it. It is no good handing me documents, because I know that it was not in it. Is it not the fact that it appeared in the autumn election manifesto just prior to the election and that it had never been discussed or voted upon at the Labour Party Conference?

Mr. Foot

I understand my hon. Friend's argument. I have heard him present it before. It does not alter the fact that when we fought the General Election in October 1974 our commitment in respect of Scotland and Wales was quite clear.

In fact, I was arguing a slightly different matter. I was replying to the debate and the first point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. I was arguing—I believe it is a legitimate argument—that over and above the other arguments one of the reasons for our believing that it was right that there should be no delay in the proposal for Wales, that there should be no subordination of the proposal for Wales, no such delay as might have jeopardised the proposition altogether, was that we Welsh Members were deeply committed not only by the October 1974 commitment but by the February commitment and by all the discussions that had taken place between the Welsh Labour Party and the people of Wales. I believe that we were entitled to take all these matters into account.

I turn to the second argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. My hon. Friend insists that in some way by these proposals we are undermining the supremacy of Parliament. On a number of occasions in discussing the Welsh proposals—they are the chief matters under consideration in the amendments—my hon. Friend has insisted that 50 per cent. of the business, the occupation, the requirements and the duties of Members for Wales will be transferred to Cardiff. I believe that that is a considerable exaggeration. Whatever may be the percentage of work that is transferred—I do not believe that the amount can be precisely stated, but there are good reasons for transferring it—the fact is that the supremacy of Parliament is sustained in both Wales and Scotland.

One of the central features of this legislation is that we should retain supreme control in the House of Commons over what eventually happens in Scotland and in Wales. Whatever powers may be devolved, that supremacy should be retained here.

It is true, as my hon. Friend kindly acknowledged, that I have always argued in favour of sustaining the sovereign power of the House of Commons. The Common Market legislation infringed that sovereignty, as Members on both sides are willing to acknowledge and as has been revealed in discussions which have taken place on a number of occasions on that legislation. In this legislation, however, the supremacy of the House of Commons is retained. I believe that that is the right course for us to follow.

Mr. Kinnock

My right hon. Friend has used the analogy of the Common Market legislation. Was it not the case that he and I and others who shared and still share the same opinion about the Common Market feared that, in the event of Britain trying to assert its interest in a particular subject, the Common Market authorities would be in a position to overrule it? In the referendum, did we not suggest the possibility of dictation from Brussels? Therefore, in the relationship between the Cardiff Assembly and the Westminster Parliament—or London Government, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) continued to call it—will not the people of Wales consider the proper assertion of the supremacy of Parliament to be the kind of overweaning dictatorship that we feared would be and is now received from Brussels?

Mr. Foot

I do not think so. We are stating and making this matter clear from the start. Indeed, in Clause 1 of the Bill we underline and insist on this matter all the more. Therefore, the argument is very different.

It is true, as I have said—I do not believe anybody can deny it—that the Common Market legislation, carried for reasons which hon. Members know and eventually accepted by the country in the referendum, involved a deliberate reduction in the supremacy of the House of Commons. However, in this legislation—we may have learned from experience—we are insisting on maintaining the supremacy of this Parliament. It is a great error for anyone, for whatever reason he or she may wish to present in argument, to suggest that we are doing anything else, because that would be to mislead people about a central feature of this legislation.

Dr. Phipps

What my right hon. Friend is saying seems to clash completely with Clause 18(2), which, under the heading "Legislation by Scottish Assembly", provides that A Scottish Assembly may amend or repeal a provision made by or under an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Foot

It is only in devolved areas that that can happen. We have not yet reached Clause 18. I am sure that we shall move towards it in the next day or so. When we reach that clause we shall be able to examine that aspect further. I assure my hon. Friend, who I know will be the first to be gratified that this doubt is removed, that the supremacy of this Parliament is sustained by the Bill. Indeed, that is one of its central features.

Mr. Tom Ellis

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the practical answer to the argument adduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), who seemed to work himself up into a fury at the idea that the proposed Welsh Assembly, rather than the House of Commons, might reorganise local government in Wales, is that it might make a better job of it?

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Foot

It will make a good job of many of the matters that are devolved to it. I am dealing with the argument of those who claim that we propose to undermine the supremacy of this House of Commons. I say, and the Bill insists on it, that that shall not be the case.

The third base on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool rests a considerable part of his attack is that when the Welsh Assembly is established one of its first tasks will be to review local government in Wales and to make recommendations for dealing with it. My hon. Friend suggests that Wales will be devalued by the new Welsh Assembly. I believe that local government in Wales will be reorganised under the aegis of the Welsh Assembly, and the sooner that happens the better. Indeed, if a Welsh Assembly had been in operation a year or two ago the form of local government that was forced upon the people of Wales would never have been introduced.

Therefore, I say to my hon. Friend and to others who have raised this issue that their arguments cannot be sustained on that ground. They argue that our proposals will enable the people in Cardiff and Edinburgh to change the existing form or to envisage a new form of local government. That will serve the people of Wales well, as it will serve others who wish to follow that example.

With his characteristic honesty, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that he would make a confession to the Committee. His confession went a long way towards destroying much of his argument. He said that the anti-devolutionists acclaimed him in his argument that we are building a great house of cards that will come crashing to the ground. He says that that may happen even before the Bill reaches the statute book. But then he made the peculiar confesion that, if with a few of the cards left over we were to build a little extra attic on to the house of cards for Northern Ireland, he might be able to tolerate the whole edifice—presumably on the ground that it will not fall down.

The right hon. Gentleman is in a peculiar position, but he obviously revealed it to the Committee purposely because he never says anything by accident. He revealed that if we were able to add to the proposals some devolutionary proposals for Northern Ireland, and if we were able to add on an alternation in the representation for Northern Ireland, a different complexion would be put on the argument. He said that he would then be tempted to support the Government's proposals.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's confusion, because the whole of his logical denunciation of any form of devolution is undermined both by what he and his colleagues are prepared to accept for the future of Northern Ireland and by what they have accepted in the past.

I am no great supporter of Stormont, but at least it can be said that it was no house of cards that came down overnight. It took 50 years to come down. In the case of Northern Ireland there was an idea that devolution would not last so long, but it lasted a long time.

Devolution in Northern Ireland served two purposes. It served the purpose of those who wished to see Northern Ireland retain its unity with the United Kingdom, and it served the purpose of those who wanted some devolved form of administration and legislation in Northern Ireland.

Those two purposes, which in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman some-times sound so contradictory and illogical, are not so contradictory after all. In the case of Scotland our legislation seeks to perform the task of securing for the people the two things that I believe they want: that is, better democratic control over their own affairs, and to remain integral members of the United Kingdom. Those two purposes are served in our legislation, just as to some extent that happened in Northern Ireland.

We are asked who is to decide this matter in the end. I come, therefore, to the argument about the referendum. I know that some hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), have been opposed throughout to any form of devolution or Assembly for Wales. I understand that. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman signed the proposal for a referendum. I presume that his action was based on high scruple, even though in his speech on Second Reading he recommended some form of referendum.

I do not say that anyone who voted for the referendum has no right to support the hon. Gentleman's amendment, although there would be a case in logic for saying that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) put it very clearly. He will support the Government tonight, not because he likes the Bill any more than he did before but because he believes that if the amendment were carried the people of Wales would effectively be denied the right to vote on this issue at a referendum. He argues that if that happened it would be deeply injurious to the future of Wales. I agree with him. It would also be deeply injurious to the relationship between Wales and England for generations to come. This question having been raised in Wales and Scotland, it must now be settled. This House has every right to work out the details of what is to be proposed. It must make a decision about that and it must decide what recommendations are to be made in the referendum. We shall have the chance to debate that on a not-very-distant date.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that these questions of devolution and the unity of the United Kingdom—the two can continue to go together, and that is the high purpose of the Government in all this legislation—having been raised, they cannot be solved solely in this House of Commons. I do not like referenda as a method of settling things, but I have believed for a long time that that would be the best way of settling this matter.

Mr. Anderson

Will my right hon. Friend indicate since when he has reached the decision that this is not a subject to be decided in the House of Commons?

Mr. Foot

I did not say that it was not a subject to be decided in the House. I have said the opposite on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend should recall our debate on this at the Labour Party Conference. I said then that it would be perfectly proper for the House of Commons to settle this question.

I have listened to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) more than to those of anyone else. If any credit is to be awarded to hon. Members who have argued persistently for a referendum over a long period, no one has done so more than he. He did so at the Labour Party Conference, and it was in response to his speech that I insisted that we should keep the possibility open.

But, the issue having been raised and carried as far as it has been in our debates, and the Government having agreed to a referendum, if the Committee now took action to prevent any reference to the people of Wales to settle the matter, that would be a course of great danger. It would ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, that the issue would not be settled at all.

When the Bill has been carried through to the statute book, as I believe it will be, when it is clear what we are proposing, we have every chance that the people of Wales will see the wisdom and desirability of it and will vote for it. Under our proposals, the final word will be that of the people of Wales. I invite the rest of the Committee to support that proposition, which by implication means defeating the amendment.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

rose—

Mr. Dalyell

On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. You will have heard the Lord President say that the referendum proposal will be put forward at a not-very-distant date. May I ask you and your colleagues who have been in the Chair throughout the day, taking into account the many references that there have been to a referendum, to decide whether it is in order or sensible to proceed with the Bill until we know the terms of the referendum? At the moment, we are discussing a blank cheque.

Mr. Pym

This has been a highly significant debate for Wales, of a high level, lightened and enlivened by a rare collection of political contortions and by an increasing degree of revelation about how some of the decisions were taken in the Labour Party about devolution to Wales and particularly about the referendum. I was born and brought up in that part of Wales which has now given rise to such differences between the hon. Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and for Newport (Mr. Hughes).

Anyone who had listened to the debate and the devastating criticisms of the Bill delivered from all quarters would be justified in concluding that the Committee intended to pass the amendment. The Secretary of State for Wales in no way answered the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) or others who spoke before the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

I have listened to almost the whole of the debate, missing only one and a half speeches, and I know that there have been only three speeches in favour of the Bill. One was from the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who occupies a particular place in his party in the House; the second, which I unfortunately missed, was from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who, I believe, made the rather surprising assertion that the arts in Wales would receive more finance from a devolved Assembly; and the third was from the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who might be said to have an interest in the Bill.

Every other speech was against the Bill. Of course, the Lord President is relieved to know that he will get the votes of the hon. Members for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). The Committee will notice that it seems that they will not do with their feet what their voices suggested they would do.

11.0 p.m.

From the start, the Conservative Party has consistently opposed the idea of an Assembly for Wales such as is suggested in the Bill. That is the reason for the amendment. It is unnecessary to set up the Assembly. It will be expensive. It will certainly not lead to a better form of government, and it will not endure. The hon. Member for Swansea, East was right when he said that the Bill had within it a certain dynamic. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that the Bill would lead to confusion, and almost every speech has indicated that this is so.

We are totally against the Bill as far as it affects Wales. We do not believe that it will be of real benefit to Wales or the people of Wales. It could begin a process that could prove disastrous to Wales. The evidence so far suggests that it is not wanted by more than a minority of people —perhaps about one-quarter—but that is not certain. That is why we tabled this amendment.

We have said all the way through that Wales should have been dealt with in a separate Bill. Much has been made of this point in the debate. The right hon. Member for Anglesey said that the argument for two Bills was based on expediency rather than principle, but that is absolutely incorrect and contradicts the representations that we received early in the 1970s from the then Opposition in relation to the Local Government Bill.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) also said that there should be two Bills. I am certain that by combining Scotland and Wales in one Bill we are bound to get bad legislation if the Bill emerges from the House in anything like its present form. We are dealing with two different parts of the United Kingdom where the circumstances are entirely different, the legal systems are entirely different, and the needs and aspirations of the people are entirely different. How can it possibly be sensible to combine them in one Bill? The burden on the House will be un- reasonable. It will not be the fault of Parliament if we run into difficulties in passing the Bill. The Lord President of the Council has said that the devolution issue ought to be settled, but if the Bill becomes an Act it will certainly not settle the devolution question because it has within it such a degree of instability that the whole will not endure.

I return to the arguments over the referendum, which got Labour Members into a muddle. The Secretary of State for Wales turned a somersault on the referendum issue. Having annoyed some of his hon. Friends in an earlier period by referring to them as "referendum boyos", as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), he turned a somersault and came down in favour of a referendum.

Parliament must decide what, if any, degree of devolution it is prepared—or can agree—to offer. I know that there are people in Wales who would like a referendum now in order to demonstrate their opposition to devolution, but until we know what this Parliament has to offer there is no clear alternative to put to the people of Wales. I see no merit in holding a referendum for the sake of it and no merit in having what I would call a pre-legislation consultative referendum, because the issues that could be put before the people are to vague to be useful.

We all understand the campaign for independence conducted by Plaid Cymru, because that is the objective of that party but Plaid Cymru Members refer briefly, if ever, to the cost of what independence would mean for Wales or to the full implications. The campaign by the Government so far has been misleading, to say the least, and the hon. Member for Bedwellty described it as a form of misrepresentation. I agree with that. We know that there is a high degree of party political motivation behind the Bill.

I do not think that the Government have so far taken any steps to ascertain the real views of people in Wales. For the Lord President of the Council to say that devolution was included in the Labour Party's manifesto and that few people asked questions about it during the General Election campaign does not seem to be a very good way of finding out what the people of Wales think. What we know is that the Labour Party is deeply divided on the issue. That has been shown throughout the debate.

It is clear that the Government hope that something like the Bill will become an Act, and I am worried that during its passage and subsequently they will put their propaganda machine into top gear to try to persuade the people of Wales that this form of government will he of great benefit to them and that their lives will improve under it. I only hope that the opposition of the people of Wales to this proposition will be maintained throughout that sustained propaganda campaign.

The Bill might lead to federalism, which I do not believe is wanted. It will certainly lead to further changes. Very few people understand the implications of this complicated measure. Emotions are being played upon to excite people to think that it is a wonderful solution to their difficulties when in reality we are talking about people's prosperity and happiness and when jobs are at stake.

It has been said that the Bill in no way touches the major economic matters affecting Wales. It seems very attractive to talk about a Welsh Government and devolution for Wales. There is no doubt that government for Wales can be improved, but the Bill will not do that. It will change it, but not for the better.

The Conservative Party strongly strongly supports the principle of our Present system of government, because it is not divisive of the union of the United Kingdom. We are convinced that a development of our existing system would be far better. Wales has benefited from the Members representing Welsh constituencies at Westminster. The way in which the Bill reduces their rôle and responsibility is a positive disadvantage to Wales.

The Assembly will claim to speak for Wales in place of the Members of Parliament at Westminster. I cannot think that that is a sound or sensible change. The advertisement of which we have heard so much positively speaks in one paragraph of the directly-elected Welsh Assembly, answerable to the people of Wales. It says that they will feel that the Assembly—not their Members of Parliament —is the forum to which they should declare their wishes. That is a great mistake.

The Assembly will want more and more powers. It will want to take more and more powers from the House of Commons and from local government. I believe that it will have the effect of taking government further away from people rather than the reverse. What my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said on this point was absolutely right.

During the opening speeches on the Loyal Address at the beginning of this Session, the Prime Minister talked about the Bill bringing government nearer to the people. I do not believe that it will have that effect. That is another major source of criticism.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his arguments against the Bill in its relation to Wales are equally applicable to Scotland? In that case, why did the Opposition Front Bench not vote for excluding Scotland?

Mr. Pym

The answer is simple. The circumstances in the two countries are different. We have taken a different view about Scotland and Wales for reasons I adduced on an earlier occasion. It is entirely wrong to try to treat them on the same basis in one Bill.

What is the gain in having two Governments for Wales, one in Cardiff and one in London, the Government in Cardiff having to carry out the decisions of the one in London, whether or not they agree with them? It will be a source of constant complaint and misery to have primary legislation carried through here and secondary legislation in Cardiff. Added to that, there will be 1,300 extra civil servants who would not be needed if the Bill did not go through.

None of this will bring additional prosperity or employment. I very much regret that the expectations of the people of Wales have been raised so high. The advertisement which has been mentioned today indicates this when it mentions expectations which have been built up over the last 10 years and which, if frustrated. will have serious consequences. It was a great error to raise expectations in this way and to produce a Bill such as this, because we all know that it cannot fulfil those expectations. That is a reprehensible way in which to conduct the government of the United Kingdom.

I am concerned about differences between North, Mid and South Wales. If they are to be treated as one, it will have serious economic consequences for Wales. The interests of North Wales are more closely linked with Merseyside than with South Wales, and the interests of Mid-Wales are in many respects closer economically to the Midlands. Therefore, we must examine the possible consequences. I am concerned about the fact that inadequate consideration has been given to that aspect of the matter.

Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Merseyside. There may be a danger of co-operation between Merseyside and North Wales being lessened by the Bill, but will he recognise that the danger is known and that Members from North Wales and Merseyside, and certainly local authorities in both areas, are determined to work hard to make sure that, despite any changes brought about by the Bill, economic and social co-operation will in no way be diminished?

Mr. Pym

It would be nice if that were so. Indeed, it would be marvellous if the Bill were to make no difference. I gathered from the speech of the Lord President of the Council that final decisions would always be taken here in the House of Commons. That seemed to me to be contrary to the views of Mem-

bers who spoke in favour of devolution for Wales.

There is a great deal of confusion on these matters. We did not have on Second Reading, we have not had from the Secretary of State for Wales today or from the Lord President tonight, any considered answers to the mass of criticism against the Bill. We have not heard a considered case as to how the Bill will improve government for the people of Wales and better their economic prospects, their happiness or their livelihoods. We believe that this is a totally wrong way to approach any contemplated change of government for the United Kingdom as it affects the people of Wales.

Having heard so many speeches against the Bill from the Government side as well as from this side of the Committee, I hope that in the event the vote will follow the voice and that the Committee will support the amendment and see to it that the Bill does affect the people of Wales as is now intended.

Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)

rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 277, Noes 26.

Division No. 33.] AYES [11.13 p.m.
Allaun, Frank Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Archer, Peter Campbell, Ian Dempsey, James
Armstrong, Ernest Canavan, Dennis Doig, Peter
Ashley, Jack Carmichael, Neil Dormand, J. D.
Ashton, Joe Carter, Ray Duffy, A. E. P.
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Carter-Jones, Lewis Dunn, James A.
Atkinson, Norman Cartwright, John Dunnett, Jack
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Eadie, Alex
Bain, Mrs Margaret Clemitson, Ivor Edge, Geoff
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol) Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Cohen, Stanley Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Bates, Alf Coleman, Donald Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bean, R. E. Concannon, J. D. English, Michael
Beith, A. J. Conlan, Bernard Ennals, David
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Bidwell, Sydney Corbett, Robin Evans, John (Newton)
Bishop, E. S. Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Boardman, H. Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Faulds, Andrew
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Crawford, Douglas Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Cronin, John Flannery, Martin
Bradley, Tom Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Cryer, Bob Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Brotherton, Michael Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Ford, Ben
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Davidson, Arthur Forrester, John
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Buchan, Norman Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Freeson, Reginald
Buchanan, Richard Deakins, Eric Freud, Clement
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
George, Bruce MacFarquhar, Roderick Silverman, Julius
Gilbert, Dr John McGuire, Michael (Ince) Small, William
Ginsburg, David MacKenzie, Gregor Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Golding, John Maclennan, Robert Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Gould, Bryan McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Snape, Peter
Gourlay, Harry McNamara, Kevin Spriggs, Leslie
Graham, Ted Madden, Max Stallard, A. W.
Grant, George (Morpeth) Magee, Bryan Steel, Rt Hon David
Grant, John (Islington C) Mahon, Simon Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Grocott, Bruce Mallalieu, J. P. W. Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marks, Kenneth Stott, Roger
Hardy, Peter Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Strang, Gavin
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Maynard, Miss Joan Swain, Thomas
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Meacher, Michael Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hatton, Frank Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Mikardo, Ian Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Henderson, Douglas Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Hooley, Frank Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hooson, Emlyn Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Thompson, George
Horam, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Tierney, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Moyle, Roland Tinn, James
Huckfield, Les Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Torney, Tom
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Tuck, Raphael
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Newens, Stanley Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Noble, Mike Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Hunter, Adam Oakes, Gordon Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Ogden, Eric Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) O'Halloran, Michael Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Orbach, Maurice Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Janner, Greville Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Ward, Michael
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Padley, Walter Watkins, David
Jeger, Mrs Lena Park, George Watkinson, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Parry, Robert Watt, Hamish
John, Brynmor Pavitt, Laurie Weetch, Ken
Johnson, James (Hull West) Pendry, Tom Weitzman, David
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Penhaligon, David Wellbeloved, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Perry, Ernest Welsh, Andrew
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Price, C. (Lewisham W) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Price, William (Rugby) White, James (Pollok)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Radice, Giles Whitehead, Phillip
Kaufman, Gerald Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Whitlock, William
Kelley, Richard Reid, George Wigley, Dafydd
Kerr, Russell Richardson, Miss Jo Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Kilfedder, James Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Robertson, John (Paisley) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Lambie, David Robinson, Geoffrey Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Lamborn, Harry Roderick, Caerwyn Williams, Sir Thomas
Lamond, James Rodgers, George (Chorley) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Lee, John Rose, Paul B. Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Lipton, Marcus Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Litterick, Tom Rowlands, Ted Woodall, Alec
Loyden, Eddie Ryman, John Woof, Robert
Luard, Evan Sandelson, Neville Wrigglesworlh, Ian
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Sedgemore, Brian Young, David (Bolton E)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
McCartney, Hugh Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacCormick, lain Shore, Rt Hon Peter Mr. Dayid studdart and.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Mr. Joseph Harper.
McElhone, Frank Sillars, James
NOES
Abse, Leo Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Paisley, Rev Ian
Anderson, Donald Grist, Ian Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Budgen, Nick Heffer, Eric S. Skinner, Dennis
Carson, John Hutchison, Michael Clark Tebbit, Norman
Cormack, Patrick Knight, Mrs Jill Winterton, Nicholas
Crowder, F. P. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Dalyell, Tam Mendelson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Evans, loan (Aberdare) Moonman, Eric Mr. Neil kinnock. and
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Morgan, Geraint Dr. Colin Phipps.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Ovenden, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made: —

The Committee divided: Ayes 263, Noes 287.

Division No, 34.] AYES [11.26 p.m.
Adley, Robert Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Aitken, Jonathan Glyn, Dr Alan Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Alison, Michael Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Mills, Peter
Arnold, Tom Goodhart, Philip Miscampbell, Norman
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Goodhew, Victor Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Awdry, Daniel Goodlad, Alastair Moate, Roger
Baker, Kenneth Gorst, John Molyneaux, James
Banks, Robert Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Monro, Hector
Bell, Ronald Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Montgomery, Fergus
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Moonman, Eric
Benyon, W. Gray, Hamish Moore, John (Croydon C)
Berry, Hon Anthony Griffiths, Eldon More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Biffen, John Grist, Ian Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Biggs-Davison, John Grylls, Michael Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Blaker, Peter Hall, Sir John Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Body, Richard Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mudd, David
Bottomley, Peter Hampson, Dr Keith Neave, Airey
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Hannam, John Nelson, Anthony
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Neubert, Michael
Bradford, Rev Robert Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Newton, Tony
Braine, Sir Bernard Hastings, Stephen Normanton, Tom
Brittan, Leon Havers, Sir Michael Nott, John
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Hawkins, Paul Onslow, Cranley
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hayhoe, Barney Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Bryan, Sir Paul Heath, Rt Hon Edward Osborn, John
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Heseltine, Michael Page, John (Harrow West)
Buck, Antony Hicks, Robert Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Budgen, Nick Higgins, Terence L. Page, Richard (Workington)
Bulmer, Esmond Hodgson, Robin Paisley, Rev Ian
Burden, F. A. Holland, Philip Parkinson, Cecil
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hordern, Peter Pattie, Geoffrey
Carlisle, Mark Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Percival, Ian
Carson, John Howell, David (Guildford) Peyton, Rt Hon John
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Hunt, David (Wirral) Phipps, Dr Colin
Channon, Paul Hunt, John (Bromley) Pink, R. Bonner
Clark, Alan (Plymouth Sutton) Hurd, Douglas Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Clark, William (Croydon S) Hutchison, Michael Clark Price, David (Eastleigh)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Prior, Rt Hon James
Clegg, Walter James, David Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Cockcroft, John Jessel, Toby Raison, Timothy
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rathbone, Tim
Cope, John Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cordle, John H. Jopling, Michael Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Cormack, Patrick Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Kelth Rees-Davies, W. R.
Corrie, John Kaberry, Sir Donald Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Crouch, David Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Crowder, F. P. Kimball, Marcus Rhodes James, R.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Dalyell, Tam King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Kitson, Sir Timothy Ridsdale, Julian
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Knight, Mrs Jill Rifkind, Malcolm
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Knox, David Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Lamont, Norman Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Drayson, Burnaby Langford-Holt, Sir John Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Latham, Michael (Melton) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Durant, Tony Lawrence, Ivan Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Lawson, Nigel Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Royle, Sir Anthony
Elliott, Sir William Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Sainsbury, Tim
Emery, Peter Lloyd, Ian St. John Stevas, Norman
Eyre, Reginald Loveridge, John Scott, Nicholas
Fairbairn, Nicholas Luce, Richard Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fairgrieve, Russell McCrindle, Robert Shelton, William (Streatham)
Farr, John McCusker, H. Shepherd, Colin
Fell, Anthony Macfarlane, Neil Shersby, Michael
Finsberg, Geoffrey MacGregor, John Silvester, Fred
Fisher, Sir Nigel Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Sims, Roger
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Sinclair, Sir George
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Skeet, T. H. H.
Forman, Nigel Madel, David Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Speed, Keith
Fox, Marcus Marten, Neil Spence, John
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Mates, Michael Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Fry, Peter Mather, Carol Sproat, Iain
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Stainton, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mawby, Ray Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardner, Edward (S. Fylde) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stanley, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Mayhew, Patrick Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) van Straubenzee, W. R. Weatherill, Bernard.
Stokes, John Vaughan, Dr Gerard Wiggin, Jerry
Stradling Thomas, J. Viggers, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Tapsell, Peter Wakeham, John Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Walder, David (Clitheroe) Young. Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Tebbit, Norman Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) Younger, Hon George
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) Wall, Patrick TELLERS: FOR THE AYES:
Townsend, Cyril D. Walters, Dennis Mr. Spencer La Marchant and
Trotter, Neville Warren, Kenneth Mr. Michael Roberts
NOES
Allaun, Frank Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Kinnock, Neil
Anderson, Donald English, Michael Lambie, David
Archer, Peter Ennals, David Lamborn, Harry
Armstrong, Ernest Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lamond, James
Ashley, Jack Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Ashton, Joe Evans, John (Newton) Lee, John
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Lester, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Atkinson, Norman Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Faulds, Andrew Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Lipton, Marcus
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Flannery, Martin Litterick, Tom
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Loyden, Eddie
Bates, Alf Foot, Rt Hon Michael Luard, Evan
Bean, R. E. Ford, Ben Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Beith, A. J. Forrester, John Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) McCartney, Hugh
Bidwell, Sydney Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) MacCormick, Iain
Bishop, E. S. Freeson, Reginald McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Blenkinsop, Arthur Freud, Clement McElhone, Frank
Boardman, H. Garrett, John (Norwich S) MacFarquhar, Roderick
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) George, Bruce MacKenzie, Gregor
Bradley, Tom Gilbert, Dr John Maclennan, Robert
Bray, Dr Jeremy Ginsburg, David McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Golding, John McNamara, Kevin
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Gould, Bryan Madden, Max
Buchan, Norman Gourlay, Harry Magee, Bryan
Buchanan, Richard Graham, Ted Mahon, Simon
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Grant, George (Morpeth) Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Grant, John (Islington C) Marks, Kenneth
Campbell, Ian Grocott, Bruce Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Canavan, Dennis Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Carmichae', Neil Hardy, Peter Maynard, Miss Joan
Carter, Ray Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Meacher, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hart, Rt Hon Judith Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Cartwright, John Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Mikardo, Ian
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Halton, Frank Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Clemitson, Ivor Hayman, Mrs Helene Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol) Henderson, Douglas Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Cohen, Stanley Hooley, Frank Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Coleman, Donald Hooson, Emlyn Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Concannon, J. D. Horam, John Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Conlan, Bernard Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Moyle, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Corbett, Robin Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Huckfield, Les Newens, Stanley
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Noble, Mike
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oakes, Gordon
Crawford, Douglas Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Ogden, Eric
Cronin, John Hughes, Roy (Newport) O'Halloran, Michael
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Hunter, Adam Orbach, Maurice
Cryer, Bob Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Ovenden, John
Davidson, Arthur Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Padley, Walter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Palmer, Arthur
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Janner, Greville Park, George
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Parry, Robert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Jeger, Mrs Lena Pavitt, Laurie
Deakins, Eric Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pendry, Tom
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) John, Brynmor Penhaligon, David
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Johnson, James (Hull West) Perry, Ernest
Dempsey, James Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Doig, Peter Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Price, William (Rugby)
Dormand, J. D. Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Radice, Giles
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Jones, Barry (East Flint) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Duffy, A. E. P. Jones, Dan (Burnley) Reid, George
Dunn, James A. Kaufman, Gerald Richardson, Miss Jo
Dunnett, Jack Kelley, Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Eadie, Alex Kerr, Russell Robertson, John (Paisley)
Edge, Geoff Kilfedder, James Robinson, Geoffrey
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Kilroy-Silk, Robert Roderick, Caerwyn
Rodgers, George (Chorley) Strang, Gavin Weitzman, David
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Wellbeloved, James
Rose, Paul B. Swain, Thomas Welsh, Andrew
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) White, James (Pollok)
Rowlands, Ted Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Whitehead, Phillip
Ryman, John Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) Whitlock, William
Sandelson, Neville Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Wigley, Dafydd
Sedgemore, Brian Thompson, George Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Tierney, Sydney Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Tinn, James Williams, Sir Thomas
Sillars, James Torney, Tom Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silverman, Julius Tuck, Raphael Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Skinner, Dennis Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Small, William Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Wise, Mrs Audrey
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd) Woodall, Alec
Spriggs, Leslie Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Woof, Robert
Stallard, A. W. Walker, Terry (Kingswood) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David Ward, Michael Young, David (Bolton E)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald Watkins, David
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) Watkinson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Stoddart, David Watt, Hamish Mr. Peter Snape and
Stott, Roger Weetch, Ken Mr. Joseph Harper
Question accordingly negatived.
To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.