SCOTTISH AFFAIRS.

HL Deb 02 December 1947 vol 152 cc1068-87

5.29 p.m.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the strong Scottish feelings in the matter, they are now prepared to agree to the appointment of a representative Committee of Inquiry to investigate and make recommendations for effective devolution of control and administration in Scotland; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, unfortunately I was not here at the beginning of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay of Birker, having been called out of the House. I would like to say to him that I am under an obligation to him for having altered the words of his Motion and having eliminated from it the specific reference to Scotland. If I may say so, I think that was a very useful act on his part because we have at least the Scottish demand for devolution on its own axis and not mixed up with the rest of the United Kingdom, and also on a far broader basis, as is desired by Scottish people.

On November 13 I had a Motion on the Order Paper stating that the Scottish people were demanding a form of devolution which would give greater control over their local affairs and for this purpose they desired a representative Committee of Inquiry to be set up in order to investigate the facts of the situation and to make recommendations as to what form that devolution should take. The Government reply to that Motion was: The Secretary of State for Scotland … is fully conscious of the feeling in Scotland regarding the desirability of a more intimate control by Scotland over its own affairs, and he is pursuing his inquiries into the possibility of action as a matter of urgency. After considering that reply I withdrew my Motion. I expressed satisfaction with the Secretary of State's assurance, so far as urgency of decision was concerned, but dissatisfaction that I had received no reply regarding the inquiry. I further said that there was a most insistent demand in Scotland for such an inquiry and that I would put down my Motion again on this date. Hence my Motion to-day.

Following the debate on November 13 many views were expressed in regard to the form of devolution that might be established in Scotland, but there was one unanimous expression of opinion; and this was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison. It was the demand for a representative Committee of Inquiry to investigate all the facts and to make them known throughout Scotland, and at the same time to have from that inquiry recommendations as to the best form which that devolution could take. My Motion to-day is asking that same ques- tion: Will the Government set up a representative Committee of Inquiry as soon as possible? All Scotland desires it and is asking for it, and is becoming exceeding restless and resentful because nothing has been done.

At this moment I would like to interpolate a few remarks regarding a question that was put to me to-day: "How is it that the Scottish Nationalists, when they put up at by-elections or General Elections, always forfeit their deposit? "There is a very simple answer to that. In the first place the Scottish Nationalists are extremists who desire separation between the two Kingdoms. The people whom I suggest I am representing here to-day, and my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and others, do not desire separation. They want a form of devolution—I agree there is a difference of opinion as to what form—which will give Scotland greater control over her local affairs. They ask for nothing more to-day. They do not want anything more. Therefore, when a Scottish Nationalist puts up at an Election, the electors naturally do not vote for him; they do not want separation. They know that if they vote for him they are voting for separation. But as the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, said the other day, we do not want an "iron curtain" across the Border between the two countries.

What I want to ask, this being the case, and if I have clarified the situation, is this: What have Scotsmen done to be treated in the way they are being treated to-day? When will England realize that we are not a province of England, hut a Kingdom which once gave you a King.

LORD CALVERLEY

Yes!

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

When will you really recognize that? A Crown Colony like Ceylon in the Indian Ocean demands an inquiry—and she receives two inquiries in the space of about twelve years. I happened to be in Ceylon, as a visitor, during the first inquiry. There was a more recent inquiry, over which the noble Lord, Lord Soulbury, presided. What was the result of these two inquiries? British Dominion status under the Crown. Scotland if not demanding to be a Dominion, but she is demanding an inquiry. If the Government will give Ceylon, a small Colony in the Indian Ocean, an inquiry into her affairs of government, surely the Government should be prepared to give a similar inquiry into Scottish affairs. I conclude by saying this. I want the Government to realize—and I am not saying this in any menacing spirit—that the heather is now on fire and will remain so until the inquiry we are asking for is granted. I venture to suggest—and this is a matter which the Government should take very carefully into consideration—that if too much time elapses before this happens it is quite certain that the devolutionary demands of the Scottish people are likely to expand and grow and to exceed those with which she would be content to-day. I beg to move for Papers.

5.38 p.m.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

had given Notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government whether, in any inquiry that may be instituted into the further devolution of Scottish administration, full consideration will be given to the advisability, or otherwise, of some degree of representative self-government; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it will be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I say what I have to say on the present Motion, rather than to inflict another Motion upon your Lordships this afternoon. With all that my noble friend Viscount Elibank has said, except for one small point, I am in complete agreement. I think that he went a little far in assuming that all those who stand as Scottish Nationalist candidates desire to separate the two countries with an iron curtain. The trouble with the Scottish Nationalist movement always has been, and remains, that few Scottish Nationalists are agreed upon how far they want to go. There are quite a number who wish to see a representative Government set up in Scotland but who are completely opposed to any form of iron curtain. In fact, I think the advocates of such an iron curtain are very small in number and probably comprise that same exiguous proportion of the Scottish population that has feelings of animosity against Englishmen as such.

There exist in Scotland to-day no such feelings of animosity; there is, however, a great deal of animosity towards the present system of practically unlimited control from Whitehall. An improvement certainly took place when St. Andrew's House was instituted, and certain functions of government were transferred there. But the fact unfortunately remains that even after these improvements have taken place, the Secretary of State for Scotland remains virtually a manager, working for a far distant proprietor, and a proprietor who, in many cases, does not take the interest in his property that he ought. Furthermore, Scotland feels very strongly that she is not the property of England.

I worded my Motion rather carefully and very generally, the reason being that I want to make it perfectly clear that its acceptance by the Government and by your Lordships' House would not involve either of the Parties concerned in any approval of the principle of Scottish self-government. All that it does ask is that if, as I hope will be the case, an inquiry is set up on the lines desired by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, the terms of reference should specifically include consideration of the advisability or otherwise of some form of representative self-government. I stress the words "some form of representative self-government "because I am trying to make it as broad as possible in order to try to secure general agreement. I think, indeed I am sure, that if an inquiry is set up without some such inclusion in its terms of reference, it will be bitterly resented in Scotland, even by many of those not in favour of such self-government but who would be resentful that the people of Scotland or their leading citizens were not to be consulted as to the future form of government of the country.

As regards my own position, I have hitherto been of the opinion that on the whole Scotland might lose more than she would gain by such representative self-government. I am not, however, very certain that I shall hold that opinion much longer. One of the remarkable facts that emerged during the Coalition Government was that although the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Johnston, was a Socialist, and had been—if he was not still—one of very-decided opinions, he possessed the confidence and trust of the people of Scotland, irrespective of class or Party, to a greater degree than any Secretary of State for Scotland in this century—if not, indeed, since the institution of that office. I think it was universally regarded as a calamity for Scotland when it became known that Mr. Johnston's decision to give up all political life was irrevocable. Scotland feared that she would not have looking after her interests in future a tighter with such robust qualities. That, unfortunately, proved to be true; for however admirable the qualities of Mr. West-wood (and they were many) they did not include a capacity for standing up to his Cabinet colleagues in expressing the desires and rights of Scotland in any forcible degree. Scotland also felt uneasy because she really had nobody to express her views in the Cabinet. There was not one single Scotsman a member of that Cabinet. Mr. Westwood, although resident in Scotland for a considerable period, was not of Scottish birth.

To-day we should look for a moment or two at the main ways in which self-government would affect the country. There are many such ways, but I will allude to only four: administration, culture, economics and politics. On the question of administration, I think there is practically universal agreement that, whatever might be the disadvantages of Scottish Home Rule, from an administrative point of view it would be an almost unmitigated advantage. From a cultural point of view, too, the balance would definitely tip in the direction of self-government. It is when one comes to the exceedingly difficult question of economics and politics that one does not yet know—at least I have not decided—which way the scale would tip. It would be necessary to be extremely careful not to upset the intricate and delicate economic relationships between the various parts of Great Britain. It would be equally essential that, whatever the form of sell-government, it should not be of such a character that the unfortunate aggregation of humanity in the central part would be able completely to dominate the cultural, political and economic life of the rest of Scotland.

Whatever may be decided eventually as to the merits of all these arguments, I submit that the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, has put forward an unanswerable case for an inquiry. I submit to your Lordships that such an inquiry should, as I have said, include definitely a reference to the question of Scottish self-government, that it should be gone into and looked at from every point of view, from the point of view of the people of Scotland as well as from the point of view of the people of England and the people of Northern Ireland, and that no hasty and rash decision one way or the other should be arrived at until such a Committee have reported in full and their findings have been carefully considered.

5.48 p.m.

LORD CALVERLEY

My Lords, I intervene for a few minutes as an Englishman to support the proposals of the two noble Lords. I think that a case has been made out for an inquiry, and I am strengthened in that view because, being a member of the Royal Commission on the Administration of Justice in England and Scotland, I had the great privilege of listening for five long days to evidence from all over Scotland about the appointment of certain officers in the law and particularly in the administration of justice. Of course, it would be improper for me to state any conclusions of my own with regard to what might be the findings of that Royal Commission, but certainly the evidence was given in public and I came to the conclusion that there was a psychological sense of grievance in Scotland that they were not having a square deal.

They appreciated the fact that it was the first time that a Royal Commission had gone to Scotland. We went to Scotland rather than invite them to come to London, and every one of the witnesses appreciated that fact. I think that there is a sense of remoteness, notwithstanding that the English taxpayer has built that beautiful St. Andrew's House, which may be a monument of efficiency or may serve to emphasize the remoteness of Edinburgh from Whitehall, and also of Edinburgh from the Highlands. Listening to the evidence of some of the people from the North of Scotland, I thought that this sense of remoteness did make this problem difficult. I agree entirely with the two noble Lords who have preceded me that I could sense a feeling of resentment much of which was unjustified but which could be dangerous. What might be a fancied grievance could be nursed into a hot resentment, and such a condition is dangerous.

I was going to mention the fate of Nationalist candidates in Scottish elections, but that is no fair test and we cannot afford to exploit the tolerance and the forbearance of folks with strong Scottish backgrounds. We cannot afford to neglect that feeling that they are not whole-hoggers. I hope and trust that we shall move in time to prevent them from becoming whole-hoggers, because a Scotsman can have a proper pride in being a Scotsman, and the good Lord knows he has got plenty of that. Scotsmen have got a great sense of their own identity compared with the humble Englishman.

A Noble Lord: Humble Yorkshire-man.

LORD CALVERLEY

Therefore, if they can have candidates putting up at the universities as Nationalists and inflaming Scottish youth into believing that this is a real grievance, it could become a danger in another generation, or earlier. I shall ever remember the almost too moderate requests of Irish Nationalism. We see that to-day. Some of us saw it long ago. I remember a distinguished gentleman of the name of the Master of Elibank who did. We repulsed what was a reasonable request, and we have seen the result and the sequel. I hope that this Government will agree to a Committee, not all Scotsmen, to act in a judicial capacity. There were one or two Scotsmen on our Commission, but the majority were Englishmen. We went there in a judicial capacity and I am certain that the people of Scotland, when they see our Report, will say that we did a mighty fine job of work.

Viscount Elibank could not refrain from referring to the present to England of a Scottish king. If he is referring to James I of England and James VI of Scotland, well, we Englishmen have to accept all that we can get either from Scotsmen or anybody else. The only good thing that James I did was when he sent a message to Edinburgh from Holyrood, "Send 10,000 brogues to London." The message was misquoted in the transcript and when it was received it said: "Send 10,000 rogues." They got as far as Yorkshire and stayed there, and that is the reason for Yorkshire's greatness. I hope the Government will give reasonable and serious thought to the request of the two noble Lords.

5.55 p.m.

THE DUKE OF MONTROSE

My Lords, at this late hour I shall not detain you very long, but I would like to take the opportunity of saying a word or two. It has been a privilege to me to hear this debate and the opinions expressed from different angles. Fifteen to twenty years ago, when I first began to discuss devolution of Scottish business, my voice was a lone voice in the wilderness, but now I am glad to find noble Lords rising in their places to discuss this question—not only noble Lords from one Party, but noble Lords from all Parties. What is more, they are talking about devolution for Scotland not in a facetious way, not in a hostile way, but in a friendly way, as if they were anxious to get to the bottom of this subject and to see if it will really do good in the government of this country as well as of Scotland.

I venture to say that the noble Lord, Lord Lindsay, touched on a very important spot indeed when he discussed this question of a Committee to investigate the representation of Scottish interests when you denationalize. Lord Lindsay spoke of denationalizing industry, and I presume the noble Lord meant also the public services. There are really only two industries being nationalized at the moment, one of which is the coal industry. Transport is a public service and hydro-electric schemes are a public service; but iron and steel, if nationalized, will be an industry. Whichever it is, public service or great industry, if we nationalize it, then it is most important that there should be maintained in Scotland the direction of the Scottish side of those industries—not as a shadowy direction, not as an empty direction, but as a real effective direction with management powers. I believe that in the Railway Bill they provided a half-time director for Scotland. We do not want half-time people. We want a proper director on our boards in Scotland, with full financial, industrial and administrative powers, to look after the Scottish interests in Scotland.

It is inconceivable that we in Scotland should always be content simply to sit on advisory committees. That is not what we want. That will not do at all. What we want is co-equal status with the representatives of England. Where our Scottish industries touch English interests let us have a joint board or committee on which the Scottish representation nominated by a Scottish body will sit with the same status side by side with the English representation and settle the matter together; and then let the people feel that they really have a hand in the matter. Unless the Scottish people can feel that they have some real responsibility, it will never do. The only way to get a show of success in a nationalized scheme will be to give Scotland a direct share in the administration of her own affairs. Some people doubt it. Some people say: Can Scotland manage anything? There are twelve hundred local authorities in Scotland, operating over thirty-three counties. They have a reputation for carrying on their business with great ability and economy, and what twelve hundred local authorities spread over thirty-three counties can do, and can do summarily, surely, common sense tells us, they can do collectively. There is no doubt that they can manage and conduct their affairs in Scotland in a reasonable and successful way.

We have had three Motions on the Paper this afternoon asking for the appointment of Committees. I do hope that that figure will come down to one Committee with real broad powers. We have had a Committee who reported on the feasibility of this scheme of devolution and, so far as Scotland was concerned, that was favourable. What we want now touches not the feasibility but the desirability. If you have this Committee, let it be appointed to inquire into the desirability of devolution and how it can be actually applied.

That is really all I want to say this afternoon as time is getting on, but I hope that we may have that one Committee. After all, why not have a Committee? There is some opposition to it, but what has Parliament to hide? Let us have the Committee to find all the facts. I think my noble friend Lord Elibank placed too much importance on the idea of the Scottish Nationalist. I said last time that every Party was bothered with extremists, and I will say now that the extremists in Scotland have done more harm to the cause of devolution than anyone else. I feel absolutely confident that the great body of Scottish opinion is solid on this question and it is reasonable. While the people want a Parliament, or a Legislative Assembly—Parliament is the old Scottish name—they have No 1ntention and no desire whatever to upset the supremacy of this Mother of Parliaments at Westminster.

6.0 p.m.

LORD CLWYD

My Lords, I do not wish to stand for more than a minute or two between your Lordships and the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government, but as a representative of Wales I am very much interested in this Motion. I should like to suggest to the House that if a Committee, such as is desired for the purpose of considering the whole question of a certain measure of devolution to Scotland in regard to local affairs and local government, is in fact set up, then its survey should extend to Wales as well. When I was a member of another place many years ago, Welsh representatives there used frequently to bring forward Motions stressing the desirability and the necessity of further devolution of powers to Wales in regard to local affairs and local government. Circumstances and conditions have changed considerably since then, but it is a fact that the necessity for a further measure of devolution of powers in regard to Welsh affairs is as acute to-day as ever. We desire a further measure of devolution in regard to local government matters, and in regard particularly to education, licensing, and other important issues in our public life. I will not take up the time of the House further to-day except to say that if the Government are prepared to consider the creation of a Committee or a Commission to hold an inquiry with regard to Scottish affairs, the purview of that inquiry should be extended to the country which I know best—Wales.

6.3 p.m.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

My Lords, I wish to intervene in this debate for but a very few minutes. My chief reason for doing so it that last week I was in Glasgow, and I think that perhaps this is the right moment to convey to your Lordships one or two very strong impressions that I received during my visit to that city. I must confess that I had always thought that accounts of Scottish feeling upon this matter of devolution were slightly exaggerated, because, although I am a Scottish Peer, I normally live in the South. However, I found that that was not the case at all. During the time I was in Glasgow I spoke to a great many people—ordinary folk, men in the street, artisans, business men and students—and they all said the same thing. All showed the most intense interest in, and displayed extremely strong feelings upon, this matter. I must admit that an expression of such feeling, coming from so wide a section of the public as it did, was, to me, something of a shock.

One man in particular told me the reason which made him feel so strongly about the need for a greater measure of administrative power being given to Scotland. He is a member of the local authority of the town in which he lives, and that local authority recently desired to improve the street lighting in one street. Now, as it happened, that street was the main thoroughfare, and therefore the local authority were obliged to make an application to the Ministry of Transport in London. A representative of the Ministry went up from London to that small town to discuss the matter with the local authority. After doing so, he returned to the South, and later some forms were delivered at the offices of the authority. These were filled up and sent back. Subsequently more forms arrived. These also were returned after being duly filled in. Eventually, yet another set of forms came along, and these, too, were appropriately dealt with. Since their despatch to London, however, nothing more has been heard from Whitehall about this street lighting matter. That little town is, situated at a great distance from Whitehall, and the people there naturally feel that their controlling interest is very far away from them. Now they are rather at sea as to what they will do next, and feel doubtful regarding the possibility of their ever getting the improved lighting that they require.

I realize that this is a very complex problem and that there can be no quick remedy. I am certain that Scots universally understand that. They fully realize that in a matter of this size and complexity there can be No 1mmediate solution. However, the least His Majesty's Government can do at this moment is to set up a Commission or Committee of Inquiry to go into this vast subject and not only to deal with the views of the Scottish people but also to tackle the question generally of the evils of over-centralized government. It seems to me that at the present time His Majesty's Government are doing nothing in this matter. I cannot see that they are moving at all in any direction to give satisfaction to the people who are interested and affected. Honestly, the Scots, as I saw last week, are really getting a little "fed up "with the situation. I certainly do not believe in Scotland seceding from England, and I am quite sure that very few Scots want that, but I do feel that unless His Majesty's Government take some action, and courageous action, immediately, the Scots are going to be forced to do something which they do not want to do and which the whole nation might well regret.

6.7 p.m.

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

My Lords, I wonder if I may intervene for one moment. I happen to be half a Scot and I live on the borders of Wales. I should like to say that, for my part, I entirely agree with what fell this afternoon from the lips of my noble friend Lord Lindsay of Birker, and also with what I have heard since from the noble Duke, and from my noble friend Lord Clwyd. I feel that some measure of devolution, particularly in regard to administrative matters, has become almost essential. I will give only one illustration in supporting this opinion, and that is with regard to a problem which is exercising the minds of a large number of Welsh agriculturists—the institution of a Veterinary Department under the University of Wales. We feel strongly about it, because if there is one thing more essential than another in connexion with the improvement of livestock, it is the strengthening of the veterinary profession. That is badly needed to-day if we are to keep animal diseases under control.

I have been for many years Pro-Chancellor of the University of Bristol, but my sympathies in this connexion are not with Bristol but with the University of Wales which is established in Cardiff. I do not believe that you will ever effectively carry out proper veterinary administration in a part of this country which has done great work in improving its dairy cattle and its horseflesh unless you have devolution within Wales to deal with this particular problem. For my part, being, as I have said, half a Scot and living on the borders of Wales, I entirely agree with the suggestion that a Committee should be set up to deal with the question of devolution.

6.10 p.m.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, whatever may be said of the Government in general by those who have taken part in this debate, it cannot be said that Scottish affairs are being neglected. This is the second Scottish debate in two weeks—

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

By Scotsmen, not by the Government.

LORD MORRISON

It is about a fortnight since the last one took place, but, unlike the last one, it has been taken part in by representatives of England and Wales, and even Yorkshire. I can almost imagine the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, when he saw these reinforcements come from outlying areas to Scotland's aid, thinking of the lines of the old hymn: Reinforcements now appearing, Victory is nigh. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, who opened for a second time, shares along with the noble Duke the privilege of being the pioneer of devolution debates in your Lordships' House. Like other pioneers of their race, they can say that they have aroused an interest on this side of the Border. Therefore I was not altogether surprised when the noble Viscount at once gave notice to contract out of Lord Lindsay's Motion. The noble Viscount says that if this Motion is widened, Scotland is in danger of being left a little out in the cold. The object of Lord Lindsay's Motion, which we discussed an hour ago, is to appoint a Committee to consider the question of devolution all over the United Kingdom. The noble Viscount is concerned with Scotland, and he is wisely sticking to his original proposition and does not want the issue widened. If England or Wales or any other place want to discuss devolution, let them do so, but Scotland was a pioneer in this and they are entitled to try it out. I think that is a clear version of what the noble Viscount said. May I sum up this interesting debate? At this late hour, it can be only a brief summing up. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, pointed out again what he made clear on the last occasion, that this is a most insistent demand in Scotland. He asked, when will England treat Scotland as a kingdom?

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

May I intervene? That is not exactly what I said. I am sure the noble Lord does not want to misrepresent me. I said, when will England give up treating Scotland as one of her provinces?

LORD MORRISON

I am not here this afternoon representing England, either by birth or in any other way. I am representing the Secretary of State for Scotland in my humble capacity here, and I report to the Secretary of State who, in turn, if he thinks the matter of sufficient importance, as he frequently does, will report to the Cabinet. The noble Viscount referred to the recent by-election in East Edinburgh. I would make only this comment. He said people were asking why it is, if there is an insistent demand for devolution in Scotland, that every time a Scottish Nationalist candidate puts up he loses his deposit. It goes further than that. In the by-election in East Edinburgh, not only the Scottish Nationalist candidate but the Liberal candidate, who presumably was advocating the kind of Home Rule the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was so eloquently advocating in Aberdeen the other day, also lost his deposit. Therefore, I am not for one instant putting it forward in mitigation of Lord Elibank's position, which I entirely accept, that there is a strong and growing demand in Scotland for some further opportunity of managing their own affairs than they have at the present time. I said that in the last debate and I repeat it now. The points Viscount Elibank made are perfectly correct, though candidates lose their deposits. There is no great demand for absolute separation.

That brings me to what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, said. He wants to widen the terms of reference, which to me raises this quesion: should a committee be decided upon before the terms of reference which are to be put before the committee, or should you first of all determine the terms of reference and then appoint a committee? I should have thought the best way is to determine first the terms of reference, because until you know what the committee is to inquire into there is no point in deciding to have a committee.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

That: is precisely what I want.

LORD MORRISON

That is the very matter which requires close consideration. I was surprised to hear Lord Mansfield say that the last Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Westwood, was not of Scottish birth. I believe he came to Scotland when he was very young. I was surprised and a little disappointed. What about the number of M.P.'s representing Scottish constituencies who are not Scottish by birth? I have in mind one about which I know a good deal—North Aberdeen—surely the centre of Scottish feeling. The last three members have not been Scotsmen. I do not know why Lord Mansfield should raise a point of that sort. What about Scotsmen in England? How do I stand? I represented in the British House of Commons for twenty years a part of London and nobody ever raised with me the suggestion that I ought to go back to Scotland and try to get into Parliament there.

THE EARL OF MANSFIELD

Scotsmen have colonized England.

LORD MORRISON

Perhaps they were wise enough to recognize that I was in London for London's good. The noble Lords, Lord Calverley and Lord Clwyd, will forgive me if I do not reply to their points. Lord Calverley dragged in Yorkshire and Lord Clwyd made reference to Wales, but I have enough on my plate with Scotland, and I ask to be forgiven for not replying to what they said. I think I could sum up in one sentence the interesting and constructive speech of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and I do not think the noble Duke would take exception to it. He said it was clear that the Scottish people must have more responsibility in Scotland. I think that is a fair summary of what he said. The Motion we discussed before we came to this one, that of Lord Lindsay, asked for an, inquiry into the problems of devolution. The Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is exactly the same but limited to Scotland.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I hardly accept that. Lord Lindsay's Motion, as I read it, refers to decentralization and devolution so far as nationalized industries are concerned. My Motion refers to a much broader issue so far as Scotland is concerned—control of Scottish affairs—and I submit there is a great difference between the two.

LORD MORRISON

I have not the least desire to misrepresent the noble Viscount, as he well knows. His Motion is in favour of the advisability of effective devolution of control and administration in Scotland.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

Yes, but not nationalized industries only.

LORD MORRISON

The point I was going to make was that neither of these problems can be solved by a single quick decision. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, proposes a Committee. I suggest that the issue between us, after two debates, is very small. The noble Viscount says that the way to a solution to this problem is to appoint a Committee. The Government agree that this is an important problem for Scotland, and it is so important that it might be dangerous to make a decision with undue haste. Therefore, as I informed the House only two weeks ago, urgent consideration is being given to this problem, and amongst the matters being considered is whether or not the best line of approach to this complex matter is the appointment of a Committee of some sort or another. That sums up all I have to say.

It is not a small matter; it is not a matter that the Secretary of State for Scotland can settle off his own bat in a few minutes. The debate we have had to-day, and the debate we had a fortnight ago, indicate the complexity of the matter, and certainly prove how many different points of view there are. Therefore, the proper approach is, first of all, to explore and decide whether the best way to meet a problem of this sort is by setting up a Committee, and what the terms of reference of such a Committee will be; whether they will be wide enough to include separation or Home Rule, and all the other things that have been mentioned, and whether they will be wide enough to include similar questions for Wales and Yorkshire. This is the kind of problem about which the first committee, the British Cabinet, will have to make up their mind. I can only conclude by thanking all those who have taken part in this debate, and by saying that, so far as I am concerned, I am not authorized to make any statement beyond what I said in the last debate.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

The noble Lord says that this matter is under the closest consideration, and that it will finally have to come before the Cabinet. Can the noble Lord give us any idea as to when this matter will reach finality? We have now had two debates, and I am given to-day practically the same reply that I was given a fortnight ago. Before I reply, can the noble Lord give us some idea as to when there will be finality? Will it be within the next fortnight, or after the next recess, or when will it be?

LORD MORRISON

I cannot give the noble Viscount any definite answer. As he knows (he has been in politics a long time, as I have) there are problems that receive consideration, and there are problems that receive urgent consideration. On the authority of the Government, I said on the last occasion when I spoke that this was one of the problems that was receiving urgent consideration. I am not able to go beyond that. I would like to assure the noble Viscount, however, that as soon as I receive information that the answer for which he is hopefully asking is ready, I will inform him in the usual way. He can then put down a third Motion in order to obtain the answer, which I hope may be that which he is anxious to get.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, the noble Lord cannot expect me to be anything but disappointed with the reply which he has given. At the same time, he has indicated very definitely, for the second time, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has this under very urgent consideration and regards it as an urgent matter. Consequently, I see no other course but to accept that answer on behalf of those who have so ably and eloquently supported me this afternoon. I also accept the noble Lord's offer that he will send me a message telling me when he will be able to give an answer, and I hope it will be soon. There are one or two matters which have arisen in the debate which I should like to clear up before I withdraw my Motion. First of all, there is the question of the Scottish Nationalists. My noble friend the Earl of Mansfield thought that I had exaggerated the views of the Scottish Nationalists, as did my noble friend, the Duke of Montrose. Nevertheless, I would suggest that the Scottish Nationalists have been led for so long by leaders who are extremists that the general feeling in Scotland to-day is that Scottish Nationalism is an extreme mode of thought in this matter, and that it would be dangerous to support their candidates in elections. I will not go further than that. Putting it that way, I think, explains a good deal.

I want to express my gratitude for the fact that this debate has broadened today, and that we have had English, as well as Welsh, support. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, for the speech which he made, and for the way he exposed to his countrymen the strong feelings; that we have in Scotland about this matter. It is always helpful to think that there are on this side of the Border men of his knowledge and ability who see our point of view, and who will support us. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, is concerned, I certainly welcomed his support, and I am glad that he, from his point of view, feels that Wales ought to have a Committee in order to inquire into her position. I did not welcome, however, his suggestion that that Committee should be one and the same for Scotland and Wales, because they are two different countries, with two quite different modes of thought, of ideas, and so on. I do not think the same Committee would be able to do justice to both countries. I suggest, if there is to be a Committee for Wales, that it should be a separate one. I want to thank my noble friend Lord Fairfax for the speech which he made. Alter all, he came down straight from Glasgow. He had what we might call "hot news" of the situation, and he gave it to us. I think his speech carried a great deal of weight. I was not at all sure that I agreed altogether with the noble "Lord when he said he would like to see this Committee embrace nationalized industries in the other countries.

LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON

If I may interrupt the noble Viscount, I did not intend to say that. My intention was that at the moment the Committee should be purely for Scotland.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I gladly accept that correction. There was one remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to which I would like to refer. He suggested that there was the possibility of a Committee dealing with other countries and not only Scotland.

LORD MORRISON

I have No 1nformation about that at all. The point I was making was that I was surprised that the noble Viscount, having pioneered this issue, should not want to have it widened to take in the whole of Great Britain.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

I am glad to hear that explanation, because I had misunderstood it. I know my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield may wish to say something—and I should like to congratulate him upon his speech. With those remarks I beg leave to withdraw my Motion, in the hope that that message telling us that something really good is going to happen may come very soon.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.