§ 11.24 a.m.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept Sir Henry Hardman's view that the existence of Scotland and Wales is irrelevant in the context of the efficient operation of the national Government.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)My Lords, this sentence appears in a series of general points which Sir Henry Hardman emphasises are his personal views. It needs to be read in the context of what goes before it, where Sir Henry writes of London as the capital, as the single decision-taking centre of operations for national issues. In this context, Sir Henry argues that the existence of the Scottish and Welsh Offices cannot be used to demonstrate that national United Kingdom Departments can operate as effectively outside as in London. When 977 it comes to the formulation of United Kingdom policies, Sir Henry argues that London is the natural place for the headquarters of national Departments to be.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, while not necessarily agreeing in any detail with what Sir Henry says, will the Minister confirm that all policies of Her Majesty's Government, including, of course, the location of Government Departments, are based on Great Britain being a union of two Kingdoms and one Principality? And, if I may save the time of the Minister by putting my second supplementary at the same time, does he agree that if such a union is to survive, the theory must not be accepted that Scotland and Wales are mere provincial appendages of England or, as Sir Henry has stated it, albeit his personal view, "something more than regions which are tolerable because they are small"?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government's dispersal policy has always been based, as the noble Lord rightly says, on the union being one United Kingdom, and the fact is that our policy so far as Scotland is concerned has always been a very happy one for Scotland. We have moved the National Savings Bank to Glasgow, as the noble Lord will be aware, with some 7,000 posts; and we are continuing this dispersal policy: there are still 4,000 more posts in the pipeline. But of course what Sir Henry is arguing is the difference between regional Government in Scotland and in Wales and to what extent national Government from London can be dispersed to Scotland and Wales. If the noble Lord read the full Appendix, as I have done, I am sure he will see that, although one may or may not agree with Sir Henry, at least he is putting forward a point of view which is not meant in any way, I am quite sure, as a slight on either Scotland or Wales.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, but in the broad context does the Minister confirm that it is not Government policy to regard Scotland and Wales as regions or "something more than regions which are tolerable only because they are small"?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I certainly do not agree with that view. But I think that again the noble Lord has taken this phrase out of context. I know the words are there, but if the noble 978 Lord reads them again he will see that this statement again relates to regional Government and the small amount of national Government that is based in Scotland and Wales.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware, as a member of a subject and irrelevant race, that we take umbrage at this insensitive language? If I were a bit of an artist I would describe a Coat of Arms and make this gentleman the Grant Master of Brick-droppers. I would ask the noble Lord, who is so kindly from the Principality as well, is he not aware that without the Welshmen and Scotsmen pouring into England in their tens of thousands the standards of English life, its accuracy of diction, and its position in the world would suffer? Had it not been for Sir Thomas Picton at Waterloo, the pipes at Lucknow, the cutting of coal in Wales, and the marvellous Scottish regiments, where would the Anglo-Saxon be? We are living in a world where words are using men and men not using words. Will he "tick off" this writer of insensitive literature?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I do not know where this House would be without the noble Lord. He will certainly expect me, as an equal supporter of the Welsh nation, to agree with him in his fervour on behalf of Welshmen, as I fully acknowledge the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for Scotland. But although the sentence under consideration may be somewhat unhappily phrased, I do not think Sir Henry Hardman meant to offer insult to either of those great nations.
§ LORD MAELORMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the Welsh were in London long before the English, that the Welsh were civilised when the English were heathens, and that the real title for the United Kingdom should be "the United Kingdom of Wales and Ireland—and England"?
§ LORD STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that Sir Henry's words in this connection were slightly unfortunate?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I did say that I thought they were slightly ill-phrased. But I would also say that if 979 one looks at the whole paragraph, and the paragraph within the Appendix, it is quite clear what he is arguing, and I am sure he did not mean to be slighting.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, would not that reply be even better if the Minister were to leave out the word "slightly"?
§ THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEMy Lords, would the Minister be so kind as to look again at his original Answer and not the discrepancy between his identification of "national" with "United Kingdom", on the one hand, and his own reference to Wales as nation, on the other? Is it not the case the the Government continually slip into the error of identifying "national" with "United Kingdom'"—which is, of course, not the case?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I have used my English slipshodly. I should have spoken in Welsh, which is rather more exact in these matters.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, if someone whose ancestry is mainly Irish may intervene in this United Kingdom civil war, and as one who was responsible for putting one of the main training colleges of the Civil Service Department in Scotland, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Since my noble friend did not wish, as he has since made clear, to be unkind to Sir Henry Hardman, would the noble Lord note first of all, that this is not a personal matter? The whole Report was produced by Sir Henry Hardman and, although it is controversial, it is in fact a tour de force and a breakthrough in the technicalities of approach. Would the noble Lord agree that Sir Henry Hardman, writing in his brilliant way, may I fear have forgotten that sometimes people put different interpretations on writings which may be meaningful in context but are clearly open to misinterpretation when taken out of context, as this unfortunate passage is?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, who has put in far more easily understandable words than I have what I was trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I acknowledge that 980 this is a very useful Report. It is certainly written very trenchantly, and it may be that this one sentence—
§ LORD SHACKLETONTwo sentences.
§ LORD ABERDARE—one or two sentences are slightly ill-phased, particularly when picked out. I repeat, I am sure that Sir Henry Hardman had no intention of doing any injustice to either Scotland or Wales.