ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES (Hansard, 26 January 1977)

§ Sir John Gilmour (Fife, East)
I beg to move Amendment No. 509, in page 70, line 4, leave out 'wholly comprised in'.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)
With this, we may take the following amendments: No. 510, in page 70, line 6, leave out paragraph 7.
No. 511, in page 70, line 12, leave out paragraph 9.
No. 512, in page 70, line 19, leave out 'comprised in the same parliamentary constituency'.

§ Sir J. Gilmour
The effect of the amendments would be to provide that the Assembly constituencies should be the same as the parliamentary constituencies. The rug has rather been pulled from under me as the Committee has decided to increase the membership of the Assembly by having one Member each for Orkney and Shetland. That means a membership of at least 72 instead of the original proposal of 71. I am sure the Committee agrees that we must be careful in regulating the size of the Assembly in Scotland to ensure that if we are to give extra representation to places such as Orkney and Shetland we should also take account of the needs of other parts of the country.
11.15 p.m.
I live in the central industrial part of Scotland, in a belt that starts in Dundee, goes through my constituency, through to Edinburgh, then on to the new town of Livingston, on to the industrial complex at Grangemouth and Falkirk, then on to Cumbernauld, from there to the industrial part of Lanarkshire, then to Glasgow, Dunbartonshire and Renfrew, and then down to Ayrshire.
The bulk of the population lives in that area. Naturally, therefore, the bulk of the Members of the Assembly are bound to come from it. But if we have already concede that it is right to have one Member for Orkney and one for Shetland, I can envisage my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) calling for one Member for Ross-shire and one for Cromarty.
Where does one go from there? In the initial stage we should try to keep the Assembly to the smallest possible number of Members, because we could always add to the number if necessary. I am certain that it would be impossible to reduce the number once we passed an Act setting up the Assembly with a grand number.
I suppose that the amendment must to a certain extent be out of order because the Committee has already agreed to go beyond 71 Members. However, I seriously ask the Committee to consider how we can arrive at the right sort of mix so as to make certain that the people who live on the outskirts of the industrial belt, in Galloway or Dumfries, or who 1652 live in Sutherland or Caithness, in Ross and Cromarty or in the Outer Hebrides, do not feel that the industrial heart of Scotland has overridden all their considerations and that they will not get a fair crack of the whip.
This point is worth considering because as long as we are dealing, as we have dealt in the past, with a United Kingdom Parliament there is an affinity between people in the Highlands, in Wales or on Dartmoor with people in certain other parts of the country. The rural parts of England and Wales can combine with the more rural parts of Scotland to put forward the rural case. It would be a mistake to ignore that consideration.
Yesterday we debated considerations raised by this amendment, but I ask the Minister to carry on a little further from what he said in the winding-up speech last night when he agreed that there was a case for trying to keep down the size of the Assembly. In the light of the amendment to which the Committee has agreed, will he give an assurance about reducing the size of the Assembly below the figures already in the Bill?

§ Mr. Dalyell
This has become a rather unreal discussion because it is clear that we are not yet certain precisely what kind of Assembly we shall have. Two hours ago the Under-Secretary said that it would be of a one-shift Assembly. He was pressed on how many weeks of the year it would sit. I am not asking whether it will have a 35, 36 or 37-week year. We can, however, ask whether it is envisaged that it will have a 15-week year or a 40-week year. We can also ask to what extent it will be a part-time or a whole-time Assembly. Even with the clear assurance that it is supposed to be whole-time, this will have an effect on the number of Members.
If it were to be a part-time Assembly for other than the Cabinet, the Chief Executive and the Leader of the Scottish Opposition, that would be one thing. If, however, it is to be an Assembly or Parliament in the sense which some hon. Members have been discussing, that is a rather different proposition. Furthermore, before we discuss the issue of numbers we ought to be a little clearer about what will be the functions of the Assembly in relation to local government.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Not under this amendment.

§ Mr. Dalyell
Mr. Godman Irvine, I am being perfectly serious. The number of Members which is suggested makes all the difference in the world if it is to be an Assembly based on the existing regions. On the other hand, if it is suggested that the regions should be abolished—which would be one of the first acts of the Assembly—clearly there is a legitimate case for enlarging the number of Assemblymen. But if the argument is that within a decade or less there should be 60 all-purpose local authorities—

§ The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. That is entirely outside the scope of this amendment, which deals with paragraph 6 of Part II of Schedule 1, which states: Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I understood from what was said by the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) that this was a debate about numbers. If I am mistaken about that I must apologise, but I do not think I am mistaken. This is perhaps an example of the whole difficulty that we are under. If we are to have narrow interpretations from the Chair—which is why some of us made such an uncharacteristic fuss at the beginning—one thing will lead to another.
We cannot sensibly discuss numbers unless there is some reference to functions. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) used the analogy of pasture land slipping from one pasture to another. That is precisely the kind of difficulty that we are under unless we are clear about the likely future of the regions.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I hope that I shall not need to remind the hon. Member that we are discussing paragraph 6, which deals with each Assembly constituency. We cannot go further than that.

§ Mr. Leadbitter
I am persuaded to follow my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on this matter. Are we not discussing, together with this amendment, Amendment No. 511, which seeks to delete paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 1? If so, my hon. Friend 1654 has a point, because paragraph 9 of Part II of the schedule affects the number of Assembly Members.

§ Mr. Dalyell
I do not want to wrangle with the Chair, and I accept your ruling, Mr. Godman Irvine. I would only add that we cannot sensibly discuss this issue unless there is a much clearer idea of what is meant by a one-shift Assembly. I cannot see 150 elected Scots Assemblymen and Assemblywomen sticking to one shift. I do not suppose any hon. Member thinks that our loquacity is any less than that of the English. Our experience of the Scottish Grand Committee and our experience over many years late at night in the House does not suggest that we could suddenly confine ourselves to talking from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. I wonder how long the Assembly would remain a one-shift Assembly. I should like an explanation of what is meant by a one-shift Assembly.

§ Mr. Galbraith
I support the amendment, on two grounds. The first is cost and the second is impartiality.
I take it that the object of the amendment is to reduce the number of Assemblymen roughly by half, and I think that that is admirable. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked how we could decide until we knew what was to be the task and the purpose, how long the Assembly would sit, and the meaning of the curious phrase "one-shift system". I agree with him. But if we want this body to be efficient and not too costly, we do not want it to be a large one.
At present, 71 Members of Parliament and a handful of Ministers do the job of helping to govern Scotland at least as well as the 500 or so Members who represent constituencies in England. The proposal of the Government is to double the number for Scotland and to retain the same number of Scottish Members in the House of Commons. The result will be a total of 220 elected representatives doing exactly the same job as 71 do at the moment. I suggest to the Minister that this is a ridiculous state of affairs, and he has not attempted to justify the reason why the Government have decided that the Assembly shall have about 150 Members. It is too many, and I think that it would be much better if it was reduced, at least to start with to the 1655 present number, with one Assemblyman for each constituency.
But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) pointed out, we have to some extent already undermined that. It is very good that we have. It is very good, for example, that we have undermined it in the constituencies where we have undermined it, because those are the remote constituencies. But the argument that I have pressed again and again is that, if we leave the representation in the Assembly in the way that it is proposed now, with the heavy industrial areas carrying most of the Members, inevitably we shall create in that body a lack of impartiality which does not apply in the House of Commons.
In my view, the process that we have started in Orkney and Shetland should apply to the outlying areas. I should not mind if we had some sort of compromise between my hon. Friend's amendment and that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with the remote country areas retaining two Assemblymen per constituency and with the more populated, heavy industrialised constituencies, according to the right hon. Gentleman's amendment, having one Assemblyman per seat.
However, as it is at least a move in the right direction, I support my hon. Friend's amendment. I hope that the Government will think again about numbers, will explain why they have fixed on this number and will also give us some indication of what is meant by "single-shift system".

§ Mr. Leadbitter
Until a short time ago it was my understanding that the intention was to complete our proceedings as near as possible to 11 o'clock. This idea showed a great deal of common sense, because it put those of us who on Clause 2 were persuaded to divide the Committee on the Question "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" in a reasonable conciliatory mood. But now that we have a state of exuberance on the Treasury Bench, resulting in the decision of my hon. Friend the Minister of State to live on the generosity of the Committee, we find ourselves discussing this very important part of the Bill at this time of night with very few hon. Members in the Chamber.
1656 In fairness to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the second time, I think that this schedule should have been considered on another day so that we might examine it in detail. We are left in a state of uncertainty. I put it no higher than that. We are seeking the co-operation of the Front Bench. There is indecision with regard to numbers. Indeed, on the basis of a reasoned and proper submission by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) regarding Orkney and Shetland, a wedge has been pushed into the general principles in the Bill.
11.30 p.m.
We had a submission from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian which went to the nub of the whole matter. We cannot arrive at a decision on the schedule if we cannot relate the functions of the Assembly, in terms of time and work, to the numbers required to carry out those functions. The Committee would be prudent to insist that the Government should make clear the time that the Assembly will have to deal with the work involved. Will it be a full-time or a part-time process? We must have information in order to make some evaluation of the numbers required in the Assembly. Only in that way shall we be able to make positive and helpful suggestions to the Government.
At this stage, having dealt with Clause 2, it would be irresponsible of Members to take upon themselves the role of being positively negative or, indeed, destructive. We have reached the stage where we want to make positive contributions on the shape and size of the Assembly. I submit that the Government should enlarge on the brief assertion that there would be some kind of shift system. We do not know what that means. These are pertinent matters. Numbers can be determined only if we have more elucidation about the time scale within which the Assembly is expected to work.

§ Mr. Graham Page
We are discussing amendments to Part II of Schedule 1. The Boundary Commissions for Scotland and for Wales have a duty to carry out the rules set out in Part II in making their divisions of and setting up the new constituencies. I think that this is the only opportunity that I shall have to ask 1657 a question about the Boundary Commissions. What plans are there for increasing—

§ The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. If the right hon. Gentleman is relating his remarks strictly to Part II and the amendments which are before the Committee, he may do exactly what he is suggesting. Otherwise, that would have to come later.

§ Mr. Page
I was endeavouring to save time in the debate on the schedule by raising this matter now as it seemed directly related to Part II.

§ The Second Deputy Chairman
Perhaps I should have assisted the right hon. Gentleman by precisely spelling that out.

§ Mr. Page
I think that I can keep in order, before being pulled up again, by saying that I am concerned, when considering this group of amendments which relate to Part II, about reducing the number of rules in Part II. Should I agree to those rules being reduced and thereby relieving the Boundary Commissions of some of their duties, or should I say that the Boundary Commissions are capable of carrying out those duties? In order to make a decision on that matter, I was asking about the increase in the personnel of the Boundary Commissions that the Minister has in mind and the programme for carrying out their duties under Part II of the schedule.

§ Mr. Younger
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) for producing this group of amendments. They have much the same effect as the group we discussed last night—or, more correctly, this morning; I am not sure of the time.
The most important point that my hon. Friend made, which is a piece of extremely sound advice, is that if we have to err in any particular direction at this stage we should err on the side of making the Assembly slightly too small rather than making it too large. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, whereas it will always be difficult to alter the size of the Assembly after it is set up, it would be infinitely more difficult to reduce the size than to increase it if it were found to be too small.
The Minister very kindly responded to the debate that we had on a similar subject 1658 last night. According to the temporary print of the Official Report that we have at present, he gave an undertaking that if hon. Members could apply their minds to the question of finding a new figure for the Assembly he would consider it carefully. He thought, he said, of a number between 71 and 142.
My hon. Friend has moved the amendment with the purpose of making number 71. His object is to highlight the necessity to keep the size of the Assembly rather smaller than larger. Following our debate last night, I want to make it clear that Opposition Members will do their best to come up with some new suggestions, I hope before Report. Naturally, we shall consult the Minister once we have managed to do some work on the matter.
The Committee generally has given a fairly clear indication, which my hon. Friend's amendments have underlined, that it is the general view that we should try to find a new number somewhere between the number that would result from the amendments and the number now in the Bill.
As well as answering the other points, I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is a matter that we should examine at present and that he will listen sympathetically to any suggestion that we make. I hope the Committee will agree that in that spirit it has been valuable for my hon. Friend to move his amendment.

§ Mr. John Smith
In a different form and at a different part of the Bill, we are discussing perhaps much the same sort of principle as we were discussing last night, when the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), among others, urged upon the Government the question of a reduction in the size of the Scottish Assembly. I explained carefully to the hon. Gentleman that there are quite serious practical difficulties, but I accepted the spirit of what he intended to do. We shall certainly examine carefully what he said. I repeat again what I said last night. We shall look at this matter, but there are certain practical difficulties. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he would approach the matter taking those practical difficulties into account. We shall see what emerges from that.
1659 The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) asked me not to shut the door firmly. I have not done so. How far it is open depends upon how far we can reach agreement on the practical difficulties. I hesitate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman on anything about parliamentary constituencies or any constituencies, because he has beaten me twice in East Fife. In those circumstances, I am not in a position to challenge any assertions he makes about representation in that part of the country. I am glad to say, however, that people at the other end of the central belt took another view about me.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has examined this matter privately as well as publicly in this Chamber and that he takes it seriously. However, I think that he is raising the same point as the hon. Member for Ayr tried to raise last night, this morning or whenever it was—that we thought that 71 was really too few. It turns on the question of finding an effective Administration, in a situation in which the party which formed the Administration might have to select one out of two of its Members to take part in the Administration. I do not think that there is any right answer to this question. We shall look at it carefully. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that into account in his attitude to the amendment, because it is very much on all fours with the same point as was raised, although in a different context, by the hon. Member for Ayr.
Some other questions were asked—

§ Mr. Galbraith
The hon. Gentleman has said that perhaps half the Members of the party in power would be taken up in forming the Executive. Does that mean that he thinks the Executive will consist of as many as 20 Members?

§ Mr. Smith
I did not say that. The hon. Gentleman is in no way entitled to assume that. I wa operating on a supposition put to me by his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who put forward the proposition that there might be 18 of the Members on the Executive. I am not able to predict how many Members will be on the Executive. That is a matter for the Assembly. I took the hon. Gentleman's supposition and applied it to a situation in which there was an Assembly 1660 of 71 Members and the majority party had 36 Members. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) listened attentively to the debate in which his hon. Friend spoke about 18 members being on the Executive. It must have slipped momentarily from his mind that that was the context in which we were discussing the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about the Assembly's effect on local government. I profoundly disagree with my hon. Friend. In deciding what is the appropriate membership, we must consider the powers that the Assembly will have. Under the Bill it is not taking powers from local government; it is receiving powers previously exercised by the central Government. The question that my hon. Friend raised about the Assembly's attitude to local government reform are irrelevant to the task before the Committee in deciding what should be the appropriate number.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) also referred to numbers. We shall reflect on the matter as we go through the Bill and consider it in the light of the Assembly's functions.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked how we could decide the number of Members that there should be without knowing precisely the functions that the Assembly will fulfil. That is one of the difficulties that is almost always found when going through a Bill. It is not possible to deal with everything at the same time. We have to deal with one thing at a time. We are now discussing Members and we shall go on to discuss functions. No doubt my hon. Friend will attend assiduously when we consider functions. If he is not asking me probing questions, no doubt he will be asking my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to explain matters if I cannot satisfy him completely. I look forward to the later stages of our consideration in Committee with keen anticipation, but at this stage I think that we might be going rather wide.
I feel that it would be dangerous for me to respond to the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). If I did so, I should be going wider than the amendment permits. I am reluctant to do that.
1661 I hope that the hon. Member for Fife, East will be willing to withdraw the amendment in the light of what I said to the hon. Member for Ayr last night.

§ Sir John Gilmour
I press the Minister of State a little further on the concession that has already been made to allow for a Member for Orkney and a Member for Shetland. As an example I take Ross and Cromarty. Easter Ross is rich agricultural country with completely different circumstances of life and climate from Wester Ross. Although it is possible for someone in Motherwell or Lanark, for example, to represent 40,000 people, 50,000 people or 60,000 people, it is a quite difficult job when there are totally different circumstances between the East and the West Coast. It would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister of State were to say—I do not ask him for a definite commitment as it is obvious that he is not in a position to give me one—that as the Government have given way in respect of Orkney and Shetland there may be something worth while considering elsewhere.

§ Mr. John Smith
With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the effect of his amendment is not to change the ratio of representation between rural areas and central areas. The Committee's acceptance of the amendment of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) does not increase or reduce the number of Members who will serve in the Assembly; it rather anticipates the decision that the Boundary Commission might have reached.
The hon. Gentleman presses me to say more on this subject. There is no Member of the House of Commons whom I should be happier to oblige in that regard, but I cannot go any further. I thought carefully about what I said to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is asking a little much to ask me to go further.

§ Sir John Gilmour
In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On the advice of yourself, Mr. Godman Irvine, and your assistants, I gather that it is in order to raise one matter.
Am I to understand from, I shall not say the Minister of State's rebuke to me, because it was nicely said—

§ Mr. John Smith
It was not a rebuke.

§ Mr. Dalyell
No; I do not pretend that it was. Do I gather from his firm assurance that the Assembly will have nothing to do with local government and that one must not think that it will interfere with local government and take over its functions? If I have understood my hon. Friend correctly, recent reports in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman should be contradicted. There has been a series of reports indicating that the Government were acquiescent in doing away with the regions. We know that the regions, as with any embryo organisation, are unloved. That goes without saying. If, however, we are to do away with the regions, it will be the reverse of devolution, because it will not bring decisions closer to the people. On the contrary, it will centralise them in Edinburgh.
Therefore, it is a matter of some consequence that we should get a clear assurance from the Minister of State that there is no question of the Assembly taking over the functions of the regions. If that is so, it affects the question of the numbers in the Assembly and the time that the Assembly will be working. If it is not to meddle with the regions, it will become far more of a part-time institution than has been built up in the popular mind.
If the Assembly is to have nothing to do with the regions, the description by my hon. Friend the Minister that it would be a one-shift Assembly was apt. This will have an effect on the matter of numbers. Indeed, it will determine to some extent the number of weeks that it is likely to sit. If it is to be a 10 a.m. till 6 p.m. set-up, this will have an effect on those who do not live within striking distance of Edinburgh. All the problems 1663 that arise in the House of Commons will arise in Edinburgh. We know of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs Short) and others that the House should cease its activities at 7 or 8 p.m. It would have a considerable effect on the structure of the institution.
Therefore, am I correct in understanding my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say, by implication, that the recent reports in the Glasgow Herald and in the Scotsman that the Government will acquiesce in letting the Assemblies do away with the regions and that we shall have another mammoth reform of local government are without foundation?

§ Mr. John Smith
I do not say things "by implication". Either I say them or I do not say them. Everything I say is subject to interpretation by anyone. However, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) puts a strange interpretation on it.
I said that the powers given to the Assembly in the Bill were formerly exercised by the central Government. In the Bill we do not take powers from local government and give them to the Assembly. But the Assembly will have power—it is clearly stated in the Bill—over local government to reform it in any way it chooses. I cannot anticipate what the Assembly will choose to do or the attitudes of political parties or people when they stand for election to the Assembly. My hon. Friend is asking me to perform an impossible task.
The Government have made clear that they have no plans for changing local government in Scotland before the Assembly is set up.

§ Mr. Brittan
Does the Minister agree that the Assembly has power not merely to reorganise local government but to take to itself some of the powers of local government?

§ Mr. Smith
Yes, I agree. It is clear on the face of the Bill that that is so.
My hon. Friend was suggesting that there was a plan afoot to change local government. My understanding is that the Government: have no plan before the Assembly is brought into operation to change local government.
All sorts of reports appear in the Glasgow Herald, the Scotsman, the Sun, 1664 the News of the World and other newspapers. With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not in business to comment on what appears in newspapers. If my hon. Friend asks me specific questions I shall answer them, but I do not know to which reports he refers.
The powers are crystal clear. The Assembly has power to reform, change or take powers from local government. That has been clear all along. I can put it no clearer than that.