Lords Sitting of 4 April 1978

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

UNCTAD GENEVA MEETING
Lord BROCKWAY: My 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 what conclusions were reached at the UNCTAD meeting at Geneva on Third World debts.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with permission, and for the convenience of the House, I am publishing in the Official Report the operative paragraphs of the resolution adopted by the Geneva meeting. A significant agreement was reached on two important issues. On aid, we and other developed countries joined in an undertaking to seek to adopt measures to adjust the financial terms of past aid, or other equivalent measures, for some or all poorer and least developed countries.
2
We are now urgently examining how best to follow up this undertaking. Agreement was also reached on four basic concepts in relation to the debt problems of developing countries. Further work in UNCTAD will take account of these.
Following is the text referred to:
"Operative paragraphs of the Resolution adopted by the UNCTAD Trade and Development Board meeting
Questions 38 and 43, Monday 20th March 1978. A:
1. Members of the Board considered a number of proposals made by developing and developed market economy countries.
2. The Board recognises that many poorer developing countries, particularly the least developed among them, face serious development problems and in some instances serious debt service difficulties.
3. The Board notes with interest the suggestions made by the Secretary-General of UNCTAD about an adjustment of terms of past bilateral official development assistance (ODA) in order to bring them into line with the currently prevailing softer terms.
4. Developed donor countries will seek to adopt measures for such an adjustment of terms of past bilateral ODA, or other equivalent measures, as a means of improving the net ODA flows in order to enhance the development efforts of those developing countries in the light of internationally agreed objectives and conclusions on aid.
5. Upon undertaking such measures, each developed donor country will determine the distribution and the net flows involved within the context of its own aid policy.
6. In such a way, the net flows of ODA in appropriate forms and on highly concessional terms should be improved for the recipients.
7. The Board recommends that the fifth session of the Conference should review measures taken in pursuance of the above.
B:
1. In accordance with resolution 94(IV), the Board has reviewed the intensive work carried on within UNCTAD and other international fora on the identification of those features of past situations which could provide guidance for future operations relating to debt problems of interesting developing countries.
2. Notes with appreciation the contributions made by the Group of 77 (TD/B/670, Annex II) and by some Group B members (TD/B/L.498).
3. Common to the varying approaches in this work are certain basic concepts which include inter alias

(i) International consideration of the debt problem of a developing country would be initiated only at the specific request of the debtor country concerned.

(ii) Such consideration would take place in an appropriate multilateral framework consisting of the interested parties, and with the help as appropriate of relevant international institutions to ensure timely action, taking into account the nature of the problem which may vary from acute balance-of-payments difficulties requiring immediate action to longer-term situations relating to structural, financial and transfer of resources problems requiring appro- priate longer-term measures.

(iii) International action, once agreed by the interested parties, would take due account of the country's economic and financial situation and performance, and of its development prospects and capabilities and of external factors, and bearing in mind internationally agreed objectives for the development of developing countries.

(iv) Debt reorganisation would protect the interests of both debtors and creditors equitably in the context of international economic co-operation.

4. The Board requests the Secretary-General of UNCTAD to convene a meeting of an Intergovernmental Group of Experts to recommend to the tenth special session of the Board prior to the fifth session of the Conference detailed features for future operations relating to debt problems of interested developing countries taking into account the above-mentioned concepts and in the light of proposals made on this issue."
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask whether she would not agree that, on the whole, this conference, by its results, was a failure and followed failures by other conferences? Considering the contribution which Third World countries have
4
made to this country for two centuries in cheap foods and cheap raw materials, and considering that a lifting of their standard of life would mean new markets and the easing of unemployment in this country, cannot our Government follow the example of Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands and Switzerland in cancelling the debts of the poorest countries and in easing those of others?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot agree with my noble friend's belief that this conference was a failure. Indeed, 1 think it is generally agreed that it was a distinct and most useful advance in the relations between the North and the South. That was agreed by the developing countries as well as by the developed ones. With regard to Sweden, Switzerland and Canada, of course we have taken note of their action in cancelling debts, and the precise way in which we shall implement our undertakings will, I hope, emerge from discussions in the next few weeks. But each country has agreed to implement these things in the best way that it can.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the United Kingdom, along with other European Community countries, has already done an enormous amount to help Third World countries through the European Development Fund and through the Lome Convention? Is not this a more practical way of helping these countries?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I entirely agree that we have done a great deal and not always with encouragement from everywhere else.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us whether Her Majesty's Government have any inhibitions about lending taxpayers' money for bad risks?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have far more inhibitions than my noble friend.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in considering practical ways of dealing

5
with this problem, is not the solution to incorporate the debt problem with a much more comprehensive trade agreement, which would replace the International Monetary Fund by a world central bank, and to pass the distribution of oil and other surpluses to the recognised international agencies?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend very much takes a global approach to these matters, but I must emphasise that I feel that the way we are doing it, case by case where it is appropriate, is a more practical way. In any case, our aid policy is more for the poorest countries and for the poorest people in them.

PUBLIC UTILITIES: ACCURACY OF BILLS
2.42 p.m.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My 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 will emphasise to the nationalised industries the need to examine demands for payment carefully before sending them to old people to avoid alarming or injuring them with very high and irrational demands.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the nationalised industries are mindful of the need for care in preparing and submitting bills to all their consumers. Her Majesty's Government do not believe it necessary to raise the matter with the chairmen at this time.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he really believes that the situation is adequate? Is he aware that at the moment I have in my hand a bill for electricity for £506 in respect of a house whose quarterly bill ought to have been between £30 and £40, with a demand that it be paid within 10 days? Is he aware that, luckily, this was sent to me, whereupon I was able to laugh at it very heartily, but that I stopped laughing rather suddenly when I realised what would have happened had this been sent to an elderly person?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am not aware of what the noble Viscount carries in his hand, but if he has any specific cases perhaps he would let me know. With regard to the general point, I do admit there are occasional errors, mainly due to a computer; but we must remember that there are 17 million electricity and 12 million credit gas consumers.

DISABLED DRIVERS' CAR BADGES
2.44 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My 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 what steps they are taking to ensure that only those disabled drivers who are entitled to do so use the orange car badge.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government consider that the essential first step is to seek to ensure that badges are not issued to people who do not qualify for a badge under the regulations. To this end, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place on 21st March that a standard form of medical certificate has been devised to be used when applying for a badge. The Health Departments for England and Wales are asking local authorities to recommend doctors to use it. Use of an orange badge by an unentitled person constitutes a traffic offence for which the police can prosecute.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that very helpful reply. Is she aware that there is great consternation, to put it mildly, among able-bodied people—perhaps out of jealousy—when they see other able-bodied people using orange badges, and disabled people who are unable to park because able-bodied people have taken their place? Do the Government think that, in the foreseeable future—say, within two years—it might be possible to change the fundamental background colour of these badges and start again, because there is now a vast proliferation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, something like 200,000 of these badges have already been issued. The point which the noble Baroness has made, about changing the colour of the background to these badges, is not, so far as I know, one that has been considered by my right honourable friend, and I will certainly draw his attention to it.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, has said, and say that many severely disabled people who need parking places are not able to get them, because able-bodied people are taking the spaces meant for them, and that the disabled are extremely worried about it? Disabled passengers—not drivers—are also issued with an orange badge, which they are able to leave on the car of an able-bodied driver. Can the Government see that the name is written on the badge, and that it is an offence if able-bodied people drive a car which has a badge of whatever colour?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it is now an offence for someone who is not entitled to do so to make use of the orange badge. But I will certainly bring the suggestion of the noble Baroness to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Scotland the name is required to be on the badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords. The Scottish Office are at present also looking at our proposals for the int' oduction of the medical form to see whether they can produce something in line with that.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as this is a well-known abuse, is it not possible for the Government to encourage traffic wardens to look at the people getting into cars using this badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, far be it from me to suggest that traffic wardens should do more than they do at the moment. But it is an offence, and traffic wardens have authority to ask people to move on if they are wrongly
8
using a disabled badge, and, indeed, to institute proceedings if they are doing so.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that disabled people to whom I have spoken have expressed the highest satisfaction about this scheme, and about the lack of formalities associated with the applications which they put in for the badge? Will she take care, in any amendments that are examined, not to impose enormous barriers on the issue of such badges to disabled people which would make it any more difficult for them than it is now?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we know how much this badge has been appreciated by those who really need to use it. What we are concerned about is that a very small handful of people are using badges when they are not entitled to do so, and are thus preventing disabled people and severely disabled passengers from making use of the facilities available. We certainly do not want to do anything to make it less easy for really worthy people to get a badge, or for disabled people to take advantage of the facilities.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be agreeable to considering some relief in law for the relatives of the disabled, who are running errands for them, which they could not run unless there was some economy of time by the use of the disabled drivers' badge?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that raises a rather wider question. I would rather take advice on it and write to the noble Earl.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that she has the sympathy of a great many of us in this House in the positive steps which she announced in her response to the Question? Will she also accept that there has been an abuse of this badge system which has worked to the disadvantage of those who are so greatly benefiting from its introduction? Also, does she hope, with me, that this Question which has been put before the House may lead those people who are abusing the system to realise that, in cheating on it, they are degrading the system and debasing the badge itself?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, time and time again in this House, we have decried from all sides of the Chamber the abuse of the use of the orange label, and I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will continue to do so. There is just one point which I should like to make in mitigation. From time to time, we get allegations that unentitled people are being issued with orange badges. But some of the rules require medical judgment to be exercised in deciding whether disabilities meet the criteria, and a layman may sometimes conclude, quite wrongly, that a badge has been improperly issued. However, in spite of that, we still deplore anyone taking advantage by having on a car an orange label to which he or she is not entitled.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, could the Minister tell us what are the existing criteria?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it might be easier if I said that I will let the noble Baroness have a list of all these things.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: But perhaps, my Lords, it is too long.

LOTTERIES: MANAGEMENT
2.50 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My 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 how many of the lotteries organised by local authorities in the United Kingdom are promoted on their behalf by firms of turf accountants or similar bodies.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I understand that the Gaming Board for Great Britain are aware of 15 local lotteries being managed by a firm which also engages in bookmaking, and of a further 61 being managed by firms which also engage in running football pools.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply, and accepting that the bookmakers may do an excellent job in running these lotteries, may I ask whether he can say what percentage of the total ticket revenue is paid to the bookmaker promoters? For example, what amount is paid to the lucky lottery investors?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the two points which my noble friend has raised. On his first point, I am aware that in the recent past some anxiety has been expressed about the use of agents. The Act is silent on this point. It is difficult to give a very clear answer to my noble friend's second question. So far as the cost of running a lottery is concerned, the expense is controlled by the Statute. As a result, it is impossible to give a precise answer to the question which my noble friend has raised.

DINNERS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I remind Peers that dinners are available this evening.
PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I very much regret that Members of the House have suffered inconvenience due to some delays in the publication of certain papers. I fully realise that this can cause problems for noble Lords in the conduct of the business of the House, and of course we are doing all we can to ensure that the present difficulties are overcome. Until the difficulties are resolved, it would he of great assistance both to Members of the House and to the staff if noble Lords would try to ensure that Amendments to Bills are put down not later than Thursday when they are to be considered on the Monday or Tuesday of the following week.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of the State Immunity

11
Bill, I should like to express my gratitude for the assistance which the Government received to ensure the speedy passage of the Bill through the House. While its provisions are very technical—and it was accordingly most helpful to receive the assistance of the noble and learned Lords who took part in the debates on the Bill—nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothhury, stressed its great importance for our country's commercial interests. I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her assistance. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SCOTLAND BILL
2.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): May I draw the attention of the Committee to the note in heavy type at the top of the Marshalled List. This refei s to a new system of marshalling Amendments which has been adopted to avoid the cumbersome series of letters which were sometimes necessary under our old system. Under the new system, any Amendments tabled after the first Marshalled List has been printed will be numbered consecutively, following on from the last number used. This is a little complicated, but I think it will be readily understood if I explain by an example.
There were 220 Amendments tabled when the list was first sent to the printers, so the next Amendment put down was number 221 although, as your Lordships
12
will see, it is in fact the third Amendment on the Marshalled List. I believe that the new system will be a considerable improvement on the one that we used before.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Assembly]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Convention").
The noble Earl said: In moving the first Amendment, I am sure that the Committee will have been very glad to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that this Bill required consultation and co-operation. No doubt he will endorse what his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said: that it required common sense and goodwill. This is even more necessary because, so far as 1 am aware, no single Member of either House has so far endorsed without qualification this Bill. I doubt very much whether many noble Lords will express a paean of praise for the quality of draftmanship, and I shall be surprised if some at least do not say that it is rather difficult to follow exactly how the Bill is proposed to be worked out. We shall therefore hope to have from the Government a practical demonstration of common sense and co-operation. It is with this hope that I beg to move the first Amendment on the Marshalled List.
In leaving out the word ,"Assembly", I do so for the best possible reason: that already in Edinburgh there is an organisation called "The Assembly". To use the same name for two places less than a mile apart would cause great confusion, and confusion lends itself to friction. There already exists the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which has had, and still has, a deep significance in the life and the history of Scotland. Indeed, it is part of the life of Scotland in a way which is perhaps difficult for some English Members wholly to appreciate. The General Assembly is part of the calendar. One can say, "I will meet somebody in Assembly Week". It is part of the language. One can ask anybody, "Are you a member of Assembly this year?" It is reported, for people say, "Have you read what the Assembly has stated on this particular point?"
Although we call it the "Scottish Assembly" here, it is quite clear that, if we use the word, it will be known in Scotland as the "Assembly". There will certainly be, in the jargon, an adjective added to it. It is not for me to say what that adjective may be. It might be called the "New Assembly", "the political Assembly", "the Parliamentary Assembly", "the legislative Assembly", or simply "the Royal High School Assembly". Obviously, some adjectives of that kind will be used.
May I go a step further and say that in Scotland the General Assembly is essentially an indigenous institution which has taken root in the soil of Scotland. In that body there is represented every parish in Scotland, and it has played a dominating and considerable part in the history of Scotland. The only comparable influence in England is that of Parliament. The new Assembly has been devised by a Committee on the shores of the River Thames and will certainly be regarded as a new organisation.
It is very important that the relationship between these two bodies should he harmonious. They will need to be very closely watched. Again, may I say that if there is confusion here it may very well lead to friction. There is a further point. For a very long time the General Assembly has been extremely closely connected with the Sovereign. There have been times in history when the Assembly has bullied the Sovereign; there have been times in history when the Sovereign has bullied the Assembly. Now they have reached an agreement whereby the Sovereign does not summon the Assembly as he did once and the Assembly does not meet without the presence of the Sovereign in person or of her representative.
This raises an interesting point. There is one assembly—the General Assembly—which has a personal relationship with the Sovereign and none with Parliament and the other assembly which has a close relationship with Parliament and none with the Sovereign. This is a delicate situation which might lead to a much more difficult situation. There are some who say today that these religious organisations do not matter and that now we have "one man one vote" and majority rule this kind of consideration can be superseded. I doubt whether this House
14
would lend much currency to such a theory and I believe it to be wholly irrelevant.
I suggest the word "Convention", and I should like to say straight away that my mind is fairly open as to what word should be used as a name. All I would say is that the confusion of using the same word as one which exists should be avoided; this is in the true interest of the new organisation which we arc setting up. There is absolutely no political connotation in this whatsoever; it is simply in the interests of the organisation.
The word, "Convention", has been used for the Scottish Parliament. It was the word originally recommended in the first examination of this matter; my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel used the word "Convention" in his report and the only organisation I know of which can be in any way compared to this is the Convention of Local Authorities which I believe has now been in existence for two years, since the new Local Government Act, and has taken the place of the Convention of Royal Burghs, which has ceased to exist. This is not a statutory organisation; it deals primarily with the exchange of relations with local authorities as such and, while I would not say that it is not important, I do not think it would ever go by the name of "the" Convention. Therefore, in my opinion "Convention" is quite a suitable name, although I would not say it is the only name that can be used. What I do say is that "Assembly" as a name is quite unsuitable and cannot be accepted.
If noble Lords do not agree with this, why do we not go straight for it and say "the Scottish Parliament"? I think I know the answer to that: they are frightened of being confused with the Westminster Parliament and I think that is a perfectly sound reason. But for the success of this Bill it would be quite wrong to have a confusion which might lead to friction, and therefore I consider it would be both foolish and quite unacceptable to agree to this name. I beg to move.
Lord BALLANTRAE: I wish to support briefly what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has said, but I cannot help commenting that he seemed to me to stop short in his selection of the adjectives which might be applied to the new Assembly. I speak

15
as one who frankly hopes that this whole measure will fail. The referendum is the point—and certainly not your Lordships' House—at which to decide whether or not the measure is to go through. The referendum must be the eventual battlefield. If it does go through, then I and everyone else who hopes that it will fail will then support the measure to the full. We shall buckle to and make it work as perfectly as is possible.
One of the advantages of it could, I hope and pray, be to de-politicise the debates of the General Assembly. For want of a Scottish Parliament for 270 years, the General Assembly has been tempted, for obvious reasons, to depart from confining itself to matters which would normally be considered to be the concern of the Church, and has embarked on many things which many of us think are "outwith its remit"—if I may use a Scotticism—especially the Church and Nation Committee which has sometimes paddled in very deep water.
We have become used to the word, "Assembly", in all the discussions we have had on this measure. As the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, in the committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Home, was chairman and of which I was one of the four non-Party members, we discussed the present problems and the Convention at some length, but the word "Assembly" crept in and has stuck; and I share the hope of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that we might get rid of it. It is confusing. As the noble Earl said, the General Assembly has been an institution for so long that "the Assembly" tout court in Scotland means "the General Assembly". I am one of two Members of your Lordships' House who have had the great honour of being Lord High Commissioner at that Assembly, as the brother of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, the late Duke of Hamilton had on, I believe, four occasions. It is a very specialised institution, and I do not think it is too late to substitute the word "Convention" for the word "Assembly". The word "Convention" has a long and honourable history. I believe it would be accepted in Scotland, and most Scottish Members of your Lordships' House would agree with that. Beyond that, it would be otiose to add to what the noble Earl has said.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that if we were to change the name it should have been changed to "the Scottish Parliament". I see no reason why it should not have been called that; but we have called it "the Assembly", and I am afraid it has been accepted in Scotland as "the Assembly", and to change it again to "Convention"—to which I have no great objection—would not help the Bill which, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, I want to see go through to the Statute Book.
The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland stands on its own feet. I do not think that anything we do with a political assembly can harm it or indeed confuse it in the minds of the people of Scotland. It is known always as "the General Assembly", "the Assembly" for short, and it is firmly fixed in the minds of the people of Scotland and I cannot see any real confusion arising. In my view to call the Assembly after the General Assembly is a compliment: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and I and my noble friends on these Benches think that it would be a great pity at this stage to change the name to "Convention".
3.7 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: In effect the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said that it is too late to change; and if that is his point of view, then I am not quite sure what this Committee is doing. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said that confusion about the name will lead to friction; I say that it will lead to ridicule. The very proposal that the Scottish Legislature should bear this name proves one thing beyond anything else—that the Bill was drawn up by Englishmen with no knowledge of Scotland or Scottish sentiment. It is a term that usurps one deeply venerated for more than 400 years. It affronts a body whose origins go much further back—more than 700 years. I am referring to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Kirk of Scotland, which is the Established Church.
The General Assembly is sui generis. It is distinctive in a number of respects. only some of which have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk. For nearly three centuries it has been the

17
people's only voice outwith Westminster. Its relationship with the civil power is exceptional; it always meets in the presence of the Sovereign or his or her High Commissioner. For more than four centuries, except for two quite short gaps, it has always met in the presence either of the Sovereign or of his or her Lord High Commissioner. The erstwhile National Synod, from which the General Assembly claims lineal descent, from 1225 onwards always met in the presence either of the Sovereign or of his or her High Commissioner. The General Assembly opens with an Address either by the Sovereign or his or her Lord High Commissioner. Until the Disruption was healed it was the Sovereign who always appointed the time and place of the General Assembly's next meeting. When the Sovereign is represented by a High Commissioner he arrives for opening and closing the Assembly with the maximum panoply of State, attended formally and in solemnity by the Lord Lyon and his entire Court. For close on 150 years, whenever the Sovereign could not attend in person, his High Commissioner resided at the Palace of Holyrood House and held court there in the Sovereign's name.
I personally do not adhere to the Presbyterian. Church of Scotland; I am a member of the Episcopal Church of Scotland and thus a non-conformist. But whatever our Church allegiance in Scotland. Scotsmen know the General Assembly, Scotsmen love the General Assembly, Scotsmen revere the General Assembly. When they say "Assembly" they mean the General Assembly; they mean something historically their very own. Protests at the threatened usurpation of this name were voiced in a formal resolution passed by the General Assembly on 25th May 1976. It is all in the public record and should surely have been known to those who drafted this Bill—that is to say, if the drafters had any greater interest in Scottish affairs than a tidy concern for their imagined electoral advantage.
How, then, should this subordinate Legislature be named? There are three historic alternatives to hand. The first is the term "Convention", which we have used in this Amendment. The second is the term "Estates", and the third is a combination of the two, a "Convention of the Estates". The term "Convention" has always in the past had a political
18
connotation. Back in the 13th century, before the Scottish Parliament even took shape, the Convention was used for the gathering of the Royal Burghs meeting to legislate, and, may I add, meeting to legislate on trade and finance. That was the origin of the Convention of the Royal Burghs. In the 16th century the term was used for the Convention of Estates. The Convention of Estates was a Standing Committee of the Scots Parliament with legislative and fiscal functions, something not very greatly different perhaps from the Legislature which is now proposed.
Since the Union of the Parliaments the term "Convention" has been used in three connections, all of them political. It was used for informal gatherings—which I am sure my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie would have joined enthusiastically had he then been alive—to express radical sentiments in the 18th and 19th centuries, and I am happy to say that was a temporary phenomenon. The latterday Convention of Royal Burghs was set up in relatively recent years, during this century, and was abolished with the last reform of local government.
The present Convention of Local Authorities is but two years old. It is a non-statutory body, as has already been said. It was formed not to legislate but to look at legislation. It is a body whose operations are purely contingent and advisory. It will doubtless be said from the Government Benches that if we call this new Legislature a Convention we clash with the Convention of Local Authorities. If so, we clash with a non-statutory body which could quite easily change its own name, say, to "Association"; there would he no great difficulty about that.
So, the term "Convention" clashes only with a body two years old which could change. "Convention of Estates" clashes with nothing. "Estates" clashes with nothing. So here are three alternatives. When there are three historically plausible names available, why, oh why, affront national taste and custom by usurping the General Assembly's status, by trying to steal the General Assembly's prestige in defiance of that body's expressed wish? Devolution is sometimes presented as a liberation of our people. If any Parliamentary Act could accomplish that, if there be any purely legislative path towards Scotland's renaissance of heart

19
and regeneration of spirit, which I beg leave to doubt, surely a colossal historical howler is scarcely the way to begin.
3.17 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: I thought that, as the other side had had a good turn, I might offer a few observations. What does it really matter what title you apply to this organisation? What does matter is what powers are to be vested in this organisation. In my experience, this is the worst case of putting the cart before the horse that has been exhibited for some time. The first thing to do when you create an or ganisation is to decide what it is for. Is it to be an organisation vested with powers and with authority, or is it to be an organisation which is restricted at every turn, subject to the powers vested in the Secretary of State at Westminster, subject to this and subject to that? What kind of organisation is it, and does it really matter? So it all comes down to this: what is most suitable for the people in Scotland who are enthusiastic about devolution?
We got an example from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. He would like it to be described as a Parliament. If it were to be described as a Parliament we should he going a bit too far. This would be resented not by the English and the Welsh but by a very large number of people in Scotland. In any event, it would mean that it must be invested with full authority; otherwise it would be no Parliament. We have had this example in the case of the EEC, which has been referred to frequently. Those Members of your Lordships' House who have been "promoted" (that term can be used) are from time to time transported at the tax-payers' cost—or is it at EEC cost? I am not quite sure, but it does not matter very much, it is a mere trifle—to what was called an Assembly, though some have described it as a Parliament.
It is all a question of prestige; if you belong to an Assembly it is not as important as belonging to a Parliament. Indeed I would go so far, with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk—to whom I always listen with keen interest because he speaks with great and remarkable logic—as to ask what, after all, is a "Convention"? The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, spoke about the
20
Convention of Royal Burghs as if the Convention of Royal Burghs in Scotland had been vested with remarkable powers. It had nothing of the sort. It was a purely advisory body. It had no power to initiate legislation, but it could recommend and advise.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for giving way. The original 13th century Convention of Royal Burghs had legislative powers. As the noble Lord has said, the modern Convention of Royal Burghs has none.
Lord SHINWELL: The Convention of Royal Burghs never initiated a piece of legislation which it could carry through—it depended on whether Westminster would accept it. I, like the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, have a fair bit of experience of Scottish politics and I remember that this Convention was regarded pretty much as a title conferred on a number of people as a matter of prestige—it was a type of honour. However, as regards real authority there was nothing of the sort.
I shall not argue the matter at great length, but it is really a question of what is more suitable to the people in Scotland. The term "Assembly" has been used. A large number of people in Scotland want devolution—as I have said, the principle is the important consideration—and would prefer the term "Assembly". If we say "Convention" they will think that we are running away and seeking to depart from the principles which for them are of fundamental importance. Quite frankly, to me it does not matter whether there is an "Assembly" or a "Convention". I think that the whole business is a lot of nonsense, and I am quite serious about that.
If I may refer to the Second Reading debate, I endeavoured, perhaps not with much success, to convince my colleagues in your Lordships' House that what we had to decide was not the details of devolution, once the principle was accepted, but whether we believed in the principle of devolution at all. Apparently, a majority in your Lordships' House does. However, when it comes down to the brass tacks and the details of the powers to be vested in this body, then we are up against a whole series of problems.

21
We shall find that situation in the course of our Committee stage, Report stage and so on, and we shall find it when we refer any of our Amendments to another place.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment on what might be called a Second Reading aspect. If it had been left to me, I should have created a body out of the regional authorities that were established under the last local government transformation. They are very important—for example, there is Strathclyde and various others. Very important people are associated with these organisations. They are vested with a measure of autonomy and they can introduce legislation, but it is true that they do so subject to Westminster. Nevertheless, if they had been brought together in some kind of body—call it an Assembly, a Convention or a Parliament—it would have been quite enough, for there would have been an election of a great many people who would be in conflict with the people at Westminster.
The whole thing is a piece of tarradiddle and should never have been started at all. Anyway, now we have it and we must make the best of a bad job. I suggest that the best way of making the best of a bad job is to succumb to the somewhat moderate enthusiasm that is now manifested in Scotland about this issue and the even more tepid enthusiasm on this side of the Border and let them have their Assembly. Let them have something out of it. At the end of the day, they will have precious little out of it, but let them have a name.
3.24 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: At the earliest moment it should be made clear that we are not leaving this Bill entirely to the Scots. The Bill affects the United Kingdom. At the earliest minute we who are not Scots must stake our claim to have something to say about it, even about a matter as minor as this first Amendment. If there is any damage to be done by this Bill—and I think that there is a lot—it will not damage just Scotland; it will damage the United Kingdom. Let us begin by recognising that fact.
We have heard excellent speeches from four Scotsmen. I think that the "Clyde-side" association of the noble Lord,
22
Lord Shinwell, brings him into that category. I hope that during this Committee stage other Members from other parts of the United Kingdom will give their attention to try to minimise the dangers that may flow from this Bill. I think that my noble friend made a very good case in terms of his Amendment. There would be a clash. "Assembly" is known to mean something else, and it would not be possible for this new Assembly to be able to take over the mantle that is already very clearly on the shoulders of the other Assembly.
I do not like "Convention". With all the historic background that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale gave to it, the reaction to "Convention" is not what it may have been in the 13th century. When we talk about a Convention today the first thing that springs to mind is the American Convention, and we know what that means. All sorts of things flow from that. Therefore, I do not think that either "Assembly" or "Convention" would really fit in with what the people behind this Bill intend to mean. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, cannot have a Parliament. This Bill does not give the powers of Parliament. One of the problems is that if, as the separates wish, it is going to do any good at all it ought to have the powers of Parliament, but that would cause great clash and even more damage as far as the United Kingdom is concerned; or, in terms of Westminster, it ought to have less power than it has now. They have too many Members.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Will the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, remember the Parliament at Stormont which was constantly referred to as the Northern Ireland Parliament?
Lord HA RMAR-NICHOLLS: The Northern Ireland Parliament was known as Stormont. It was not referred to as a Parliament nor did it act, in the sense that we are discussing, as a Parliament. I do not think that we ought to be purely negative on this issue. The point is made very clearly that it ought not to be an Assembly because, as my noble friend has said, there is a clash. It is most interesting that almost the first word in the discussion during the Committee stage of this Bill on a matter as minor as

23
this has been "clash"—a clash because of the name of the title. I think that it will be full of clashes all the way through the Committee stage, and if the Bill ever becomes a Statute I think that the clash will he even bigger and more dangerous.
However, if we are proceeding on the basis that something might happen, the suggestion I should like to make to my noble friend is that we do not call it an Assembly or a Convention, but a Moot—a Scottish Moot. If we want an historical base for justifying that then I can give your Lordships a very clear one. Indeed, it may well incorporate what my noble friend has in mind because the dictionary definition of a "Moot" is:
"An assembly of people".
Therefore, the dictionary definition of a Moot would fulfil the present "Assembly"name that is given to it without it having the clash and the problems that may arise out of another Assembly.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Of course, the word "Moot" will clash with the word "Mod" because they are the same word.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I have not finished with the word "Moot" in terms of the dictionary.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Is it not possible that the whole of the noble Lord's idea is "re-moot" from reality?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I do not think that that is worthy of your Lordships' House. I am very seriously putting forward the word "Moot" if it is any justification for what has already been said by my noble friends. If there is to be a clash or uncertainty as regards the way this is accepted, and if neither "Assembly" nor "Convention" can meet the need, then we must think of something else and "Moot" is a word that, in terms of developing into full Parliamentary Government—if I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—is the very basis of it all. The dictionary also says:
"In the Anglo-Saxon moots may be discerned the first germs of popular government".
Therefore, if this is only at the very beginning of what the people who want
24
separation have in mind—and indeed they have—it could well be that "Moot" would be a better title to give to it, with the historical background and the knowledge that it can eventually grow into a full Parliament. Therefore, it may very well meet what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, has in mind too. I noted also that in the dictionary "Moot hall" is described as:
"The hall in which the assizes are held at Carlisle, still goes by the name of the mote or moot-hall".
The name of Moot may well meet all of the points made by noble Lords who have already spoken, and at any rate Carlisle has some sort of Scottish influence to find that it might meet that need. It could well be that when we reach the Report stage we shall find that the Moot of Scotland may be more acceptable and more truthful than the Assembly of Scotland or the Convention of Scotland. Whether your Lordships think it is a good or a bad idea, at any rate it is a suggestion that comes from England on a Bill that certainly affects England as much as it affects Scotland.
Lord KENNET: If the noble Lord is prepared to go as far as to impose the Anglo-Saxon name "Moot" on the poor Scots, would he not go one further and impose the Viking name and call the thing "a Thing"?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Perhaps that is an alternative that the noble Lord will put up when he comes to speak.
Lord HALE: May I put one point? The noble Lord mentioned the American Convention and forgot to mention the National Convention which ruled as a Parliamentary Government for less than five years, was responsible for the execution of the King, the Queen, the whole of the Girondins and many prominent members of the Convention, and the end of Parliamentary Government, and the ultimate restoration of dictatorship and establishment of Empire.
Lord MORRIS: May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that in modern usage the word "moot" means a mock trial?
3.33 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: It is quite obvious that your Lordships

25
are full of bright ideas and bright thoughts, and as this is the first Amendment on the first clause of the Bill it augers well for the future. I am sure we can make amusing and entertaining and, I have no doubt, highly constructive suggestions. I have not got any alternative name which I want to put forward, but I want to support those people who are against calling this meeting place an Assembly. As the wife of the Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly, I spent two years of my life, 1956 and 1957, in the Palace of Holyrood House taking part in the General Assembly. The Assembly was always alluded to as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and nobody ever thought of anything else.
When I first heard that the suggestion was to be taken quite seriously I wondered who would protest most hotly because I thought the suggestion was quite wrong. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is wrong when he says that this has become an accustomed word. What is accustomed in Scotland is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland which meets in May. It is to meet this year in May, and the Lord High Commissioner, the very distinguished Member for Kilmarnock, was Secretary of State for Scotland for many years. I think it would be the greatest possible error of judgment and would cause muddle in the minds of the people of Scotland if this suggested meeting place were called an Assembly. I use the word "if" because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this is all still somewhat speculative, and if we do have this meeting place it should not be called the General Assembly. I should be quite happy to call it a Convention. I should also be quite happy to ask the Government to think again, to see what suggestions they can make. Failing all else, I would support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in calling this meeting a Convention and not an Assembly.
The Earl of DUNDEE: May I briefly express agreement with my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in what he said a few minutes ago. He told us that in his view the designation "Assembly" was rather like the kind of thing that an Englishman would call a Scottish legislative body. I should like to be a little more precise. I think it is more like the sort of thing an English civil servant would call a Scottish legislative body. I think the religious
26
body, which at present holds that title, would be deeply hurt and exasperated by it. Like my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church. My family, like his, has always been Episcopalian, but all of us in Scotland have a deep love and regard for the Church which is the Established Church. We all hope that some day, perhaps, Christian reunion will be reached all over the world. Meanwhile it would certainly cause them a great deal of pain and annoyance if this name were taken.
As for the alternative, a great many suggestions could be made. The word "Convention" at least has the advantage that the old Scottish Parliament was usually referred to as the Convention. According to our ideas it was rather a distinguished and unusual body. All the commoners, those from the counties and burghs, sat in it, and in Episcopal times all the bishops and all the Peers from every part of Scotland sat with them as one legislative chamber. This is not in accordance with our modern democratic ideas, and I am not suggesting that we should try to resuscitate this kind of legislative assembly in Scotland. I think we should find the term "Convention" a perfectly good one. I am not trying to insist on it. It has not only been applied in historical times to the Scottish Parliament hut has also been used by historians and by poets like Sir Walter Scott, who wrote
"To the Lords of Convention 'twas Claver'se spoke:
'Rouse, Gentlemen all, it's high time you awoke'".
I think it is high time that we tried to find some more suitable title than "Assembly" for what we are now proposing to set up.
Viscount THURSO: It is difficult to find a word for this body which we are to set up which is not either archaic and ridiculous, inappropriate or already in use. I think we should discard instantly the archaic and those titles which are not going to be readily understood in a modern context. As an Elder of the Church of Scotland I shall have no difficulty in telling the difference between the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Assembly. I shall be able to tell the difference between the things that are Caesar's and the things that are

27
God's. That is all one needs to know. I do not think it is in any way an insult to the Kirk.
"Assembly" is a word which people understand. It is a word that is in common use today, which has a modern meaning; it is not a word like "Convention", which has an archaic ring to it. If one goes past "Convention" and comes to things like "Estates","Moots" and "Things", one goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. So I think we must come back to the really possible alternatives: "Convention", to me is slightly archaic and smacks of the Convention of Royal Burghs, a body that I knew, and which has passed its mantle on to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Then there is the possible use of the word "Parliament", which I accept that this body will not be in a true sense and therefore should not be used, and the word "Assembly", which has already begun to be used by people throughout Scotland and by the Press in everyday discussion. I think we should stick to the word "Assembly".
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I think it is interesting to note that basically this is a Bill which nobody wants, yet the first thing we discuss is the name by which this body in Scotland, which nobody really approves of, should be called. To me this is a slight indictment. While my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was speaking—and I say this in no unfair sense to him—I whipped out to consult the Shorter English Dictionary in the Library in order to discover what other Assemblies there have been. The Achaean Assemblies were summoned by trumpets—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? Mirabeau thundered to his French Assembly—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? There was an Assembly in Pennsylvania—did that insult the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland? What it is called is surely a matter of relative unimportance. It is a bad Bill, with a bad Assembly with bad powers. What it is called does not matter—I shall not say "one hoot", I will say "one moot."
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: Although I am not a member of either
28
Kirk or Church, I support this Amendment. There is much validity in the criticism of the proposals directed by the noble Earl but I shall not elaborate upon them. However, perhaps the Minister who is to reply will tell your Lordships whether confrontation took place with the Church on this matter. One would have thought that before calling this meeting place an Assembly at least for a Scotsman with any knowledge of his country's history this would have been an obviously necessary precaution. Therefore, could the Minister tell us whether consultation with the Church took place and, if so, what was the outcome? If not, perhaps he could say why not. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in effect asked: What is in a name? What does it matter? There is no point in causing offence unnecessarily. I support the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I should like briefly to endorse the point which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has raised, that there could be the danger of serious ambiguity and mistaken identity between the two Assemblies, as they would be known in Scotland. As noble Lords have already said, there is the Assembly in Scotland now. It is not an assembly; to most people it is the Assembly. I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, will not make any mistakes about the differences between the two bodies when he attends one and possibly reads about the other. But when people in Scotland in ordinary conversation are talking about the Assembly, mistakes will be made because there is already the Assembly.
For those who live South of the Border may I say that it is a body which comprises many laymen as well as ministers of the clergy; much has been said about it and the role it plays in life in Scotland. I would only say that on the first occasion when I addressed that august body I felt a certain nervousness—even more than that which I experienced on the occasions when, with all respect, I made maiden speeches in both Houses of Parliament.
Those who have represented the Assembly have certainly made statements saying that they hope that, if the new body is to be established under a Bill of this kind, it will not be called an Assembly.

29
I should also like to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, in asking the Minister who will reply what representations have been received. I understand that about two or three years ago, when devolution was being discussed and considered in Government circles, the General Assembly asked that the word "Assembly" should not be used. The word "Convention" has a Scottish history. However, I understand the difficulty which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale in a powerful speech, that it was taken two or three years ago by the new body which represents all the Scottish local authorities in Scotland—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, COSLA for short.
If the word "Convention" is accepted as being a better word in Scotland in order to avoid confusion with the Assembly which already exists, then I would agree with my noble friend that COSLA could be asked to become ASLA—the Association of Scottish Local Authorities. It was made up of the four bodies which represented the four types of local authorities; they were associations and only one was a Convention.
I ask the Government seriously to consider this question of confusion and also the possibility of using another expression. With no commitment to it, but merely for consideration along with others that the Government may have received, I put forward the term "Scottish Congress". In ordinary discussion in Scotland I do not think that that would be confused with the United States Congress; nor do I think that it would be confused with the Trades Union Congress and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, because they are always known respectively as the TUC and the STUC. However, it is important that we have some term which cannot be confused with the Assembly that already exists and which has existed for many years. I think that many of its members would be offended if the word "Assembly" is duplicated in the Bill.
Baroness EMMET of AM BERLEY: Could not a compromise be reached by having a double-barrelled name, such as "Representative Assembly", and not simply "Assembly"? That would impart the idea of Parliamentary representation, and so on.
3.47 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: I rise to support this Amendment. On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, I should like to say how sorry he is that he cannot be present, but he is temporarily indisposed. However, he wholeheartedly supports the Amendment.
A great deal of heat can be engendered in our debates on the Bill. I fear that if this heat is unduly engendered by us here—and this is the House in which it should not be engendered—the reaction will be strong in Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked: Who wants this Bill? At least 75 per cent. of the voters of Scotland want it. That is the trouble.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he really imagine that anything like 75 per cent. of the people of Scotland have studied the provisions of the Scotland Bill?
Lord BALERNO: If pronouncements are made like those of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, then I can assure noble Lords that there is no doubt that more than 75 per cent. will vote "Yes" in the referendum. It is undoubted that opinion in Scotland has hardened in favour of the Bill as discussions have taken place in England.
The suggestion of "Convention" is probably the most respectable one, if not the only one. The noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, has suggested "Representative Assembly". A "House of Representatives" would be a very good suggestion. So far as I can make out, the only confusion arising over the word "House" would be in connection with a college at Oxford, and they are far enough apart. "Convention" is an ancient Scottish word, and as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, pointed out, it has been important in the history of England. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said that a Convention could carry nothing through. It can carry through the execution of a king; it can carry through the restoration of a king; and it can carry through the abdication of a king. The English Conventions have managed to do that in the past; so they did have powers, and there is no reason why they should not have powers in the future.

31
But the essence of the historical use of the word "convention" is that it is subordinate to the full Parliament. That is how it has been used in Scotland. Therefore, it is not at all an unsuitable word to use in this instance. In the Oxford English Dictionary "Convention" is defined as,
"an assembly or gathering of persons for some common object; especially a formal assembly met for deliberation or legislation on important matters".
To my mind, that goes a long way to justify our use of the word "Convention".
One noble Lord wanted to know what the Church of Scotland had done in representation. My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has already referred to this. In recent years, the General Assembly has on more than one occasion passed a Resolution—they call it a Deliverance—to the effect that they seek a form of devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom. The precise Motion that was carried at the General Assembly of 1976, to which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale referred and which was formally sent to the Scottish Office—so it cannot possibly be said that those who were drafting this Bill were unaware of the opinion of the Church of Scotland—is in the following words:
"The General Assembly, recognising the historic identification in Scotland of the word 'Assembly' with the Supreme Court of the Church, urge that the proposed new legislative body be known not as the Scottish Assembly but as the Scots Parliament or by some such other suitable name".
That is what is behind us in moving this Amendment. It is an historic name and the Church of Scotland wants it.
Lord BALLANTRAE: In passing, may I say that I am not as agile as my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside, and I was obviously more taken by surprise than he was by what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said. But I trust that, as this debate continues, no noble Lord, or anybody else, will start making assumptions about what the people of Scotland think. We simply do not know that, nor shall we know that until the referendum happens.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Will the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, elucidate his remark that discussion in England has hardened Scottish opinion? Is he saying, or imply-
32
ing, by that that the English, who make up the vast majority of the United Kingdom, have no right to discuss this Bill and no interest in this Bill, and that it is only something to do with the Scots? I think that that is an unsound doctrine, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord whom I call my friend.
Lord BALERNO: In reply to the noble Earl, I would say that we in Scotland certainly appreciate that this is a United Kingdom matter. You can get that from the Deliverance of the General Assembly, which I quoted. They sought a form of devolution within the framework of the United Kingdom. That goes for us all in Scotland, but we want devolution to give us a greater freedom in attending to our own matters. I would particularly recommend him, if he did not hear it, to read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on Second Reading.
3.53 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I ignore all the irrelevancies which have crept into the discussion of this quite short and limited Amendment. I have never doubted that it was perfectly possible to make out a respectable and stateable case for the name "Convention" or for some other name. But all these names were considered by Ministers. This name was not inserted into the Bill by an Englishman, or a committee of Englishmen. It derived from one of the most distinguished Scotsmen of his generation, who is sitting in this House and moved ruefully when the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, spoke: namely, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. It was considered by Ministers, including a number of Scots Ministers—for instance, the Lord Advocate and myself and the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. William Ross—and the decision was taken that it was the most suitable name to describe the concept of a legislative and deliberative body.
It is significant that in another place no one sought to remove this name and replace it with the name, "Convention", and no one suggested that there would be confusion with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I need not refer to dictionary definitions. Let me

33
try to answer briefly the points that have been made by those who have spoken in this debate. The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, said that there was an attempt to steal the prestige of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is nonsense. It was answered clearly by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who spoke as an Elder of the Church. I would have said, although it is a matter of one's own impression, that people in Scotland refer to that body which meets in May in Edinburgh each year as the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. It is known as the General Assembly, and it is so described. There is no possibility of confusion between that body and the body provided for in this Bill.
Secondly, let me inform noble Lords who do not know that, at the very time when that body meets, there are other General Assemblies of other Churches in Scotland meeting both in Edinburgh and in the North of Scotland, and, in order to distinguish the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the other General Assemblies, they are described by reference to the name of the particular Church. I should have thought that the argument about the possibility of confusion is one which was not acceptable.
If there is to be confusion, then the word "Convention" itself could, as has been suggested in the debate, give rise to confusion because of the existence of a body now well-known in Scotland and which has been referred to a number of times—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
Lord BALERNO: Will the noble Lord allow me to refer to his allusion to the fact that other Churches use the words "General Assembly" for their annual meeting? That derives from the fact that they all left the Church of Scotland, and therefore took their form of service and the name of their organisation from the Church of Scotland, and as they come back into the Church of Scotland they are quite at home in the matter. It is for historical reasons that those Churches should use the words "General Assembly."
Lord McCLUSKEY: I entirely agree with that, but it is entirely beside the point. The point is that you do not confuse the
34
one with the other; you call them by their respective names. This body meeting once a year in May in Edinburgh will not be confused with the Assembly to be set up under this Statute.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: If there would be no confusion between those two, then equally there would be no confusion between the Convention of Local Authorities and the Convention. The argument cuts both ways.
Lord McCLUSKEY: What I think I said was that, if there is the possibility of confusion, it is just as great with "Convention" as with "Assembly." I think the confusion argument is really a shadow argument. It has no real substance.
Reference has been made to historical matters going back as far as the 13th century. I do not want to follow into the realms of history noble Lords who have the advantage of me in these matters. The historical precedents are perhaps not too inviting, but I can assure noble Lords who have not yet studied the devolved matters that the execution of Kings is not a matter to be devolved under the Bill.
The strongest argument—and I think it was foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—is that the people of Scotland, whether they are for devolution or against it and whether they want an Assembly or do not want one, would think that we in this House had gone mad if we were suddenly to abandon, after years of public debate about an Assembly and after almost as many years of prolonged Parliamentary debate, the word which is central to the whole debate for reasons which I think would be seen to he flimsy and unconvincing. I suggest that the ordinary public in Scotland would feel that they had been robbed of a term and a concept that they had come to understand. They might even feel that they had been robbed of some of the substance as well.
I remind your Lordships that there was proposed under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act a Northern Ireland Assembly. There is proposed under the Wales Bill an Assembly for Wales. The arguments deployed today in relation to Scotland would not apply to the Wales

35
Bill. Are we then to find that Wales is to have an Assembly and Scotland not to have a body called the Assembly? I urge upon the Committee that the public would simply not understand what had been done today if we were foolish enough to vote for this Amendment. I urge my noble friends and others to reject this Amendment.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him if he will answer the question which he was asked by one noble Lord as to what was the view of the Church of Scotland?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am obliged to the noble Baroness for reminding me of that. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in substance, answered it. What happened was that the Church of Scotland made a submission in relation to the November 1975 White Paper. Subsequently the Church and Nation Committee of the General Assembly suggested alternative titles and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to one of them. Scottish "Parliament" was rejected, for reasons which, I think, will be understood. Ministers—when I say "Ministers" I mean Ministers of the Government—met representatives of the Church and Nation Committee of the Church of Scotland on no fewer than three occasions. At the last meeting they suggested either the name "Convention" or "Legislative Assembly". So there was full consultation. Their views were taken into account, plus other views. For the reasons which I have outlined, the Government have decided—and I urge the House to accept—that the proper name here is "Assembly" and that the possibility of confusion is one which does not exist.
Earl FERRERS: I wonder whether I could just ask the noble and learned Lord this question: I came here with an open mind on the subject. I should have thought that the one thing that is quite clear is that there is confusion. There is confusion over the word, "Assembly". There would appear to be confusion over the word, "Convention". The noble Lord said that it was a shadow argument. I would submit, with the greatest respect, from what has been said so far, that it is not a shadow argument. There is substance in the fact there would be confusion.
36
I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider the word, "Legislature". This does not detract from the word, "Assembly". An assembly is after all a gathering of people. "Legislature" might be a rather more substantial word. It might appeal more to the Scots. At least it is in no way confusing. It describes the work that would be done. Would the noble Lord be kind enough to consider that?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I have already indicated that the Government gave consideration to a number of names. We selected the name which commended itself to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and those who assisted him in preparing the report. I think that the difficulties that would arise for the people of Scotland if we now abandon the name, "Assembly", would arise with whatever other name it was thought fit to put in its place. I cannot elaborate this argument. The point is relatively minor. I would submit that, for the reasons that I have given, your Lordships should reject this Amendment.
Lord LEATHERLAND: Before my noble friend sits down, may I ask whether he does not think that some of the confusion has arisen because noble Lords, and he himself, have referred to the word "Assembly"? Is it not a fact that the Church body is the General Assembly and that according to Clause 1 of the Bill the Parliamentary body is to be called the "Scottish Assembly"? We are not referring to the "Assembly", but to "General Assembly" and "Scottish Assembly". Does he not think that the Scottish people would take great pride in pronouncing that word "Scottish" when they refer to a Parliamentary institution?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am indebted to my noble friend. If one looks at Clause 1(1), one sees that that is exactly correct. The body will be known as the "Scottish Assembly" and the Church body, which has been referred to by those who support the Amendment, will be referred to as the "General Assembly".
4.4. p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I must say that the speech to which we have just listened seems to me to bode ill for this

37
Committee stage. It was totally uncompromising and totally unconvincing. If I may say so, the people of Scotland honestly do not know what we have been talking about in Parliament. They have no idea what has been going on. I cannot agree for one moment with the noble Lord. Lord Mackie of Benshie, in saying that the people know or accept what has been decided.
The noble Lord said there was no confusion. When I first made my remarks. I made no remark about insulting anybody. I have actually in my own way, consulted the Church of Scotland, quite informally. I do not pretend otherwise. I am clear about the views of the people concerned, who are highly representative of every parish in Scotland, in that they do not like this word. The Government said "What do they matter? They do not matter that much. We have made up our minds. We are going to push it through at any price". This is not a very happy way to start.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. We want something that the people of Scotland would like, and what is suitable to them. What I thought of was the confusion. It is no good the noble Lord talking about the General Assembly, on the one hand, or the Scottish Assembly, on the other. Everybody in Scotland knows that it is "the Assembly". Everyone knows that the other will be "the Assembly". We do not talk about the Scottish Assembly when we are in Scotland: it is "the Assembly". It is quite wrong to say that there will be no confusion.
May I put a question straight to the noble Lord? Has the noble Lord not heard the statements by the Free Church of Scotland which have been confused with those of the Church of Scotland, to the detriment of the Church of Scotland? Everyone knows that these events take place from time to time: very vigorous statements which the Church of Scotland would not express and which many of us in Scotland rather regret having been made. This confusion is frequently taking place, very unfortunately. The noble Lord said that Scotland would be robbed. Scotland is not aware of being robbed of anything yet. The great majority just do not know what on earth is happening.
38
When it is said that we cannot use this word because Wales does not like it, this shows the thorough emptiness of the arguments which the noble Lord has used this afternoon.
I should like to have left the Government to think. We all hope that the Government can think. We all very much hope that the Government's mind is not utterly lost to every consideration. I am not pretending that this is vital. I moved this Amendment for the convenience of the people of Scotland. There is nothing political about this. It is just what would be helpful and, as such, I moved it.
May I ask the Government whether there is the remotest chance that they would think for a moment, consult the people in Scotland, and find a little of what has been done?
I do not know whether the noble Lord is right about the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. I am bound to say that I thought he said that he would leave it to the Assembly to choose its own name. I may be wrong. I shall withdraw readily if I am wrong about that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is more or less correct, as I recollect it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I regret to say that I have not verified the point. I really do not think that one single argument advanced by the noble and learned Lord carries one pound weight. I am sorry to put it this way. That is in fact, the case. I do not want to start at this Committee stage, when we have so much to do, with a Division against the Government. I would so much rather that the noble Lord would say that he would give a little consideration to those points, which I think really are worth while.
Noble Lords have expressed their views. I thank them for doing so. It is the convenience of the people of Scotland that I have in mind. I believe this is a very good point. May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would reconsider the matter?
Lord SHINWELL: Before the noble and learned Lord comes to his conclusion, may I ask him this question? Have the people of Scotland more concern about the name than about the powers that are

39
going to be vested in this body? Surely this is where the confusion will come. Is the noble and learned Lord's capacity for logic not failing a bit when he makes such a hullabaloo about the name, when we all know in our hearts that what the people of Scotland will be quarrelling and wondering about is not the name so much as what powers will be vested in this important body?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I agree with the noble Lord. I would have been hopelessly irrelevant in speaking to this Amendment if I had started talking about powers. This happens to be the first Amendment. I thought that I was putting a simple, straightforward proposition. I thought that the Government would be reasonable and at least think about it. As the noble Lord said, this is a matter for the convenience of the people of Scotland. I think it is a perfectly real point. If the Government will say that they will give the matter a moment's consideration, I shall willingly withdraw the Amendment. I would rather not go to a Division at this early stage.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I regret if the noble Earl thought that my approach to this matter was uncompromising. What I said on Second Reading—and I repeat—was that the Government would try at the earliest possible stage to give a clear indication of what their view was, so that the House would not be misled into thinking that matters would be reconsidered when they were unlikely to be reconsidered, and therefore they could dispose of them on the first occasion instead of returning to them on Report or Third Reading. That was why I made my position plain.
Secondly, I regret the suggestion that the Government should give a little consideration to this matter; the Government have given immense consideration to it. I outlined the fact that we had three meetings with representatives of the Church of Scotland and I mentioned that all the alternatives were discussed. I cannot say, after this word has become central to the whole debate about devolution, that the Government are going to offer to depart from it.
Earl FERRERS: What the noble and learned Lord said was rather serious. He repeated what he said on Second Reading; namely, that the Government would let your Lordships know their view at the earliest opportunity—and that slightly raised the idea in some of our minds that perhaps the Government had a closed mind. I hope the Government do not have a closed mind because if we are to discuss this Bill, 60-odd clauses of which were not discussed at all in another place, and the Government are going to have a closed mind to all suggestions, that bodes ill from the start. My noble friend Lord Selkirk put down this Amendment—which he described as a totally non-Party non-political one—as a constructive idea to see whether it was possible to improve the Bill. The noble and learned Lord may think it would not improve the Bill, whereas many who have spoken have thought that there would be confusion if the wording were left as it is.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will not be quite so inflexible as to say, "We have made up our minds. We have no intention of considering the matter at all, irrespective of what anybody says". To say that would not bode well, not on the first Amendment to a complicated and difficult Bill. If this is something about which the Government intend to be inflexible, one is bound to say, "Heaven help us when we come to some of the more detailed provisions." Even now, to avoid any confrontation between people at this stage, at the very beginning of the Committee stage, I hope the noble and learned Lord will be kind enough to say, "I do not think we can change our minds, but we will certainly consider the arguments that have been put forward". Surely the noble and learned Lord will not say that he will not even consider them. Otherwise the Committee stage will be wasted and we shall end up by being on what we do not want to be; namely, on confrontation courses which are unnecessary.
The Earl of SELKIRK: To give the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey a moment to think about his reply, perhaps I might read a passage from the Kilbrandon Report which is directly relevant to this issue:
"It would be for the Scottish and Welsh people to decide on the names for their assemblies.

41
The term 'convention' seems to find some favour in Scotland, and 'senate' has been suggested for Wales".
Those are the words of the Kilbrandon Report which the noble and learned Lord himself called in aid.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was asked whether the Government would give consideration to these arguments. The position is that the Government have already given consideration to all these arguments. There is no argument which I have heard today that has not already been considered by Ministers.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, aware that he has used an argument that does not make sense? He said there was no confusion between "Assembly" and "General Assembly" and then he said there was confusion between "Convention" and "Convention of Local Authorities". Those two arguments do not go together. Surely he will look at his own logic if he will not look at ours.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: In Parliamentary terms, surely the noble and learned Lord sees the difficulty in which he is putting noble Lords. He said the Government could not consider altering this because detailed thought had already been given to it. I trust that detailed thought has been given to the whole of the Bill by the Government and that no part of it has come before us without detailed thought having been given to it. If the noble and learned Lord's argument is that, because prior detailed thought has been given to it, there can be no element of give at any point, then I believe the term "collision course" is very well phrased.
The Earl of ONSLOW: When I began to listen to this argument I thought the whole thing was fairly irrelevant, but in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, if this Amendment is forced to a Division I should now be happy to vote for the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, not because I believe there is any great force in their argument but because I believe there is a great deal of unattractiveness—I say this with great respect to Lord McCluskey—in his attitude, which is, "I will not give at all under any circumstances. I will not listen. It
42
has been disposed of and has all been handed down by diktat". We may be an unrepresentative Chamber and we may not have a great deal of force behind us, but I hope we are entitled to slightly greater respect than Lord McCluskey appears to be giving us.
The Earl of PERTH: I feel, with many other noble Lords, that this is not a matter of major importance. However, I should have thought it was open to the Government to say what they have been asked to say, taking into account the fact that there certainly have been arguments advanced today which must be new to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and his colleagues. If that is the case, then to do what has been requested by several noble Lords in the most conciliatory spirit would be well taken by one and all. If, on Report, the Government were to say, "We have considered the arguments which noble Lords have adduced but we stay where we are", that I would understand. But to say now, "We have already considered all the arguments", when they have been advanced by noble Lords in all parts of the Committee cannot be right and I therefore hope the noble and learned Lord will think again.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, I will bring the arguments of the Committee freshly to the attention of Ministers in order that the next time I appear before your Lordships in relation to this matter it might be quite clear what the Government's view is in the light of all the representations and the feeling of the Committee.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that comment, and in all the circumstances I have much pleasure in begging leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.17 p.m.
Lord KILBRANDON Lord KILBRANDON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert ("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act".)
The noble and learned Lord said The noble and learned Lord said: Looking at the history of the progress

43
of the Bill and making such estimates as one can of its future prospects, I believe the quality in what I have to say that would be most acceptable to your Lordships would be brevity. I certainly have no intention whatever of delivering a debating society address on the advantages or disadvantages of proportional representation. Noble Lords are already very well acquainted with what is to be said both for and against it and I am particularly anxious to avoid generalities. I therefore emphasise that the proposals in this Amendment, and of course in the consequential Amendments which follow it, are deemed by their supporters, who I understand are drawn from all political Parties, to be appropriate to the only elected body in which they are intended to apply; namely, the Scottish Assembly, if I may give it that name in the meantime.
Nothing I say is intended to be construed more widely than that. I do not wish it to be inferred that in my opinion these proposals or any other system of proportional representation could with advantage be introduced into the system of elected Members to the United Kingdom Parliament. Their suitability to Scotland alone is the case I have to make, and so I would not hesitate to solicit the support of noble Lords who are opposed to any such reforms at Westminster. There is no question here of the thin end of the wedge. If the Committee is satisfied that the situation in Scotland calls for proportional representation, that will provide no analogy whatever for its introduction elsewhere.
I have no doubt that it was the classic argument for proportional representation that influenced the Royal Commission on the Constitution in recommending its adoption, and I remember that this was not only the view taken by the majority but that my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt, in his Minority Report, made strong representations in the same sense. The problem which PR seeks to solve being a continuous occupation of the seats of power by a Party, which equally continuously polls a minority of the votes cast for it at a General Election; then, apart from this being, as it were, an arithmetical negation of democracy, the frustrated victims may, as the noble Lord put it in his Minority Report, be forced to take to the streets in often violent
44
direct action, instead of seeking to achieve their ends through peaceful constitutional processes.
The situation, as it was seen by the Royal Commission, and as it was impressed upon us by numerous witnesses, was the commanding position of the Labour Party. Indeed, there were witnesses who, rather poor-spiritedly, as I must say I thought, regarded this fact as an insuperable objection to the whole idea of the Assembly, whatever the virtues of devolution might be. I would not, I think, now he prepared today to certify that the danger arises from the same Party, but if it is from any other Party the problem is exactly the same.
There is nothing more boring, or more difficult to follow, than viva voce statistics, but I must use a very few in illustration of the fortunes of the political Parties as they were displayed to the Royal Commission, and in justification of the assertion, which is the rationale of the Amendments, that the dangers, as they appeared then, are still threatening today. Let me take first 1959, the year of a notable Conservative victory. Over the whole electorate the Conservatives, with 49·4 per cent. of the poll, gained 58 per cent. of the seats. I know that this is the kind of evidence which is used for the general support of proportional representation, but that is not what I am using it for. am using it for the purpose of comparing with Scotland. There, as perhaps tradition would have led one to expect, the Conservatives attained only 47 per cent. of the poll, which gave them 44 per cent. of the seats. Labour, on the other hand, also attained 47 per cent. of the poll, but that was enough to give them 53 per cent. of the seats. So, even in a year of British victory, the poll level in Scotland left the Conservatives far behind in representatives. The Liberals, of course, with 4 per cent. of the poll and 1 4 per cent. of the seats, were used even worse. I should say that I am giving very round figures for my purposes.
But the state of Parties in Scotland has changed very much since 1959, and I should like to look at what happened at the last General Election. There were—and I think one must take it that there still are—three, not two, powerful Parties, and the Liberal Party did over twice as well as it did in 1959. It seems, however,

45
strangely, that the splitting of the available votes between four Parties makes the result less, not more, equitable. The Labour Party percentage of votes, as compared with 1959, was down from 47 per cent. to 36 per cent., yet the seats obtained went up from 53 per cent. to 58 per cent.
The Conservative Party, however, which suffered a fall in votes from 47 to 24½per cent., experienced an almost exactly proportionate fall in seats from 44 to 22½ per cent. The Liberals again were far out of proportion, with 8½ per cent. of the votes, but only 4 per cent. of the seats. But the experience of the Scottish National Party was the most remarkable, with 30½ per cent. of the votes compared with Labour's 36 per cent., and 15½ per cent. of the seats compared with Labour's 58.
Of course, these figures would not be surprising to advocates of proportional representation who are, what I might call, connoisseurs of electoral anomalies, but may I again emphasise that I am not using them to support a general case, but a particular case. In the state of Parties in Scotland, which is entirely different from that of the Parties in the United Kingdom, and in the state of emotional unrest, which is almost certain to be found at any juncture of constitutional change, there is, I am sure, a highly special case for ensuring that, whatever may be the composition of the new Assembly, it is based, so far as that can be provided for, upon the consensus of a majority of the electorate. Under our standard electoral system that would be absolutely impossible.
The case is, I believe, special in another sense. I should have thought that, applying the principles which must have been held to have justified the introduction of the Bill, it is for the Assembly to determine what its own system of election shall be. I think that it is plainly right that proportional representation be introduced at the earliest possible moment, so that the decision to keep it, to abandon it, or to alter the method of it, may be made by an Assembly in which the voting power reflects the will of a majority of the electors.
Perhaps I ought to mention in passing that PR is not a total stranger to Scotland.
46
From 1919 to 1930 there were, in Scotland, education authorities which were independent of the local authorities, and their members were elected by a system of the single transferable vote. When I was an undergraduate, politics being one of the subjects for my degree, I contrived to get employment at one such election as a polling clerk, so I have some personal recollection of the experiment. It ceased because the ad hoc education authorities ceased themselves, but I cannot remember that there was anything unworkable or undesirable about it.
Your Lordships will have observed that the STV, as it is called, is not the system which these Amendments provide for, although it was the system recommended by the Royal Commission. There are many different formulae for electoral reform, each one of which has defects which are emphasised by the advocates of every other system. If these defects were more grievous than those observable in the first-past-the-post system, the present Amendment would not have seen the light of day; but they are not.
It is, I think, not necessary that I should say anything about the detailed operation of what is called the additional Member system, which is the system proposed. The principle is this: voters elect constituency Members in just the same way as they do now. This accounts for two-thirds of the membership of the Assembly, but they also indicate which Party they vote for, and these votes are used in order to calculate the number of additional members to be allotted to each Party in order to bring, so far as one can, the Party strengths in the Assembly into line with the Party strengths in the constituencies. This accounts for one-third of the membership.
I am sure that there are noble Lords who have the working of the system at their fingertips, and that they will deal with it and trace its parentage. There are only two general observations I should like to make. First, the criticism that certain members of the Assembly have been appointed and not elected, I believe to be invalid where, as here, a unicameral legislature is concerned. Secondly, this is the only system which can be brought into immediate operation. No changes in constituency boundaries are called for. Speaking as an ex-chairman of the

47
Boundary Commission for Scotland, I can assure the Committee that that would be a most formidable and time-consuming business. Those are the reasons, put as briefly as I can, why I recommend that the members of the Assembly should be elected by proportional representation, and I beg to move accordingly.
4.30 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I feel it a privilege to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, on this Amendment. As the very distinguished Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which toiled for so long and produced such a massive and powerful report, his words are bound to carry great weight with your Lordships. As he said, what we are discussing on this Amendment is whether or not we should have a system of proportional representation; and it is an all-Party Amendment. What I shall attempt to do first is to say why I regard the principle of adopting a proportional representation system of the kind proposed in this series of Amendments—the additional Member system—as right for the Scottish Assembly, and then briefly to outline the proposals in perhaps a little more detail than the noble and learned Lord has so concisely and precisely given. I shall do that because I feel it would be wrong to ask your Lordships to consider an Amendment of this character without some idea of how the additional Member system would work. When we come to Schedule 1, we can discuss the system in more detail. In fact, we shall be able to do that when we come to Amendment No. 33, with which are linked the new Parts V, VI and VII of Schedule 1.
An election is thought of by most people in this island as a series of local races held all over the country, all starting and finishing on the same day. What more natural, then, than that the winners of the various races in their own localities should each be awarded the prize of a seat in Parliament as the representative of his constituency! The Amendment does not change that at all: but, if nothing more than that is done, the outcome for the voters and for the Parties for which they vote can be, and very often is, to say the least of it, unrepresentative, as the noble and learned Lord has already demonstrated. Does this
48
matter? Over the years, the system has worked, has it not? Has it not resulted, at least until recently, in a majority in the Lower House on which a Government could rely? And could it not do so again in the future so long as there are two dominant Parties competing for the spoils of office?
However, that is not the situation—the scenario, to use the modern jargon—that we are discussing in this Bill. Wishful thinkers may imagine and hope that it is, but the signs are that there will be at least three Parties in the running; and there is at least one more, possibly two, which is likely to put up candidates in all or most of the constituencies in the first election. On a first-past-the-post system, we might get an even more rather than a less unrepresentative result.
It is of course true that, in the past, the British House of Commons has created in its own image a host of legislatures all over the world, though many have not maintained that image for long; but most of these legislatures have, with the principal exceptions of the Provincial and State Governments in Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, been designed to exercise sovereignty. That is not so in the case of the Scottish Assembly: we are creating an Assembly of a quite different character, with restricted legislative powers and without a vestige of sovereignty. Surely we ought to devise a system which is apt for the functions it will have to perform—and this was the point that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was making in the debate on the previous Amendment. There can be no excuse for devising a system which is palpably unfair in these circumstances.
In considering which electoral system will be most suitable for Regional Assemblies, including a Scottish Assembly, the Royal Commission, in paragraphs 778 to 788 of its report, looked at many possible systems and picked out three for special consideration, all of which are in use in some part of the world: first, there was the relative majority or first-past-thepost system; secondly, there was the alternative vote system; and, thirdly, there was the single transferable vote system. The Commission then came down in favour of the single transferable vote system, mainly on the grounds that it regarded ensuring the proper representation of minorities in Regional Assemblies

49
as an overriding requirement. Of the three, STV is the only one which aims to give Parties representation in proportion to votes received. They made it crystal clear that they were not talking about elections to the United Kingdom Parliament, and that the objection to STV that
"it tends not to give any one party a majority in the Assembly would be less substantial as the government was to be concerned with decisions on domestic policy only…".
However, the disadvantage of STV is that it needs large multi-Member constituencies. That would seem to run counter both to the aim of bringing representation closer to the people and to the practice in Great Britain in the past 100 years or so. It is partly for that reason and partly because of the convenience of having the same constituencies for the Assembly as for the United Kingdom Parliament that we are putting forward this compromise in the form of the additional Member system, which builds on the existing system.
The additional Member system is based on the system preferred by all but one member of the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Blake, who I am glad to see here today; it is a system which owes much to the West German system, and that system, in turn, owes much to our existing system. It resembles closely, but is not identical to, the Mackintosh-Rifkind Amendment which was debated and rejected in the Commons. Where it differs most is in the allocation of additional seats on a regional and not on an all-Scottish basis. This means that the additional Members will represent groups of constituencies. It is, so to say, a supplementary benefit to the existing system.
Now, if your Lordships will bear with me, I shall briefly outline the proposals in this series of Amendments. The Assembly would consist, as in the Bill, of around 150 Members, of whom 100 would be directly elected constituency Members, with 50 who would be added as Party Members. Initially, 42 of the existing 71 constituencies would elect one Member each and 28 would elect two each. This follows in the Amendment which we shall be considering under the name, curiously enough, of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The two components of the remaining constituency, Orkney
50
and Shetland, would each elect one Member, as in the Bill. (Incidentally, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 3.)
The constituencies which elected two Members each would be those with more than 110 per cent. of the average electorate—that is in Amendment No. 11—and that figure is calculated with a view to producing the 100 constituency members. The 50 additional seats would be allocated on a regional basis—that is in Amendment No. 21—constituencies being grouped into eight regions, so that the total number of seats in each region for each Party which secured more than 5 per cent. of the total number of Party votes cast in Scotland would as nearly as possible correspond with the proportion of votes cast for that Party in that region. This so-called 5 per cent. threshold is designed to prevent a multiplicity of Parties in the Assembly; and this sort of system has certainly not created a multiplicity of Parties in the West German Chamber.
Amendment No. 33, which would add Parts V, VI and VII to Schedule 1, describes how the additional seats would be apportioned. This is based on the so-called "largest average" formula invented by d'Hondt. I am told that in West Germany the calculations are made by computer; but, given a regional basis for Scotland, with only between four and eight additional members in each region it involves a straightforward and not too lengthy piece of arithmetic which can be contained on one side of a foolscap sheet of paper. Even though some may find the calculation rather complicated, the actual voting from the point of view of the individual elector is very simple. All that is needed is for the elector to give two votes: one to the candidate of his choice—the constituency candidate—and another to the Party of his choice. Of course in a two-Member constituency he would give three votes—two constituency votes and one Party vote.
The voting paper would provide for this by setting out the constituency candidates on the left and the regional list or Party nominees on the right. The regional list would show, Party by Party, the names of the Party candidates from whom the additional Members would be drawn. Each Party would draw up its own regional list on whatever basis it

51
chose, provided that the basis was democratic. Regulations made under the Bill could take care of that. Each Party list could not contain more names than there were additional seats to be filled in the region.
That is a summary of the system, and if it is not entirely clear to all members of the Committee at the moment I hope that noble Lords will find it clear when they come to read Hansard in the morning. 1 shall leave other noble Lords to speak about the distinctive contribution that additional Members could make to a Scottish Assembly. Such Members should have been carefully chosen perhaps as possessing distinction and experience of the kind that we are wont to observe and welcome in newly-created Peers. As the noble and learned Lord said, since the Scottish Assembly is to be a single Chamber, these additional Members might well add a valuable complementary element to the Assembly which would compensate in some measure for the lack of a second Chamber. That of course is speculation, though, I venture to think, not wild speculation. It may be of more immediate interest to your Lordships to know how this additional Member system would work out in practice.
Perhaps the most valuable indication is to take as a basis the October 1974 Election results in Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord has already done, but to take them from rather a different point of view. It is estimated that, had that Election been contested on the additional member system, the seats in the Assembly would have been distributed between the four main Parties as follows: with 24.7 per cent. of the votes, the Conservative and Unionist Party in Scotland would have had 24 per cent. of the seats (that is, 36 seats in a 150-member Assembly). The Labour Party, with 36.3 per cent. of the votes would have had 39 per cent. of the seats or 58 or 59 seats. The Liberals, with 8.3 per cent. of the votes and 7 per cent. of the seats, would have had 10 or 11 seats. The Scottish National Party, with 30.4 per cent. of the votes and 30 per cent. of the seats, would have had 45 seats, three times the number they would have had had they actually won in the last Election. No other Party would have attained the qualifying threshold of 5 per cent. of the
52
votes. In the event, as my noble and learned friend said, the Labour Party candidates won nearly three-fifths of the seats with only just over 36 per cent. of the votes. That would be equivalent to some 87 per cent. of the seats in the Assembly of 150 Members.
So far, I have tried to deal with the principles and the mechanics of the additional Member system, but it would be wrong to evade the Party political issues. The Royal Commission made a perceptive and penetrating observation in paragraph 759 of its Report when it said:
"The system of Parliamentary Government now in operation at Westminster depends on the Opposition Party having a real prospect of achieving power. But in some regions that might not be so".
It was for that reason that the Commission made its proposals. I would add this: one of the long-standing objections in Scotland to establishing a subordinate Parliament in Edinburgh has been that one Party would probably enjoy a permanent majority even though the majority might not always, or perhaps ever, be based on a majority of votes cast.
Few people would now deny that that Party might be not the Labour Party but the Scottish National Party. In the Second Reading debate of the Bill in this House there was not one speaker, I believe, who was in favour of the complete independence of Scotland. Yet by constant insistence on Scotland's grievances—real or imaginary—a Party might, on the first-past-the-post system, again and again win a more or less permanent majority, edging further and further towards separation and/or one-Party Government.
Even if the likelihood of such a situation is thought at present to be remote, it is a risk which ought not to be run. The present strength of nationalism in Scotland can, I believe, be exaggerated. So can the unity of the Scottish National Party's present followers in pursuit of the proclaimed objective of independence. But there is no more dangerous belief than "It can't happen here", not least where national sentiment is involved. We need go no further than Quebec Province to see what can happen when the true interests of a people are obscured and distorted by nationalism. There, at the last election, the Part Québecquois gained 70 per cent. of the seats with

53
just over 40 per cent. of the votes, and has aroused grave fears for the future unity and prosperity of Canada.
Whatever advantages there may be in setting up some kind of political assembly in Scotland—and I believe that there are advantages—there are also enough risks not to warrant courting more. I believe that the first-past-the-post system would involve a foreseeable and totally unnecessary risk. As a political institution, the Scottish Assembly is to differ fundamentally from the United Kingdom Parliament. It lacks the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. It is to be only marginally concerned—environmentally, if you will—with trade and industry, and economics in general. It is to be elected for a fixed term of four years. These are but three of many reasons for having an entirely different electoral system—though not too different in its workings—to provide a membership apt for the Assembly's functions.
In conclusion, I would stress that the system proposed in this Amendment is simple from the point of view of the elector; it entails no constituency complications not already in the Bill and is demonstrably far fairer than the relative majority system, the first-past-the-post system. It would diminish considerably the risk of some Government, based on a majority of seats but a minority of the people of Scotland, riding roughshod over the wishes of the majority of electors.
4.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: I should like to support the Amendment and the subsequent Amendments which are related to it. I should like to underline briefly the arguments in favour of that Amendment as I see them and as, indeed, they have been explained to us already this afternoon. I think it is of considerable significance that, as we were reminded a little while ago, the Royal Commission over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, presided, unanimously recommended that the Scottish Assembly should have a proportional system of election. En doing so, they stressed the importance of proper representation for minorities in the Scottish Assembly and the need for a consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has reminded us that there are some five or six political Parties
54
operating in Scotland at the present time. Then there is a danger of distortion if the first-past-the-post system is used, with possible unfortunate consequences.
We know that in Scotland today, according to the present state of the opinion polls, the Conservative, Labour and Scottish Nationalist Parties are fairly close together; that it is not impossible for any one of those to project itself into the 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the electorate bracket, and that the Party that does that could well collect 60 per cent. of the seats. That raises the possibility to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred, of having in the Assembly a Scottish Nationalist majority which was supported by only a minority of votes in the country and which may seek to move Scotland towards an independence which was riot supported at all by the votes of the people of Scotland. It seems to me that the arguments are overwhelming for a proportional system for the Scottish Assembly.
When it comes to systems of proportional representation, it is well known that we on these Benches favour the single transferable system as used in Northern Ireland at the present time and, of course, in the neighbouring country of the Irish Republic. But although that is what we consider to be the best system, and although we have explained its merits many times in the past and will continue to do so in the future, nevertheless we have felt it right to support this Amendment which incorporates the added Member system, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has told us and, indeed, as it has been explained to us by him. We believe that the added Member system is infinitely preferable to the first-past-thepost system and that it is important to have the widest means of agreement about the proportional system to be used in the Scottish Assembly. For those reasons we support the Amendment.
The Amendment which we are discussing and the series of Amendments which flow from it would involve the election of 100 Members on the first-pastthe-post system. There would be 44 of those initially in single-Member constituencies, including Orkney and the Shetlands, and 28 in two-Member constituencies; although those 28 would be divided up in due course, so that in the

55
course of time everyone would have his single-Member representative, which some people consider to be a very important matter. In addition to those 100 Members elected on the first-past-the-post principle, there would be the 50 top-up Members drawn from the regional lists and supplementing those elected on the first-pastthe-post principle, so that the final result was proportionate to the way in which the votes were cast. There would also be the 5 per cent. threshold to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred, and which would ensure that the political Parties represented in this way would be serious contenders for representation in the Assembly. There would be also the opportunity of amendment; so that if it were felt that the system, after it had been in practice for a while, needed some modification, that is provided for in this series of Amendments. I believe there is a strong feeling in the Committee that there should be a proportional voting system for the Scottish Assembly and I hope very much that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.
4.55 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: On this Amendment I find myself very much in agreement with my noble friends, Lord Kilbrandon and Lord Drumalbyn. I am not going to concern myself with the method of proportional representation. I, myself, rather favour the single transferable vote but it may be that the added Member system proposed by Lord Drumalbyn has an advantage over it. I have an open mind on that. But I am much concerned with the unhealthy trend, as I see it, which has entered into the system of our Parliamentary democratic government based on Party. It is that the Government elected on a minority vote have interpreted their majority of seats, however small, as giving them the right to impose policies on the country for which the majority of people clearly have not voted. It is really a weakness that that has appeared in our democratic system particularly in recent years, and it has done a lot to bring politics into disrepute.
Whether or not it is proper, or a good thing, for the United Kingdom to adopt a proportional representation system is, to my mind, for today's debate, beyond
56
the point. It is not practical politics. It is my guess that, for a number of reasons, it will not be practical politics for five or ten years. But we now have the opportunity to prevent the abuses of the present system being imported into the new Scottish Assembly or Convention, or whatever it is we are going to call it. I do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland wish to be governed by any Party—I do not care which Party it is— elected on a minority vote.
My second reason for supporting the Amendment is the nature of what I call purely Scottish Bills. I hope that my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, who is to introduce an Amendment later, will give a clearer definition. I have been through hundreds of such Bills in some detail and, by and large, they are not the kind of Bills that lead to extreme Party clashes. I have served, as have many other noble Lords, for a good many years on the Scottish Standing Committee. It is longwinded almost beyond words, but you can count the occasions almost on two hands in which there have been serious clashes of principle on these kinds of Bills. I do not think, therefore, that they are the kind of Bills which ought to lead to great and serious clashes between Parties.
The last reason is that which was touched upon by my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn. In Scotland, as far as we can see ahead, it looks to me as though there are going to be three or four political Parties comparatively evenly balanced. I think that a system of proportional representation would give a fairer result, more acceptable as a whole, to the people of Scotland. I am, as I think the Committee knows, a devolutionist although I do not much like this Bill. I shall do my best to try to improve it with the help of my colleagues on this side of the Committee; but I am bound to say that my attitude to the whole of this Bill will depend very much on whether the Government agree to adopting some form of proportional representation for election to the Assembly.
4.59 p.m.
Lord BLAKE: I thought that I ought perhaps to speak although I promise to be brief. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn

57
referred to the Hansard Society's Commission on Electoral Reform of which I was Chairman and which recommended the additional Member system. The proposals in this Amendment are very similar, although not identical, to the proposals of the Commission and are also very similar to the Amendment which was proposed in another place by my honourable friends Mr. Malcolm Rifkind and Mr. John Mackintosh. They are all variants of the West German system.
There is this difference, I think, in what has been proposed under this Amendment: that some of the first-past-the-post constituencies will have two Members rather than one. There are special reasons for that connected with the minimum of administrative inconvenience and with avoiding the need for re-drawing boundaries and so on, but the basic principle is the same: the preservation of a link between Member and constituency. This is the advantage, I think—and the majority of the members of the Commission came to the same view—of the additional Member system over other systems of proportional representation.
I do not want to go into details about this because no doubt there will be some discussion later. It would be idle to pretend that I am not in favour of PR for Westminster, because I am and I came down clearly on that view; but it is perfectly reasonable for people who are thoroughly against having a proportional representation system of any kind for Westminster nonetheless to be in favour of proportional representation for Edinburgh. The circumstances are different and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said, one cannot even invoke that boring old sinner of an argument "the thin end of the wedge" on this. After all, we had PR on the STV basis—not the additional Member system—for Stormont in the 1920s and we have had it again fairly recently. It certainly has not shown any sign of bringing PR to Westminster: nor is there any reason why it should.
The two great dangers in having the first-past-the-post system in a devolved Assembly are these: the first is that minorities will be greatly underrepresented. That point was made in both the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission on the Con
58
stitution, and I will not labour it. Everybody knows that, whatever the merits of the first-past-the-post system may be, it does not give proper representation to minorities—or, if it does, it is by pure fluke. No-one has ever defended it on that ground: nor could they. Secondly, whatever the merits of the system may be when you have a two-Party system and the two major Parties take something like 90 per cent. of the vote, as used to happen in the United Kingdom as a whole from 1945 to 1970—and there may be advantages for it then—it becomes far more capricious in its workings if, as in Scotland today, you have five or six Parties and if, again as in Scotland today, the largest three Parties are extremely close to one another. The result could be a complete lottery. A Party with 37 per cent. of the popular vote could scoop the pool with a comfortable majority of members in an Assembly, Convention, or what-have-you, voted in on a firstpast-the-post system.
The matter becomes even more serious when one of those three Parties is divided from ail the rest by an immense gulf—for, after all, there is a Party which believes in total separation. There is no comparable division in any of the nationwide Parties in the United Kingdom. Under a first-past-the-post system, it would, as has already been said, be perfectly possible for a Party committed to a revolutionary change to win over half the seats although over 60 per cent. of the votes were actually against it. That is not just a remote chance or a possible statistical fluke; it is a possible and indeed probable outcome of a first-past-the-post election in Scotland in the near future. And who could blame the Scottish National Party if, having got in as a minority with a clear majority of seats in the House, it took that as a mandate? After all, that is what the present Government have done in very similar circumstances in England. The SNP could not be blamed for it nor, certainly, could this Government. It would be quite a different thing to do it in those circumstances. I cannot believe that anyone in this Chamber would wish to see such a result. There is really only one certain way of avoiding that highly undesirable result, which is to adopt some form of proportional representation. I very much hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division and carried.
5.4 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am sorry if I seem, as I shall, to be marring the apparent harmony, not to say unanimity, which has prevailed so far in this debate. In particular I find myself very unhappy at feeling bound to differ from my former Leader, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for whom, as he knows, I have such enormous respect and who, as he also knows, I always wished to remain my Leader for very much longer than he did.
I am very unhappy indeed about this Amendment, for reasons which I shall try to state as concisely as I can. It was of course moved with the highest authority and, if he will allow me to say so, the most effective moderation by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. It has been supported by Members of the greatest weight and distinction in this Chamber, but I think there are very real dangers in it. The first of them is the likely reaction by what may well be the dominant Party in Scotland, the Scottish National Party. Your Lordships will know that this Bill would not be before us at all had it not been for the pressures and demands made by that Party. I would ask your Lordships to reflect on the possible reaction of members of that Party if we were to introduce into this Assembly, which is being introduced, it is said, to meet their wishes, rules which would be likely to have the effect of preventing their getting an effective majority, when we do not apply similar rules in our own legislature.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Would the noble Lord permit me? I think it should be pointed out, to their great credit, that many members of the Scottish National Party are in favour of PR.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am perfectly certain that the noble Lord is right as of now, but I wonder whether he will reflect with me a little further as to what their likely reaction would be if this Amendment were carried: if they found themselves in a position in which, under the first-past-the-post system, they would have had a majority but we have devised rules which will inhibit them from getting their majority—which under that system they would have got, and which is after all the system that we adopt for the whole of the rest of our arrangements at Westminster and in this Island. Of
60
course, the noble Lord is quite right in saying that, for a reason which I find it very difficult to follow because I do not think it is in their own interests, some of the representatives of that Party have taken this view. But I would still ask your Lordships to consider what the reaction is likely to be if we introduce rules which it will be clearly suggested were for the purpose of inhibiting them from obtaining an effective overall majority in this Assembly.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said that if we were to accept this we would not be creating a precedent. I think his words were, "It would not be the thin end of the wedge". That is what one always says when one is creating a precedent and, with great respect, one is always wrong because, as the late A. P. Herbert put it,
"Nothing is a precedent until it is done for the first time".
If we do this I think we shall introduce the thin end of the wedge, because there will be many people who would argue—certainly noble Lords on the Liberal Benches—that what is right for the Scottish Assembly is right for the rest of these Islands. And what about the Wales Bill? Will not the same argument be adduced for the Welsh Assembly? Once that is established—and I am sure noble Lords fully understand the natural desires of noble Lords on the Liberal Benches to see some such system which is so obviously desirable from their own electoral point of view—we are kidding ourselves if we say this is not the thin end of the wedge. Therefore, with enormous respect, I differ from the noble and learned Lord on that point.
If we are to plunge into this Assembly and into PR, I suggest—I say this with great diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who I think invented it—that the additional Member system seems one of the least desirable forms of proportional representation. What is to be the position of these additional members? They will not have a constituency of their own. They will be elected on a Party list over a regional area and of course they will owe their election—let us be clear about it—to the position on their Party list which their Party managers put them in.
I agree strongly with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, who referred

61
to the danger today from the increased growth of the Party machines. What greater reinforcement could one give to the Party machines than to have a number of persons elected not by an individual constituency, but because of the position on a Party list which the Party machine has conferred upon them? I was most interested in something that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said on this point, because I think that in his speech he was very conscious of this weakness. He said that it would be for the Parties—he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that I paraphrase him accurately—to arrange the order of candidates on their lists. But he said that that would be all right, because there would be regulations to secure that this was democratic. I have immense admiration for the ingenuity of my noble friend, but the devising of regulations to ensure that Party machines operate democratically in respect of the selection of candidates seems to me not to be self-evidently very easy, and I think that we should not accept this proposal without at least being satisfied that this is feasible.
So I feel that the position of these added Members will be one of some embarrassment. They will be the creatures, in the strict sense, of their Party machines. I have no doctrinal antipathy to that. In a modest way, as President of the Wessex area of the National Union of Unionist and Conservative Associations, I suppose that I am part of a Party machine, and, if we were to evolve a system of this kind in England, I suppose that I might even have my own, modest racket in the selection of candidates. But, in all seriousness, this seems to me a very considerable defect in the system and I must confess that I am extremely unhappy about it.
Then my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn produced an argument which I hope I misunderstood, because I certainly found it difficult to follow. He said that it was all right to have this system for the Scottish Assembly, because it was not a sovereign body, and that because it was not a sovereign body it would be wrong for it to have an electoral system which was palpably unfair, the corollary to that being that only sovereign bodies can be based on an electoral system which is palpably unfair.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is putting together two or three sentences of mine which, no doubt, he jotted smartly down on paper, in an order in which I did not put them, and drawing conclusions from the order in which he has put them.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My noble friend's intervention was, perhaps, more obscure than usual. I did jot down my noble friend's observations—I hope in the same order—and, with great respect to him, he has not explained what is the validity of an argument for saying that a non-sovereign body should be based on an electoral system which is not palpably unfair, with the plain implication as to what should be the position in respect of a sovereign body.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Will my noble friend forgive me for interrupting again? He is now referring to the summing-up, at the end of my speech. But I quoted from the Royal Commission's document, in which they said that the objection is not so substantial where an Assembly is dealing with purely domestic matters, as where it is dealing with other matters, such as foreign policy and so on. I think my noble friend is rather confusing the argument about fairness—which is the other argument, about consulting minorities and about minorities being represented—with the argument about sovereignty needing strong and consistent government. That is perhaps even more important, in certain circumstances, in a sovereign country than it is to have a body elected by proportional representation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not want to continue the matter unduly, but I think that my noble friend has really confirmed what I was saying, that, in the case of a sovereign body, so important is it—and here I wholly agree with him—to have a Government that can govern, that one must accept, if necessary, for that greater end, the lesser evil of palpable unfairness, and that, therefore, because this is a non-sovereign body, it is, in his view, much more important to avoid palpable unfairness. He has only explained in even more polished language, though perhaps at slightly greater length than before, the view that he expressed in his admirable speech.

63
I have one final point to make, and here I draw the opposite conclusion from that of my noble friend. He said that, because under the Bill the Assembly will have the power to determine its own electoral system in the future, it was desirable that it should be elected under this kind of system at the first instance, and it could then decide to what system it went. I draw the opposite conclusion from that. I should have thought that, if you were giving this body—and I think that it is right to give it—the right to determine its own electoral system, you should elect it under the system which is the current system in this country for elections. Then, if it does not like it, it is in a position, if it wishes, to evolve a new system.
The Earl of PERTH: I think that the noble Lord is mistaken when he says that the Assembly will have such a power. It is my intention later to move an Amendment for this purpose, but in the Bill as it is drafted at the moment the Assembly has no such power.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I was misled by my noble friend, because it was his argument to which I was referring. But I will certainly bear in mind the noble Earl's warning when we come to his Amendment, because, if anything, he is strengthening my feeling that we should oppose it.
As I have tried to make clear, I am very unhappy about these proposals. If I may sum up what I have been saying, I do not think it is sensible in the present atmosphere to apply to the Scottish Assembly an electoral system which is different from that which we accept for the management of our own affairs in the United Kingdom, unless—and I come back to the noble Earl's point—and until that body, once elected, feels disposed to adopt it. But for us to impose it ab initio would be a mistake and would make an experiment, already very precarious, even more so. Secondly, I believe that, despite the efforts of my noble and learned friend Lord Kilbrandon, we should be creating a precedent, and a precedent which we should regret for many years to come.
5.18 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: There can be no doubt that I must be the sole Member of your Lordships' House who has failed to follow the logic embodied in the arguments adduced on both sides on this debate. I have an uncomfortable feeling that I may be called upon to vote at the termination of this debate without understanding anything at all about it. It all appears to be very complicated. My only possible consolation—and I have sometimes felt this in my experience on a public platform—is that one can speak better on a subject about which one knows nothing than on a subject about which one is fully informed. But I gathered, or tried to gather, from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the proposition before your Lordships is related to the possibility of injecting some form of proportional representation into the elections which are to take place some day in connection with the creation of a Scottish Assembly. That is how I understand it.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who has just resumed his seat, is quite right to direct our attention to the adverse reaction which might ensue from the creation of a new form of election in our country. There are dangers in any kind of election and, as we know from our experience, many changes have ensued as a result of our frequent elections since the beginning of this century.
During the course of this debate, there has been a great deal of talk about majorities and minorities. There are some people who dislike majorities, while others dislike minorities. Those who dislike majorities are usually on the side of the minorities—and vice versa. We understand exactly what is the motivation. I dismiss most of the arguments for the simple reason that for quite a long time I have felt that majorities do not matter very much and that minorities are of no value if we are to produce beneficial results. Therefore, it might be advisable to have some form of election which would lead to—I use the simple term—adequate representation of the electors in our country. It has happened elsewhere without any adverse reaction, except that, in some countries where the method of proportional representation has been in vogue for many years, they have some-

65
times failed to come to definite conclusions. That is not a bad thing. Sometimes it is far better not to come to a definite conclusion. Since the beginning of this century, we have had various Governments which came to definite conclusions and we see the results—some of them not altogether very satisfactory. So it might be advisable to take certain risks.
What is proposed, as I understand it, although I am open to correction, is not that in future elections in the United Kingdom or any part of it we should adopt in a wholesale fashion the principle of proportional representation. We are endeavouring only to introduce the thin end of the wedge—very thin. In my opinion, that is a very useful and desirable experiment. Whether the system that is advocated, based on the Amendment, is the correct one is a matter upon which the Government representative will express an opinion.
However, what I should like the Government to do would be this. They may have come to definite conclusions about every item in this Bill, but on this matter of the method of election for the Assembly in Scotland the important consideration, if we are to have less turbulence in Scotland—political, industrial, social and all the rest—is to have an Assembly that at any rate appears to be a fair one and likely to operate objectively and impartially, particularly as it happens to be an innovation. In other words, we take risks when we seek to introduce innovations affecting an old institution that may or may not have served its purpose over the years; but here is something new and it is worthwhile undertaking the risk.
Moreover, I fancy that it will suit the people of Scotland very much better than the normal first-past-the-post kind of election. A great deal of nonsense is spoken about unity in Scotland. I know Scotland fairly well. I am almost inclined to say that there will never be unity in Scotland until every clan wears the same kind of kilt. When I think of what Glasgow is like—and I have lived in it for more than 30 years— and how it relates to people in the Hebrides and other parts of Scotland, placed geographically as they find themselves and not as a matter of individual selection, I am bound to say that what Scotland needs is more fairness
66
and impartiality rather than a semblance of unity based on a majority Government.
For that reason, I am going to ask my noble and learned friend who is to reply to consider all the arguments that have been adduced in the course of this short discussion and to take them back and consider whether it is possible to introduce some element of proportional representation—either the one that is advocated in the Amendment or something similar. Let us experiment. In my judgment. it can do no harm. I do not believe that there will be an adverse reaction in any form. It will do a great deal of good.
May I say one last word on this matter. For Heaven's sake! we must not do this in order to please the Liberal Party. I have been wanting to say that for some time! It is not that I bear any malice towards the Liberal Party; far from it. However, it seems to me that if they had selected me as Leader of the Liberal Party—not that I should have been likely to accept the offer—I should have advised them quite differently. If you want to reach your objective, you must adopt diplomatic means and not be arrogant. Over the years, I tried arrogance and I failed. We must not do this merely because it is a Liberal proposition.
If the Government say, "All right, we will consider the matter and we will adopt something similar to what has been asked for", the Liberals will come along and say that it is a Liberal victory. This has got nothing whatever to do with the Lib-Lab pact—at least I hope not—nor should it disrupt that pact; let it go on, for what it may be worth. Therefore, let us decide this question quite objectively.
In my judgment, it will satisfy the people of Scotland and it will not trouble the people on this side of the Border. If we can create in Scotland an organisation that has a measure of autonomy, even if its operations are occasionally restricted in the interests of the wellbeing of the whole of the United Kingdom, it will be all to the good. For that reason, I ask my noble and learned friend to give careful consideration to the matter.
5.30 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: If the weight of voices in this debate in Committee has any effect on your Lordships' decision on this

67
Amendment, I shall be very glad of this opportunity very briefly to add mine in support of it. I think that, whether or not proportional representation is accepted in the final version of the Bill when it becomes an Act, the House of Commons should have a further opportunity of considering the matter. In my view it would be wrong if the prejudice in that House against proportional representation was allowed to guide a decision with regard to the Scottish Assembly.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter seemed to me to be a very good example of an argument which in fact should be used the other way round. If the opposition in the United Kingdom Parliament against proportional representation is allowed to dictate the decision of that Parliament in respect of the Assembly or Convention in Edinburgh, then the Scottish Nationalist Party, for instance, will have a very good argument that their interests are not being properly safeguarded and that it would be far better for the Scottish Assembly to have a different form, not only of constitution but of election, from that of the United Kingdom Parliament. I should have thought—and quite clearly my noble friend's argument was based on a misapprehension with regard to the point of view of the Scottish Nationalist Party—that in fact there would be a continuing grievance if we were to impose upon the Scottish Assembly the same form of election which happens to suit and to be part of the tradition, first of England and then of the United Kingdom.
I think we should not start this new experiment, which as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, is a new development in the constitution of our Islands, by depriving the Scottish people of what at any rate a large number of people think is the best system for ensuring that the Scottish Convention accurately reflects the whole spectrum of political opinion in that country. Therefore I hope that the Committee will support this Amendment, and I think we have a right to do so in view of the fact that its advocates include some of the most distinguished legal and constitutional minds in Scotland and in Great Britain as a whole.
It is quite unnecessary for me to try to repeat the arguments which have been
68
put forward so well by my noble friends on this side of the Committee and by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell; but whatever may be the ultimate outcome, I think it would be right for us on this occasion, and in view of the importance of the issue, to remit it to the House of Commons for reconsideration in the final stages of its enactment, so that they should have a second chance of considering something on which, by that time, there may be some expression of opinion so far as the Scottish people are concerned.
5.33 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I have no advice to give to the Committee but I want to say a few words in order to make my own position clear. I am unhappy about this Amendment and I am very unhappy about the Bill. I believe that in the world in which we live—a world of constant change—the one great asset that the British people have is their unity and anything which saps that unity must in the end be against the national interest. It may come—as these things do come—like a thief in the night. We may wake up to find that the consequences overwhelm us and that we have not realised what those consequences arc going to be. I must express my regret that advancing years and impaired hearing prevented me from doing what I wanted to do and intended to do, namely to object to the withdrawal of the Motion that was moved on second reading and to divide the House on that issue. That is what I feel about it.
I have listened to the arguments today and I must confess that they have passed right over my head. When people speak about democracy they are speaking of something which I see in quite different terms. Democracy is not a matter of mathematical formulae, of feeding something into a constituency and getting the answer out. All government, in its most primitive form or its most complicated form, be it democracy or authoritarian, can only be carried out by consent. The issue is, how do you get that consent? Under the Hitlerian system you get it through the concentration camp, the rubber truncheon and through brutality. In our society, thank God! for the last three or four hundred years we have got it by persuasion. What elections are about fundamentally is not deciding who

69
is at the top of the poll: it is a time when the British people educate themselves in the realities of the decisions which have to be taken in their name and which will succeed or fail to succeed to the extent to which they understand and accept them.
I should like to quote one example, not in order to raise Party feeling. Let us take the Industrial Relations Bill. After the 1970 election, I remember going to the centre of London and watching an immense parade organised by the TUC in opposition to that Bill. I knew from my own experience as a Member of the House of Commons that that parade had not taken place by accident. There was a deep feeling and I was quite convinced that, if a Conservative Government, even with a large majority, tried to carry through that legislation—and I said so in this House—they would fail, and fail they did. It may be argued that that Bill was soundly drawn; the principles were good but public opinion was not ready for it and so it broke down.
The arguments we have heard today are really quite extraordinary. We are told—and I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that this Bill had its origin in an attempt to "do down" the nationalist feelings which have been aroused in Scotland for good or ill reasons. It was a piece of political manoeuvring in order to buy time. But that it could be successful I gravely doubt. We are told today that we must have this Amendment in the Bill in case, as the result of an election for a Scottish Assembly, a majority of Scottish Nationalist opinion finds itself able to carry out its will. So what we are engaged in today is cooking up a means of stopping the Scottish Nationalists from having their way if they get a majority. The majority of the Scottish people are persuaded by their experience and by those who are seeking to guide them as to what to do, and at the end of the day they will do it. If your Lordships try to stop them you will not succeed but you will have worsened the situation. It will in fact intensify the feelings of Scottish Nationalists that what this House is setting out to do is to put in, as it were, a long stop.
One of the things that I am afraid of in these Islands is the emergence of a force which has not broken through for very many years—English nationalism.
70
Perhaps it will not come in my time but how much longer do noble Lords think that the measures which are being carried through can be continued without stopping to reckon the cost? For example, the day might come when economic disaster descended upon us, or even military defeat that came about because of the weakening of the political and emotional forces —all the forces which make up nationalism—and my Lords they are not all bad. Any force which makes a man look for something bigger than himself to serve is not wholly bad.
As your Lordships know, I have spent most of my life as a regular soldier. I come from a line of forebears with experience of soldiering and I want to put this to those of your Lordships who have shared my experience. There are forces that make a man think that ' A ' company is better than ' D ' company but, if at the end of the week he is transferred to ' D ' company and he thinks ' D ' company is better than ' A ', the fact that that man is finding an allegiance among those he serves and for whom in the last analysis men will give their lives, then for good or bad reasons he will be serving something bigger than himself.
Our job is to try to harness this to the realities of the situation, not to try to submerge it, or to bring in a measure of this kind, which we know in our heart of hearts, if we took a free vote in this House, we would turn down tomorrow. We are discussing the Committee stage of this Bill because the convention says we must all be very nice and must not vote against it on Second Reading. We are now being asked to pass an Amendment which we know in our heart of hearts, every man-jack of us, including the Liberals—and that is a great tribute by me, holding the views I do about Liberals—would be doing something which at the end of the day can only weaken the very forces, the very foundations, of our society.
I want to say one thing more, and it is this. I wonder if I could, with great respect, ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to reflect on this. Democracy clearly does not end with the totting up of the votes; it is not a question of this batch of votes against that batch of votes. May I remind him of the Churchillian doctrine which is long since

71
forgotten, but which was a marked contributory reason for the heavy Conservative defeat in 1945, that there should be one vote, one value. At the 1945 Election the principle which had governed the drawing up of constituencies, the size of constituencies, from the end of the First World War up to 1945 had been turned upside down, because of the movements of population during the war and the fact that there had been no redrawing of boundaries, so that an urban vote became worth about one-and-three-quarters the value of a rural vote.
I can assure noble Lords that the Labour Government did not know what they were doing in the 1951 Election, which reversed it. I remember going, as a Member of the House of Commons, to a room upstairs and discussing the proposals. I did the sums and worked out what the consequences were going to be. Mr. Dick Windle, who was the national agent, came to me afterwards and said, "Look, young man, do not worry about this; this is a matter for Transport House". So they lost the 1950 Election, or nearly lost it, and lost completely in 1951, because the balance had been altered.
Here again, now in Scotland, particularly where you have sparsely built-up areas and very crowded urban areas, unless there is some attempt to secure an equality between the value of one vote as against another you are going to get the most grotesque results, never mind about your mathematical formula. I do not know whether the Committee is going to divide or not. If it divides, I shall certainly vote against this Amendment. I hold that if this Amendment is adopted we are starting on a course of action the end of which we do not see. We ought to be very cautious, very careful, before we take another step down this very slippery slope.
5.43 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: May I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. I believe there are two points here; the first is with regard to method. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said that this is not the thin end of a wedge. May I say I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this would
72
be interpreted in the country as the thin end of a wedge. I was in my time a member of four Speakers' Conferences on electoral reform. Certainly at the majority of those conferences we discussed proportional representation. At the last conference the decision of the Speaker's Conference by 19 votes to one was against proportional representation for the United Kingdom Parliament. That was, of course, the single transferable vote. This is the added Member system, which to my mind is a good deal less attractive than the single transferable vote system.
If you have this Assembly or Convention, you will have some Members who are elected and some Members appointed by the Party caucus. Therefore, you are going to have two classes of Member, and you will have Members who are appointed by the Party caucus who are not necessarily the most popular with the electorate. I should have thought that the conclusion of this matter ought not to be what my noble friend Lord Alport suggested. He said we should accept this Amendment and have it turned down by the Commons. That was the gist of it. I should have thought the happier solution, for those who are in favour of this and for those who are against it, would be to insert powers in this Bill, as I understand the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is intending to do, to give the Assembly themselves the power to regulate their own method of election. I cannot think that if they have that power they will choose this particular added Member system, although I think it is quite likely that if they had that power they would choose the single transferable vote system, which is the more attractive of the different forms of proportional representation. But leave it to their power, without the danger of attempting to put it into this Bill. I believe that would be a very grave mistake at the present time.
Lord ALPORT: May I correct my noble friend. I did not say it would be turned down by the House of Commons. I indicated that I know that the prejudices against this are very strong in the House of Commons, for reasons which my noble friend and all others in this House know. But I had hoped that the fact that we had passed an Amendment in this sense would at any rate indicate, not only to the House of Commons but also to the country in

73
general, that there was an increasing body of opinion in favour of a system of proportional representation, at any rate for the Scottish Assembly.
5.40 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I seek to speak at an early stage in this debate to express personal views on this subject, having already made brief references to them in previous debates on devolution in your Lordships' House, when I have recommended a system of proportional representation for any body that was to be set up. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter in his speech expressed very concisely and cogently the objections which are raised to a system of proportional representation. I am one of those who believe that if it were introduced in Scotland it need not in any way prejudice the position of Westminster. The precedent of Northern Ireland has already been referred to, where proportional representation was introduced, and it had no effect at all upon our system at Westminster.
I would add to that by saying that if there were to be any changes in the methods of electing Members of another place here at Westminster a great deal of work would have to be done beforehand in order to inform people of the adjustments that would be necessary. The whole question of Election Manifestoes would have to be changed. Now it is a matter of honour that every point in an Election Manifesto is a pledge and must be carried out. In a system of proportional representation there would have to be adjustments to this approach to General Elections, because there would probably not be a clear majority afterwards. Also there would need to be a time for negotiations after a General Election. There is an enormous amount to be considered, requiring adjustments to be thought out, and about which the public need to be informed and prepared before any changes of that kind could be made at Westminster.
My point is that that does not apply here, because if this Bill goes through, or if a Bill goes through, setting up a body on these lines, it will be a completely new body—Assembly we call it for the moment—and it could start with its own system. The Assembly would not be
74
providing a Government, it would not be providing the Government of the country. Under the terms of the Bill it is to provide an Executive. So I personally support the principle in this Amendment which was introduced with such clarity by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon.
In Scotland the three largest parties are roughly equal in their support and have been over the past three or four years. That does not even include the Liberal Party which is another Party to be reckoned with in Scotland. My noble friends Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Blake have pointed out the danger of a minority of the electorate of this new body putting into control of this body, under a first-pastthe-post system, a Party which has as its aim the breakaway of Scotland and the disintegration of the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter argued that that might offend the Scottish National Party. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out that they are officially in favour of a system of proportional representation for this Assembly, but it is not the one here. From what one understands from what they have said they are in favour of the alternative vote system in single Member constituencies, but with added members. Therefore, it is not so different from what is proposed here.
My noble friend asks what could be their objective in supporting such a system? The answer is that I think they are over-confident—confident that they would, under this system, get a majority. What many of us are worried about—certainly I am—is a Party gaining control of this new Assembly which has a minority support of about 30 per cent., or even less. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel pointed out the dangers that have arisen in this country as a whole, because policies have been pressed through which had only minority support. However, as I indicated, we are not discussing Westminster and I believe that a great many other adjustments would be necessary before any question of changes at Westminster could be considered. Therefore, I agree with the proposition that proportional representation should be introduced at the beginning if an Assembly of this kind is brought into existence.
The question then is: What is the best system? The Amendments propose that

75
there should be 150 Members, that is, falling in with the numbers suggested in the Bill as at present drafted; that 100 of those should be elected by single constituency election as at present; but that there should also be a system, which we can examine in detail when we reach later Amendments, of adding 50 because each elector would have a second vote which would be for the Party.
I am very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Blake speaking on this matter, because his Committee, sponsored by the Hansard Society, recommended the additional members system as their preferred one for a system of proportional representation. My noble friend reminded the House in a debate on religious education last summer that many years ago I had had the pleasure of teaching him mathematics and ballistics, which seems an improbable event as he is a very eminent historian. But, of course, it took place in the early days of the war, in 1940, when he was an officer cadet at the OCTU base school of artillery where I was an instructor. I can return the compliment by saying what an agreeable exercise it was to undertake that task, and I can also say that the Blake Committee got its mathematics right. It represents and reflects the wishes of the electorate to a very high degree of accuracy. However, at the same time it preserves the system familiar to the British and the Scottish electorate of a member representing a constituency being directly elected.
Another point that I should like to bring out is that a system of this kind will encourage people to vote, because every vote will count towards the result. Sometimes now in constituencies which are massively safe for Labour or massively safe for Conservatives many people know that they are wasting their time if they vote. However, under this system anybody voting in any part of the country will be making some contribution to the result. In countries where a system of this kind has been adopted, such as West Germany, the number of people voting has increased—the percentage has increased enormously, and that must be healthy for democracy. Moreover, the number of those abstaining has fallen.
I have mentioned West Germany. There the AM system has now reached a
76
stage where half the Members are on a list. That was increased. They started originally with a system where there were less, but they decided that patronage and other things did not enter into this situation as much as some noble Lords have feared, and they actually increased it. However, that is not suggested here. Here the proportion is 50 added Members to 100. Should there be changes in the Bill—some of my noble friends have put down Amendments which may be accepted—which would reduce the total number of Members of this Assembly to about 100, which was the number recommended by the Royal Commission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, then of course this system could be adapted in the same proportion in order to meet that situation. It is not wedded to the figure of 150.
I believe that these Amendments, which I personally favour, would provide the other place with an opportunity to discuss a system which is an alternative to the one which it discussed previously, because it has the lists based on regions. I think that that would be something which would be welcomed by many not only in another place but also throughout the country. It would give the other place a chance to consider an alternative to the proposal put forward there by the honourable Members, Mr. Rifkind and Mr. Mackintosh. Therefore, I quite understand the objections which have been put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but with this new situation, a new body in Scotland and a special situation in Scotland I should favour a system of proportional representation.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Before my noble friend sits down, is he aware that his lucid and well reasoned argument in favour of the additional Member system in general does nothing to diminish the apprehensions of those of us who feel that, despite the assurances of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, this is a pretty thick end to a wedge?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I hoped that I had said at the beginning that I thought that we were considering this matter quite separately from Westminster and that if there were to be changes suggested of any system of proportional representation—not necessarily this one

77
at Westminster—an enormous amount of other connected work, such as the whole approach to General Elections and the whole system of what happens after General Elections, would not only have to be worked out but would have to be described to the public, and the public would have to be ready to accept it. If the public were not ready to do so, then changes would not happen. However, that is not the situation in Scotland: in Scotland this is something new. It is a quite new body and I believe that proportional representation would be appropriate for that kind of body, and ought to be introduced at the beginning when one can start with a system which would then he adapted and right for proportional representation.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: I should like to begin by saying that I have a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who apologises to your Lordships because, although he was one of the signatories to the Amendment, he has had to go to the Far East. He makes his apologies for being unable to take part in the Committee stage on this particular Amendment.
I hope that it is in order for me to mention the Scottish Peers' Association which some of your Lordships will know is an all-Party body concerned with Scottish interests. It is not all of a mind; that is to say, it is no secret to tell your Lordships that some of the Members are not at all happy about the Bill and not in favour of devolution. However, on all sides they have agreed that, in the event of there being a devolution Bill, it is of the greatest importance that the way it is chosen should be the right one. Indeed, at our meetings over the last three years I think we have discussed this question more than any other. We have had the advantage of advice from various sources telling of their particular systems and whether they would like proportional representation in the form of the single transferable vote or many others. In the end, we came to the conclusion that in the circumstances the Amendment which is before us today is the right one. Necessarily it is not perfect. We know that the Liberals would have liked something more on the single transferable vote system, but all recognise that, in an
78
event like this, the whole is more important than the part. That is why we have this Amendment before us today.
The main factor which brought the Amendment to your Lordships was that of fairness. We felt that it was of the greatest importance that in the first assembly the composition should clearly be a fair one. Incidentally, on the question of fairness, I think I am right in saying that the Scottish National Party, who have supported some form of proportional representation, have said that they themselves would not want to bring forward their doctrine—whatever it may be, or however extreme—unless they were sure that they had the majority of Scots behind them. I think that is the reason why, out of a sense of fairness, they are ready to support this Amendment.
We also felt that it was very important that the Amendment should be different from that which was turned down in another place. I am sure your Lordships will recognise why we wanted that, and this Amendment meets that point. Again, we thought it was of great importance that the regions of the countryside should have considerable weight, and that is the reason why, in the short time that was available to us, we adopted a system of regions for the 50 seats that are mentioned.
I recognise the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Tranmire and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it results in two kinds of MPs. While that is perfectly true, I think that by its very nature, the Parties would try to nominate people who were particularly popular in a region. If I am wrong in that, and if a further Amendment were accepted later on, then, if the Assembly wanted to change this method, it would be open to them to do so.
I would ask the Government to accept the Amendment in the way that it is meant; that is, because we believe it is for the best advantage of a new Assembly. In saying this I would point out that the Amendment gives the Government two-thirds of what they want; and I should have thought on the basis of having two-thirds—that is to say 100 out of 150 being chosen in the ordinary first-past-the-post method—they should be satisfied.
Lord DIGBY: The reason why this Bill is before your Lordships is that the nation is divided, politically, socially and

79
industrially, and I believe that this division is the chief cause of our poor industrial performance. This provides the impetus that makes for nationalism. It is difficult to be proud of being British; therefore one wants to be proud of being Welsh or Scottish. The Bill itself is divisive, but if it is passed let us not make it more divisive. First-past-the-post is divisive and decisive. Proportional representation is less decisive but also less divisive; therefore, I support this Amendment.
6.5 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I rise to support this Amendment. The basis for my authority to invervene—and I do so with considerable trepidation—is that I have twice been elected first-past-the-post to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and I have also once been elected to an Assembly on STV and once to a Convention on STV; so probably in this one case my experience is fairly unique. Before I begin my support to this Amendment may I say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that, unfortunately for him, the wedge is there and it is very thick. Northern Ireland is expected to have STV in the European elections and is also expected to have STV if again it has an Assembly, Convention, or call it what you like, and we are part of the United Kingdom.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My noble friend has referred to me. Would he not agree that were we to insist on this provision in respect of the Scottish Assembly the wedge would be even thicker?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I entirely agree with my noble friend, but that does not mean that I do not think that the situation is entirely relevant and correct. The fact that the Constitution or the Parliament of Northern Ireland has been suspended should not cloud the success of that Parliament during the period it existed. It provided an administration for that Province which was unrivalled in its humanity and accountability. It should also not prevent us from looking at the lessons and trying to derive some benefit from those lessons and applying them to this Bill.
80
The first objective of the Bill is to maintain the Union and I, having lived all my life in a Unionist Ulster, consider that that is of paramount importance to this United Kingdom. The second is to provide for better government for Scotland; and it is on that issue that I want to examine the question of the method of voting. I reckon that if this Parliament chooses first-past-the-post as the method of election for the first Assembly we will be adversely affecting both those objectives. If Scotland is to prosper—and we all hope that it will under a devolved Parliament—the first task which faces that Assembly is to establish good relations between the sovereign Parliament and its own executive within Westminster, within Whitehall and Edinburgh. This is a vital task, and one which it is not easy to achieve.
The number of lessons to be drawn from Stormont are many. Stormont was formed at a time when Government interference in everyday life was at a minimum. It was formed because it was the only method by which Ulster could remain as part of the United Kingdom. I do not think that that is the driving reason why we are suggesting devolution in Scotland. Even with that advantage, at times there were strains placed on the administration, on the inter-governmental co-operation; and it is to the great credit of the administrations in Westminster and Stormont that those strains never ended in any form of weakening of the Constitution.
If the relationships between the two Governments were excellent during the pre-war period, there did come a time immediately post-war, with the arrival of the Socialist Government, when the question of the relationship between Stormont and Westminster was raised. It was raised publicly and also in the Cabinet. The Socialist Government with their welfare legislation, were elected, and the question arose as to whether it was right for a Unionist Government to pass socialist legislation. Indeed, various options were examined in great detail. The solution canvassed most publicly was called "Dominion status", which undoubtedly would have weakened the link within the Union.
After considerable debate the Prime Minister of the day—and this is recorded

81
in the Cabinet minutes—acknowledged the fears of the Unionist Party. To some extent the Unionist Party was a coalition. It had these vast working-class votes in Belfast and other industrial cities and, therefore, it was not in fact a doctrinaire Party in the accepted sense of the word. The Prime Minister acknowledged the fears of the Unionist Party but pointed out that, as a Unionist, he was determined to maintain that Union. Although accepting that the subordinate Parliament ought not slavishly to follow Westminster in every respect, he said that it was important that parity continued between the various parts of the United Kingdom:
"We are therefore committed to following Westminster in the extension and improvement of our social services, no matter what Party is in power. We must face the fact that Westminster is supreme."
That conclusion is relevant today in that it lays down the guidelines for a devolved Parliament in its relationship with the sovereign Parliament. It must follow that, if we are to establish those good relations between the two Governments, we must choose a form of election which will not produce large and aggressive majorities. The limited area in which a devolved Parliament has to operate will lead inevitably to a desire for independence if we have these large aggressive majorities. To my mind it does not matter very much where the conflict arises because there are only two possible permutations which could not arouse controversy; namely, if we have a Conservative Government here and a Unionist Assembly in Scotland, or a Socialist Government here and a Socialist Assembly in Scotland. Those are the only two; all others would produce conflict of some description. It seems to me to be very important that on first election we should do as much as we can to enable that Assembly to have a form of PR which will, therefore, blunt that aggressive approach. Therefore, I am convinced that we should have some form of PR.
I now come to the method of proportional representation. I have said that I have twice been elected on the first-pastthe-post system and twice on the STV system. There are many Members of this noble Committee who know the thrill of the count, who know the fight of the election, but I think that they would find the thrill of a PR election rather different.
82
One starts off on a tumbril. In the constituency which I represented there were 97,000 people and it stretched for 90 miles. Four of you start off in the same Party and all end up making the same speech. Each one begins by speaking totally differently from the others, but inevitably, in the end, each makes the same speech.
Some noble Lords may know about a Lambeg drum, which is the Irish war drum. When a Lambeg drum competition is held there are two, three or four teams of Lambeg drums and they all start with a different rhythm. Throughout the night as the drums beat the aim is to ensure that everyone ends up with the same beat. The beat that usually wins is, "There are no public houses on the road to Lambeg, Lambeg, Lambeg". That is just about what happens when one takes part in a PR election. All find themselves making the same speech, and one has to say to someone on the STV, "I am a better man than he is "—I do not find it a very nice thing to say"—I am for number one, put him or her number two". That is the disadvantage of the STV system.
However, there are more disadvantages, because when one is elected one is elected for a constituency of 100,000, and in the case that I am discussing two-thirds of that majority is within 20 miles of one point. So all the Members look after that 60,000 of the population. The other 30,000 are basically totally inelective.
Therefore, under the STV system we have transferred the fairness of our election from being normal coverage over the whole country to being an urban-dominated representation. Further, when one is elected one finds that because each Party, or most of the Parties, has someone elected, the only people who come to you as a Member are those of your own Party because they can go to one of their Party. To my mind this is a negation of our form of democracy, where an elected Member is the elected Member for the whole electorate and not just for his own Party. I believe that to he wrong. I do not believe that it serves democracy any more than it does the question of looking after the 60,000 as opposed to the 40 per cent. of the community. From my experience I believe that the AM system serves fairness and makes sure that the

83
community is represented overall. There fore, I have great pleasure in supporting this Amendment.
6.16 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH: I am sure that we would all agree that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has done us all a very great service in giving his personal experience on an issue which has been hotly argued by both sides today, but largely by those with a theoretical background. His remarks have been an enormous help to us. The noble Viscount did us a further service by drawing attention to the dangers of what he called the "large aggressive majority" and one which can be elected on a minority vote. I should simply like to link what he has said with the very solemn warning—and I should like to fortify it—of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn when he referred to the experience of the Province of Quebec. In that provincial Parliament a Party is in power, elected on 40 per cent. of the votes, holding 70 per cent. of the seats.
As I said on Second Reading, I have some experience there; I have been there on average four times a year over the past three years. Obviously, I hesitate to say anything that might be construed as criticism of the political system and workings of a fellow country. Nevertheless, I have many friends there, in both the English-speaking and the French-speaking communities. Not one of them would dissent from the view that in their province in Canada they see a potential tragedy unrolling. Here is that government, with a large aggressive majority elected on a minority of votes, in the process of tearing apart both a province and a country. They have not yet reached a state of separation, though that is their avowed objective. But even ahead of that we are seeing the disastrous consequences to the economy of that country—industry keeping away from the province, companies moving out and general disruption, uncertainty and unhappiness among the populace. If that can happen in circumstances of this kind, we should pay very close heed to it before we decide how we shall put the Bill into operation.
I believe that the real moral from what my noble friend has just said and from the example of the Province of Quebec
84
is that we are tinkering with something which may appear to be a little like a cosy, comfortable, safe little family car but which is liable to turn into a juggernaut, run off into all sorts of unforeseen directions and create untold havoc. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, did well to remind us of what we are doing in considering this Bill at all. Nevertheless, we are considering it, so let us send it to the people of Scotland for them to make their decision on only in a form which will give them the fairest opportunity of making their will heard in the deliberations of this Assembly, if it comes to pass.
6.20 p.m.
Lord LEATHERLAND: This proposal that we should adopt proportional representation is put forward in an Amendment in the names of four highly esteemed Members of this House. But what we might call a remarkable coincidence is that the same four highly esteemed Members are also putting forward Amendment No. 21. They are urging us in Amendment No. 2 to adopt a system which is untried, and I reasonably ask myself whether they themselves have full confidence in that system. I suggest that they have some doubts. Why? Let me read what Amendment No. 21 says. It is on page 4 of the Marshalled List. I shall not read the whole of the Amendment but I shall read the third paragraph, which is paragraph (4C). This is what it says:
"Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the first ordinary election review the suitability and fairness of the system of proportional voting prescribed by this Act and may make such regulations amending that system as the Assembly shall prescribe…".
It seems that they have some doubts about the workability of the system that they are advancing. It seems they have some doubts about its fairness, otherwise why are they proposing to move Amendment No. 21?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does it not occur to the noble Lord that the word on which he should have placed emphasis is "Assembly". Here we are legislating for the electoral system to be set up. The idea of this Amendment is that it would allow the Assembly either to endorse that or to change it. Is there any thing wrong with that?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Why does the noble Lord wish to allow the Assembly to do that? If he had no doubts at all about the fairness and workability of this system, it would be quite unnecessary to confer that power upon the suggested new Assembly. In putting forward this proposal, the noble Lord and his collaborators obviously have some slight doubts about the suitability and fairness of the system, otherwise they would not have mentioned those two words. Now I yield to the Liberal Benches.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble Lord surely must have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. He no doubt listened to him with great care. He clearly said that he had been chairman of a boundary commission, and that there was no time at all to arrange, for example, an STV system for the first election. Therefore, this system was the fairest which could be devised in the time available. To give the power to the Assembly to assess it thereafter seems to be reasonable.
Lord LEATHERLAND: That is to say that we would have a half-baked system for the first election and a better system later on. That does not add to any confidence that I may have in the system being put forward.
Amendment No. 21 suggests that the workability and fairness of the system may have to be inquired into, so obviously the proposers have some doubts. But by the time that first election, with its possible unfairness and possible unworkability, has taken place, some electoral calamity may have occurred. It will then be too late to put that right. We have a system of elections now. It is under that particular system that we are passing this Bill.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Could the noble Lord elucidate what he means by an "electoral calamity"?
Lord LEATHERLAND: Yes. You might get the wrong Party chosen. I am saying that here we are in this House at this moment in 1978 administering a Parliamentary system which was elected on the first-past-the-post basis, and we really ought not to try to change the rules in the middle of the game. Otherwise, one Party or the other in Scotland, after having
86
had the rules changed on the eve of the election, might legitimately say, "We were robbed". If they were able to say that, it would create a dangerous situation in Scotland. That is what I want to avoid.
6.24 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: We have had a discussion on proportional representation. People feel strongly about it. I think it was my noble friend Lord Alport who said that some of the most distinguished minds in the country, both legal and constitutional, support proportional representation. Indeed, we have heard many of them today. I would only say that the views I give are entirely my own. I should like to be able to follow along those who have felt so strongly that proportional representation is the right thing, but I am bound to say that I share the doubts that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter expressed.
Proportional representation does not of itself mean that the result is better, or more democratic, or is more likely to give better government. It merely produces a different answer. In the end politics, whether it is Parliament or the Assembly, are about personalities and people. The Party machines play a vast and important part, but General Elections—and indeed I should have thought Assembly elections—should all be about electing a Member, although of course he is a member of a Party. Any form of proportional representation inevitably relegates to some degree the status of the Member and advances to some degree the status of the Party to which he belongs. Some may say that this is a reflection of what happens in life and therefore it is correct that it should be reflected in an Assembly. But I agreed with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter when he said that in an era when people criticise the super-influence of the Party machines, proportional representation will lend weight to that trend and not diminish it.
The system we have at the moment is tried, and it is known and understood. Any form of proportional representation is inevitably complicated, straining, as it does, to try and get hold of the perfect answer. That inevitably makes it difficult to understand. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn explained the Amendment and

87
said that, if we found it difficult to understand, perhaps we could read it in the morning in Hansard.
Under the system which is suggested one inevitably—and I cannot see that one can do anything else—gets a system of first and second-class Members. You vote for a Member and then you vote for a Party. The Members are elected, and then you get the numbers made up by additional Members. The additional Members will presumably represent groups of constituencies and one wonders who then represents the constituents. Is it the constituency Members, or the additional Members? Perhaps it is a combination of both.
I could not help but agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, when he referred to the system of one man, one vote. I think it was only in 1949, or thereabouts, that we achieved this remarkable state of affairs when we had in this country one man, one vote. Of course under this system we are going to get one man with two votes, and in order to get over political problems in Scotland there will in fact be one man and three votes; one for the Member of the Assembly, one for the additional Member, and one for the Member of Parliament—whereas in England there are some people who get "one man and no vote", such as Members of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I cannot think that we are getting closer together; we seem to be getting further part. Of course, proportional representation inevitably leads in some form to coalitions. That is indeed what people want. That is what has been explained today.
Lord SHINWELL: Does the noble Earl realise that what he is doing now is to make the case for proportional representation? There is a split in the Conservative Party on this and, as we have noted, there is a split on this side of the Committee. So should he advance the case for proportional representation?
Earl FERRERS: We did detect, I am bound to say, a significant split in the views that were mentioned from the Benches opposite because there were only two views that would portray it. Therefore it was not very difficult to discern that there was not total unanimity between them. I am sure that they will in turn
88
be representative of the cross view that is taken in the Party opposite as well as indeed in our own Party.
I could not help but agree with something that the Lord President of the Council said, because one of the disadvantages of any form of coalition is that we get an arrangement between the Parties afterwards. What he said was that the very issues that were presented to the electorate one month were the issues that were to be denied the following month. This is, of course, foreign to our system. Proportional representation, I would suggest, therefore tends to fudge the issue and not give strong leadership. That is, of course, the argument why many people want it. Indeed, one can understand and accept that argument. But there are those who say that proportional representation should be for Scotland alone and that this would not have any effect at all on Westminster. Again I agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that this is possibly the thin end of the wedge, and for this reason: that if we do this we shall gradually undermine, in my view, the whole principle of the political system not only which we have got used to but which people understand, despite its idiosyncracies and aberrations. It has served us well.
This is the danger. If we have two systems operating in a big way—and this will be a big way in the United Kingdom—proportional representation for Scotland, and first-past-the-post for England, inevitably people will say "This one", whichever it may be, "is the better". That will encourage them to say that the other is therefore inferior, less good, ineffective or undemocratic. So there will be clamour to change either one of the systems.
If we introduce proportional representation for Scotland, I am bound to say that I cannot see there being a clamour for change, for it being brought about within 10 years, and so it will therefore be there for keeps. But we could get a situation where, if it works successfully for Scotland, efficiently, there would be those who would say, "Because it works for Scotland, it should be used for the United Kingdom". So we should get the state of affairs that if we introduce proportional representation in the Bill, and it is proved to be bad, then of course we should not have introduced it. But if we introduce it and it is proved to be good then the argument will go that

89
there should be increased demands to change the United Kingdom system which, although it is in a totally different context, may nevertheless be ascribed or considered by many to be similar.
In conclusion, I see so well the arguments most persuasively put forward by noble Lords on all sides of the House with which one cannot help going along, with a great deal of sympathy. I conclude in my own mind that there is a real fear that if, for mathematical niceties and precisions, we introduce the new, complicated and untried system, we shall at the same time he undermining and damaging our own political institutions. Whether that is desirable or not, your Lordships will come to your own conclusions. But of course another place discussed this issue. They turned down proportional representation by a fairly substantial majority. I accept that the situation for Scotland may be peculiar to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that this was a United Kingdom Bill. How this affects Scotland will inevitably affect the United Kingdom.
6.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The Committee stage is a time for putting personal experience which is relevant to what is being discussed. It was interesting to listen to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who gave his experience as to the single transferable vote. He came down very much against the single transferable vote from his actual experience. What does that confirm in one's mind? The suggestion as to whether or not we should alter our voting system is not new. It has been discussed and examined for years. My noble friend Lord Tranmire, who was the oldest serving Member in the other place until he left to join your Lordships, sat, as he said, four times on a Speaker's Conference. Each time they came out overwhelmingly against proportional representation. That has a significance that ought not to be overlooked. One recognises that it may have been Party considerations that caused it, but the fact is that the evidence from this impartial body on the occasions when he was present was overwhelmingly against proportional representation.
The Amendment suggests that we use the added list system as an alternative to
90
the present system. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has said that he certainly would not want a single transferable vote.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: Would the noble Lord give way? If I gave that impression I apologise to the Committee. What I want to be quite clear is that for a subordinate Parliament proportional representation is going, to be a vital product in the establishment of a good relationship between the two Executives in Whitehall and Edinburgh. If one was discussing which method, then I was very much in favour of the added Member system. But for a subordinate Parliament to establish good government for Scotland I am convinced that they must have some form of PR in order to establish those good relationships which I think are vital.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I did not misrepresent the noble Viscount. He has just confirmed what I said. He gave a dramatic description of how well your compaigning and single transferable vote all say the same thing, of the twisting and turning in order to be No. 1 on the sheet. He came down, as I understood it, very much against it. He said that he wanted proportional representation, and the alternative vote system, of which he has had no experience, may be the one that he would accept. It was King Midas who was called to judge two flautists. It was said that there were only two entrants on whom he had to give judgment. He heard the first one and gave the prize to the other. I merely wanted to say that we have evidence in this country where the additional list system seems to carry dangers and be very unsatisfactory.
I see the noble Lord, Lord Segal, is in his place. When he was the representative of Preston, it was a two-Member constituency. It was only afterwards that it was split into two constituencies. At the time the noble Lord was elected to another place there were two Members at the same vote. Later on I was brought in as a candidate. I saw the repercussions that flowed from that so far as my Party was concerned. We had the system during the war, when there was an electoral truce, in which people were not elected to Parliament. They entered Parliament under the truce. We had two Conservative Members for Preston at the same time.

91
One died, and Mr. Randolph Churchill was, under the truce, not voted as the Member for Preston but was made the Member for Preston, and co-opted, which is similar, indeed identical, to the added list.
Lord SEGAL: If the noble Lord will permit me, I wish to intervene merely for the record. Whereas it is quite true that I did sit in the 1945 Parliament as a Member for a two-Member constituency, during the actual Election time I was very grateful for a university vote. That was a completely antiquated procedure, which we all admit now. Otherwise I might have been completely disenfranchised.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I was hoping that the noble Lord would be my witness. I do not think his evidence fitted into the particular point that I wanted to make. All I can tell your Lordships now is that the truculence and unsatisfactory partnership—
Baroness BACON: I think that the noble Lord is misinforming the Committee. Is he saying that during the Election truce Members were not elected but they just came automatically to the House? That really is not so. Perhaps I could say to the benefit of the noble Lord, who is misinforming the Committee, that I was a Parliamentary candidate from 1940 to 1945. There was an Election in the constituency. I would have fought and a fascist stood against the Conservative candidate, and so the person had to be elected. It was only that there was an Election truce between the two political Parties, and one candidate stood down. But it did not mean to say that the Member was not elected.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That is precisely what I am saying. In my then constituency of Peterborough there was an election because the truce did not work, but in Preston the truce worked and Mr. Randolph Churchill took his seat not on the basis of being elected, not as a result of going through the ballot box, but in the way I described. The only point I wish to make, because it is relevant, is that the antipathy and truculence between the elected Member, who can say, "I am sent here by the votes of the people through the ballot box", and Randolph
92
Churchill, who could not, hit the headlines, as noble Lords may remember, and the unsatisfactory nature of the representation at that time, because of that antipathy, was very real. I am saying that that is an example sufficiently near to the added list system for us to take it into account.
I am convinced that, if one had in a consituency, or in the Assembly, a Member who was elected on the votes of the people through the ballot box and somebody who got there because he or she was on a list and had not been personally elected, one would have first and second-class terms of representation, and that would not be good. Unless one can feel when one is representing a constituency that one truly has the mandate of the people, properly and clearly given by the people—not by Parties or groups who may set themselves up—I am certain that the sort of Parliamentary representation we have developed in this country will be that much weaker.
I see the attractiveness in theory of proportional representation; in theory, it is attractive. Indeed, it looks almost to be ideal, but I cannot see how it is possible to remove those other weaknesses, namely the weakness of the single transferable vote which my noble friend Lord Brookeborough mentioned and the weakness of the added list to which I have drawn attention. Thus, one is driven back to the point of having to think twice before changing a winning team. In other words, the system we have now has worked. It has its quirks and weaknesses, as it will no doubt have in future, but it has worked, and I believe that, before we think of changing it—thick or thin end of the wedge, whatever one likes to call it—we should recognise that it will be the beginning of a change for the United Kingdom if it is carried out in Scotland. I believe that the evidence so far is such that we in this Chamber should not consider recommending a change on the evidence we have heard so far.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE rose—
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES: If I speak—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I defer to the noble Lord.
Lord HUGHES: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. If I speak from this side of the House it has the effect of increasing the percentage of speakers from these Benches by 50 per cent.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): Oh?
Lord HUGHES: I beg my noble friend's pardon; I should have said 33⅓ per cent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ha ilsham of Saint Marylebone, who on any reckoning is a heavyweight, nevertheless in terms of numbers adds only about 5 per cent. to the number of speakers from the Benches opposite. I am anxious to make a few remarks because the effect of them is to emphasise a division on this side of the Committee, though, given what has happened on the Benches opposite, that does not matter a great deal.
I wish to point out at the outset that I am a strong supporter of the Bill. I support the Bill not because I believe it will guarantee for all time the unity of the United Kingdom but because I am firmly convinced that if there is not something like this Bill the unity of the United Kingdom will undoubtedly be in peril within the next decade. Having said that, I must go on to say that, when support the Amendment, I do so not because I am seeking to alter what I regard as a bad Bill but because I am seeking to improve what I believe is a necessary Bill.
Much has been said about the minority position which exists in the present Parliament, and that has been pointed out as if it were the first time it had happened. In fact, there has been only one General Election, if that, since the war when any Party had an actual majority of votes cast in the country. But the difference between the situation in the Westminster Parliament as it was in the past with a mainly two-Party system, and the situation that we are likely to have for perhaps five or 10 years in Scotland is a three or four-Party system, and what works reasonably effectively on a first-past-the-post basis with a two-Party system becomes a different horse altogether in a four-Party race.
Some noble Lords who have spoken against the Amendment—for example the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—emphasised that this may be the thin end
94
of the wedge. I do not dispute that; it may be the thin end of the wedge, but it can become the wedge itself only if people this side of the Border want proportional representation. And if they want it, who are we of all people to say they should not have it? After all, I would certainly not venture to put forward the criticisms of the Party system in the added-Member vote system voiced by Lord Boyd-Carpenter because, if there are people who are not entitled to criticise the operation of a system under which the Party chooses people, they are surely Life Peers: we are here by reason of the Party system.
Not only that; we are here at the choice of certain people in the Parties. I would not suggest that it was the electors of Dundee who selected me to be a Life Peer. Hugh Gaitskell did that. There are others here who were chosen by Ted Heath and some more recently by Margaret Thatcher. That does not mean to say it is not a good system.
When people talk, as my noble friend Lord Leatherland did, about this being an untried system, we must remember that it is not untried; it has worked perfectly satisfactorily in Germany for many years. I must say right away that the fact that it works in Germany is no guarantee that it will work here; other things have worked in Germany which we should never have tolerated, so I do not argue that as a justification for it. However, I can say in truth that it is not untried.
If we are to look at the thin end of the wedge argument, we must see where it takes us. It means that, if we are not prepared to take the risk of proportional representation for the House of Commons, we must maintain uniformity and therefore the Assembly must have the same system as the Commons. But if we are to argue that, then we must give the Assembly the same rights as the Parties choose for themselves in the House of Commons. It is not just the Labour Party which works on the doctrine, "If it is in the manifesto and you get a majority of seats you have a mandate to carry it out". I guarantee that, if the next General Election results in Mrs. Thatcher becoming Prime Minister, she will not scrap her programme if she does not have 50 per cent. of the votes cast in the country; she will regard her mandate as arising

95
from the number of seats she has in the House of Commons.
If we are to have equality of treatment between the method of election between the House of Commons and the Assembly, we must accord to the elected Members of the Assembly the same rights as the Parties claim in the House of Commons. And where does that take us? Noble Lords must remember that there is only one Party in Scotland that is for the break up of the United Kingdom, and that is the Scottish National Party. They have made it perfectly clear that they will regard a majority of seats in the House of Commons—36 out of the 71 seats—as a mandate to go ahead with their claim for complete separation. I suggest that inevitably they will say exactly the same in the Assembly; namely, if they have a majority of seats in the Assembly, they will say, "We have a mandate to press on for the next stage". I have no doubt whatever that, so far as the Scottish National Party are concerned, the Assembly is only the first stage on a road which I believe the great majority of people in Scotland do not want to take.
When the 40 per cent. figure was moved in the House of Commons, I regarded it as a wrecking Amendment, and I think it was intended as such. However, on reflection, I do not now object to it. Indeed, if an attempt was made in your Lordships' House to take that out of the Bill I should vote for it to be retained because, on a 75 per cent. or SO per cent. vote in Scotland—if we got that in the referendum—something in excess of 60 per cent. of the people of Scotland would have said that they wanted devolution. That is the answer to my noble friend Lord Wigg, whose philosophical treatise on the subject I much enjoyed. He pointed out that it does not matter what a majority in Parliament says; if people want something else, they will get it. Fortunately, in the Bill the opportunity is there for the people of Scotland to decide what they want.
I should now like to return to the merits of the Amendment. I believe that if the Assembly is successful, the Scottish National Party will diminish in importance election after election, and we may get back again to a system nearer the two-Party system. But probably for a decade
96
ahead there will be substantial division, and, with an effectively three-Party system—or, if there is a Liberal revival, a four-Party system; but certainly a three-Party system—35 per cent. of the vote will deliver, on a first-past-the-post basis, an effective majority in the Assembly. Who is to say that that 35 per cent., under existing protest circumstances, is beyond the capabilities of the Scottish National Party? Alternatively, to look at it from the point of view of the Conservatives, who is to say that 35 per cent. would be a mandate for the Labour Party to carry through policies to which the other two Parties were totally opposed, and where 65 per cent. of the electorate had not supported them?
I do not join my noble friend Lord Leatherland in regarding the subsequent Amendment as a defect, because it seems to be reasonable that the Assembly should have the right to express a view about its own electoral procedures, subject to the safeguards included in that Amendment. But, until that is done, it is absolutely vital that the Assembly should not appear to become the implement of one Party carrying perhaps less than one-third of the votes, and, given even a 75 or 80 per cent. poll, with substantially less than a quarter of the people of Scotland behind it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, said that the first objective of the Bill was to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. I agree wholeheartedly with that view. I believe that, if the Bill works, that will be its result. It if does not work, there is nothing we can do as an alternative which would stop the move to separation, which I believe would in the long run be the greatest disaster which could befall the people of Scotland. I am prepared to rely on the result of the referendum in due course to demonstrate that they will reject that alternative, whereas there is no guarantee, for instance, that the first-pastthe-post system in a by-election will achieve the same result.
6.54 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I apologise that there should be a third speech from the Opposition Front Bench. It is manifest that this is to be a free vote. It could hardly be

97
anything else in view of what we have heard, and I believe it is no bad thing that Members of your Lordships' House should vote on this issue. But we must face the fact that the Commons had a free vote, too. Of course they voted on a different system from that proposed in the Amendment. If I remember aright, I think they voted on the STV. I interpreted that free vote, rightly or wrongly, as a fairly definite vote on the principle of a reformed system of voting for the Assembly. Therefore, as realistic people, I think we must also face the fact that when we have expressed our opinion, should it be in favour of the Amendment, it is quite unlikely to be endorsed in another place.
None the less, I think it is a good thing that we should take this matter to a Division, if only to record the individual views of Members of the Committee. Sitting as I do between my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I recognise that I adopt a slightly intermediate position. To begin with, I should like to slaughter what I believe to be one or two sacred cows. I am not myself impressed with the "thin end of the wedge" argument. I believe that there are two quite different reasons for rejecting it.
The first is that we are going to have the thin end of the wedge in any case; do not make any mistake about that. I say this because, whatever else is certain, the European Parliament is not going to be elected on the first-past-the-post system; and not this time perhaps, but next time it will not be open to us to determine which method we are to adopt. The one thing which is quite certain is that it will not be our system. Therefore, the thin end of the wedge is going to be inserted fairly definitely anyhow.
Will it be a thin end of the wedge? I find it rather surprising that those who oppose change should think that it would be. After all, surely what is most likely to happen is this. If the system, whatever it is, succeeds, no doubt other people will want to extend it to the House of Commons. But if it fails, if—to adopt the rather charming coinage of Sir Richard Marsh—it produces a rather "shambolic" result, I hardly think that the wedge will be hammered in very much further. Therefore, whether or not it is
98
treated as a precedent which we shall follow for the House of Commons will, after all, depend to some extent on whether the system, if adopted, succeeds.
I am a profound agnostic here, as noble Lords may recognise, but I must say that I regard the attempt at fairness in all these systems as the will-o'-the-wisp. Of course everybody is in favour of fairness, whatever it may mean. But there are, I think, 14 or 15 systems of voting adopted in different democratic countries, and they are all rotten until one looks at the others. Then one selects the system which, on the whole, one prefers. I remain impenitently of the view that so far as the House of Commons is concerned, our present system is best. I think so for two reasons, which I believe are not applicable to the Scottish Assembly, with respect, or to the European Assembly.
The first is that a Member represents a single constituency in the House of Commons, and the relationship between the Member and his constituency seems to me to be of value so great that it is worth preserving, at a very high cost if necessary. The second reason is that, despite its assumption that it is omnipotent, the main function of another place is to select the political colour of the Government of the day; that is its main purpose. I do not see, and, with respect to the Liberal Party, I never have seen, any reason at all to see anything objectionable in the largest organised minority controlling the Executive of the country. On the contrary, it seems to me to give precisely the element of decisiveness that I want to see in the executive government of the country. What I object to is their treating their presence there as a total mandate to carry out general legislation against the will of the majority. That is no function of an Executive and, with respect, it is no part of the function of a single Chamber which is elected on the first-pastthe-post system. I therefore remain impenitently of the view that I wish to preserve the present system in the House of Commons. I will now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: By that does the noble and learned Lord mean that if a Government introduce a Bill, which is an obvious fiasco, to deal with the trade unions, they are not entitled to do so

99
because they happen to be a Government without an absolute majority in the country?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: What I would have said was that there is a need for a strong Second Chamber in such circumstances; but that would take me too far away from the Amendment which we are now discussing. What I should like to say is that in fact we must grow up to the point at which we cease to look for the ideal method of voting in all circumstances for all types of assembly. I regard that approach as an extremely naive and unsophisticated way of approaching this particular problem. I think, on the contrary, we have got to ask ourselves, "What is the function of the Assembly we are going to elect?", and also, "What is the nature of the population which is going to elect it?"
I do not regard fairness as a real issue here, because all the existing Parties, including the Liberal Party, with great respect to them, and the Scottish Nationalists, are in fact, in their present representation and organisation, the product of the electoral system we now have, and nobody can tell that they do not represent permanent minorities demanding representation in exact proportions. They are in fact the product of the system; and, if you adopt another system, probably all the existing Parties will disappear or give rise to other minorities. On the other hand, where you have strong permanent minorities—for instance, a population partly comprised of Roman Catholics and Partly of Protestants—it may be that they do demand a proportional system in preference to first-past-the-post. I do not believe it is possible to dogmatise and to say in advance, "This system is ideal and fair; that system is wrong and unfair". I think that is a pure will-o'-the-wisp.
That brings me to Scotland. The danger in Scotland, I think, must he examined in relation to the state of the Parties and of opinion in Scotland. As I see it, the state of the Parties and of opinion in Scotland is something like this. There are two national Parties, the Conservative and the Labour Parties. On 19 issues out of 20 they are at daggers drawn. They are not going to form a coalition. But they are united upon
100
one issue, and that is that we want, both of us, to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom; and we almost certainly—I speak subject to correction—represent the great majority of the people of Scotland if you add us together. If you add the Liberals, too, as we have every right to do from what has been said from the Liberal Benches, we represent an overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland. Now there is a danger—it is undeniable that there is a danger—that in the state of opinion which exists, with the Conservatives and the Labour Party about equal and at daggers drawn, with the Liberals united with us both on this one point and with a Scottish National Party about equal in voting strength, so far as one can judge, as the Conservatives and the Labour Party, they might obtain a majority and use it against the will of the majority in the nation for the purpose of disrupting the United Kingdom.
I say this to the Government, that this is not a Party issue at all. It is well known that very distinguished members of my Party take a totally different view from that which I am now expressing; but I think that, at any rate on the first occasion the Assembly is elected—after that it may he a matter for them, but the first time—we, representing as we do (so far as we can honestly judge) the immense majority of the people of Scotland on the vital issue, have a right to see that they shall not in fact be represented by a majority of Members who do not represent their opinion on that vital point at all. Therefore, having expressed my view that this is, I believe, to some extent an academic issue, because I think almost certainly the House of Commons will repeat its expression of opinion on a free vote, I none the less come to the conclusion that in this particular instance, and not believing for a moment in proportional representation for the House of Commons at Westminster, we shall be running very grave risks if we reject it here.
7.5 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We have listened with interest to powerful and moderately presented arguments from all parts of the Committee, and if I present some of the arguments again I hope I shall not be accused of being uncompromising or intransigent. The system which has been

101
put forward by those noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment is a system which is detailed in a number of other Amendments following on Amendment No. 2. I shall have to refer to some of the speeches made on those Amendments in replying to this debate, but let me make it plain at the outset that, so far as the Government are concerned, they will not seek to instruct their supporters to go into one particular Lobby. I say that with a certain humility, because I know that if I tried to instruct some of those who sit behind me I would not succeed in persuading them to follow me into a particular Lobby. It is perfectly clear that in the Bill the Government propose the first-past-the-post system. That, I can just mention, is clear from Clause 1(4). That applies in all elections bar the first election. The first election is slightly different because to introduce the system proposed for subsequent elections would cause unnecessary delay. Of course, this Amendment would not cause any delay, and I do not attack it at all upon that ground.
Let me suggest first of all that direct elections, first-past-the-post elections, do not necessarily produce a markedly non-proportional result, though of course I acknowledge that they can, and the Quebec example is a good example, perhaps, of how they can. May I perhaps just say this as I have mentioned Quebec. If under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, the additional member system, one had a Quebec-type result, the position would be this. As I understand it, in Quebec 40 per cent. of the votes went to the Parti Quebecquois, and they got 70 per cent. of the seats. Under the system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if the SNP got 40 per cent. of the votes, as I understand is his apprehension, they would therefore get 70 per cent. of the 100 seats, and then they would get 40 per cent. of the remaining 50.
Lord DRUMALBYN: No.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head.
Lord DRUMALBYN: It does not work like that. The two are not in equilibrium; the number of votes that you
102
have is not in equilibrium with the number of seats. The more seats you win in the constituencies the fewer the scats you will get of the remaining 50 per cent.—possibly none at all, as the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench says.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am happy to be assured on that point. Proportional representation systems, to be workable, have to depart from perfect proportionality, and the system proposed here is a good example of that. As I understand it, two-thirds of the Assembly Members would be elected as ordinary constituency Members on a first-past-the-post system, and the one-third of additional Members elected on a PR basis would be elected on a strictly Party basis, excluding those Parties which did not win 5 per cent. of the votes. So there is already the 5 per cent. threshold which interferes with perfect proportionality. In a sense, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others have acknowledged, these proposals are a compromise. They have been evolved to take account of practical considerations and of political possibilities; and I do not say that as a criticism at all. But we are not being asked to choose between a PR system which embodies perfect proportionality, on the one hand, and gives equal weight to every vote, and, on the other hand, the first-past-the-post system, which denies equal weight to every vote. We are dealing in each case with a mixture of arithmetical, equitable, political and other valid considerations. We must not lose sight of the political context and many noble Lords have reminded us of what the political context is. We must not lose sight of the way in which first-past-the-post has worked, and worked well, in the United Kingdom over a great many years.
May I mention—and I need not take up the time of the Committee at any length by doing so—some of the arguments 'against proportional representation. It is very likely to lead to a coalition, or the possibility of a coalition, and coalitions tend to be weak and unstable and they tend to be lacking in authority.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I am sorry to keep educating the Committee, but the Minister must know that there is proportional representation in the Republic of Eire, and there they have a

103
strong majority Government. Here we have a first-past-the-post system and we have a minority Government in this country; so that the argument of the noble and learned Lord does not stand up.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I said that they tend to lead to that result but not that they always do so or that a different result is necessarily achieved under a different system. One tends to get weak coalitions and to get Parties elected without the power to implement the policies on which they fought the Election.
Another tendency is to put fairly small Parties with relatively small electoral support into powerful positions holding a balance between other Parties and so perhaps give to the smaller Parties a bargaining strength out of all proportion to their electoral support. The other point that I would mention is that the general case for proportional representation which has been spoken of in relation to this Amendment makes the implicit assumption that political Parties are themselves great monolithic institutions pursuing doctrinaire aims with unanimous internal support. That is not so. All the political Parties we know in this country are broad coalitions of people of the Left and of the Right, people who are reactionary or reforming, idealistic or scheming. They are just many varieties of people forming together to support one political Party.
There is another general point. The system of devolution proposed for Scotland under this Bill is itself an experiment. It involves many problems of a new and unprecedented character and it might be a pity to add to that experiment a new experiment in relation to the voting methods, with all the novel snags and problems which might arise and with no useful precedents in our political experience.
I echo what was said by other noble Lords, that the first-past-the-post system is
well tried and understood, that it has worked, and that it should not be abandoned except for the most compelling reasons. I know that at a later stage we shall come, as I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and others, to look at the particular details of this system regardless of what may happen in any vote which may take place, so I will not take up the time of the Committee by looking at those details at the moment. Several noble Lords, however, specifically drew attention to the fact that the other place has repeatedly debated proportional representation in relation to different systems. I would remind the Committee that on each occasion when it has done so it has, by rather massive majorities, rejected any system of proportional representation.
Your Lordships may consider, along with the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and others, whether it is wise to send this matter back to the other place knowing that the almost certain position would be once again, for the reasons already given in relation to a system very like this one as well as to others, that that House will reject the Amendment made by this House. I cannot add—it would be vain of me to suppose that I could—to what has been said already, but I would remind the Committee that the Government's position is as stated in the Bill. There is a free vote and your Lordships will vote in accordance with what you judge of the debate.
Lord KILBRANDON: I agree so entirely with what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—that the Committee must divide.
7.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 64.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness STEDMAN: I beg to move that this House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SCOTLAND BILL
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[EARL CATHCART in the Chair.]
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 221 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 3 to 23.
8.31 p.m.
Lord MORRIS Lord MORRIS moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert —
("(2) There shall be fifty-seven members of the Assembly.
(3) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies.").
The noble Lord said: Some of your Lordships will be aware that 1 have never done this kind of thing before. However, my considerable fears are somewhat relieved by the certain knowledge that should the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, even consider rebutting any argument I might put, he will do so with his customary gentleness.
Your Lordships will recall that the main theme which emerged in your Lordships' House during the memorable Second Reading debate of the Scotland Bill was summed up most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Ferrers when he said:
"…implanted in this Bill are the seeds of destruction of the United Kingdom ".—[Official Report, 14/3/78; col. 1200.]
Should the Bill remain in its present form, I believe that that statement is in no way

115
an exaggeration. I will not pursue the argument further; it is well known to your Lordships. However, I will make the point that in believing in that principle—as did the overwhelming majority of your Lordships and those in another place, and all outside Parliament other than the lunatic fringe—it is imperative that we, the watchdog of our Constitution, must do and must be seen to do our duty. If we must have this Bill we must get it right.
Both my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel and my noble friend Lord Ferrers have brought to our notice the paradox that, although we live in a world of sophisticated communications which bring us closer together and compel us to live closer to each other, there is manifest throughout the world a strong reaction against centralised government and a profound desire to assert the influence of the individual, the family and the smaller groups of people, tied in blood, in culture and in language. It is in this sense that I am a keen devolutionist.
I believe that because of improved communications we are constantly brought face to face with and are made more aware of the massive size and complexity of the world and its problems, the ever-increasing size and influence of Governments and bureaucracies and the multiplicity of legislation, and consequentially how very little as individuals we are and as individuals we count. This fear lies in the hearts of many. We see Government wagging the tail of Parliament. We fear that the faceless bureaucracy might well be wagging the tail of Government. And what do we now see? We see in this Bill more government, not less government, more bureaucracy, not less bureaucracy. It is in this spirit that I move the Amendment.
The significance of the number 57 is quite simply that it is the number of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies to which Scotland is entitled on numerical grounds. In Volume I, paragraph 1147, the Kilbrandon Report stated:
" Scotland and Wales will continue to be represented in Parliament. Their representation in proportion to population would be the same as that of England, subject to any allowance which might be found appropriate for special geographical conditions. The probable effect would be to reduce Scotland's representation from 71 to about 57 and that of Wales from 36 to about 31 ".
At this stage I feel that I must point out that equal representation has always been the Liberal Party's policy. As Mr. Steele said on 16th November of last year in another place:
" I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish MPs to the correct number proportionately ".
One might be forgiven for thinking: what relevance has the size of Scottish representation at Westminster to a Scottish Assembly? The claim that the 150 Members of the Assembly as against the 71 at Westminster would be more representative of the Scottish people would be impressive indeed, and even more so if the new constituency boundaries were closer to being actual communities. If the Scottish Members of Parliament do not wish to lose their influence, then they should look very carefully indeed at the size of the Assembly.
The historical precedent for basing representation on a population basis is sound. The third Reform Act of 1884 based the reallocation of seats strictly on population, and Scotland, with 72 seats out of 670 seats, was justly represented. The representation of the People Act 1918, based on the 1911 Census, redistributed the seats and gave Scotland 74 seats out of 707 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Scotland's total then corresponded to her relative population; but Wales, with 36 seats, was slightly over-represented, and Ireland, with 105, greatly so. England, with 492 seats, was in turn under-represented. Scotland's seats were reduced to 71 out of 625 seats by the loss of her University Members through the Representation of the People Act 1948.
On the grounds of economy; on the grounds that there will in the main be three representatives doing the work now done by one; on the grounds that it would prove difficult enough to find sufficient men and women of goodwill and quality to serve their country should there be only one Assembly man, let alone three; on the grounds of the difficulties of liaison between the Westminster Members, the Assembly men, local government and the constituents, who will be multiplied; on the grounds that self-mutilation is against human nature—namely, that it is totally unrealistic to suppose that an Assembly will decrease itself in size; and on the grounds that, as the Kilbrandon Report stated, the over-representation of Scotland

117
is both undemocratic and constitutes a grave injustice to the people of England, I believe that it is essential that the size of the Assembly should be kept to a minimum.
It may be that, in the light of experience, it will later be felt better to increase the membership of the Assembly. That is as may be. If the Government's proposals for the size of the Assembly remain as they are, Scotsmen can look forward in fear to a lessening of the influence of their Members of Parliament at Westminster and in Scotland; they can look forward to gross over-government and to a gross consequential increase in governmental interference in their daily lives. I would not wish this upon anyone, let alone upon my fellow men. These are the reasons for moving this Amendment. I beg to move.
8.39 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: This Amendment is associated with other Amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 4, 9, 13, 15, 18, 22, 31, 32 and 59, all standing in the name of the noble Lord who has moved Amendment No. 221. Certainly they have a cumulative effect. The effect, as I understand it, is that, taken together, they would provide a Scottish Assembly of 57 members only. That Assembly would not be elected until the Boundary Commission had produced a satisfactory scheme for dividing Scotland into 57 constituencies. In saying that, I am looking at Amendment No. 221 which includes as sub-section (3):
" The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies ".
Lord MORRIS: It might be of assistance if I were to let the noble and learned Lord know that I shall not be moving the Amendments in my name up to and including Amendment No. 22.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Following that intervention by the noble Lord I should like to understand the position, which I believe is that the only Amendment he intends to move is Amendment No. 221.
Lord MORRIS: That is so.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I would also ask him to confirm or otherwise make the position clear about subsection (3), reading:
118
"The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall prepare a scheme dividing Scotland into fifty-seven constituencies".
Lord MORRIS: Of course that is consequential upon the first part of my Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As I understand that part of the Amendment which is proposed and which the noble Lord says is consequential, that would certainly seem to mean that one could not have the first election to the Assembly until the Boundary Commission have sat and considered the whole question of the constituencies in Scotland, and I believe that would lead to an extraordinary delay in the setting up of the first Assembly. If that be the effect of the Amendment and if I read it rightly —and the noble Lord will surely correct me if I am wrong—the Government must resist that, and I would hope that the Committee would take the same view.
On the face of it, the Amendment dealing with the 57 Members of the Assembly does not affect the Parliamentary constituencies. As I read the Amendment—and again the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong and if I am misunderstanding him—the noble Lord wants to have 57 constituencies, each electing one member to the Assembly, but this Amendment does not itself propose any alteration in the Parliamentary constituencies for the United Kingdom Parliament. That point is raised I think by subsequent Amendments, some of which will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.
I am sure we shall shortly have a debate on the question of what is the appropriate number of Assembly men because the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be moving an Amendment which raises this question quite sharply and it may be that I can deal with the matter rather more fully at that time. If that be correct, it may be sufficient to say at the present time that the Government recognise that there is no ideal size for the Assembly. The system proposed in the Bill I have to defend at greater length when we come to the Amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I would submit that that system is practical and realistic and it certainly appears to have been accepted in principle by the noble Lord, Lord

119
Drumalbyn, and others who moved the previous Amendment, and indeed by the Committee, which envisaged a membership of 150 voted into office on the additional Member system, described by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
In short, on this particular Amendment a 57 Member Assembly would be far too small to carry out the responsibilities which are being devolved and, in particular, far too small to form any sound basis for selecting an Executive to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill. It can hardly be seriously argued that an Executive of, say, 16 to 20 strong, including two Scottish Secretaries, with adequate Back Bench support and an effective Opposition, could be obtained from so small a number of Members, particularly in the likely electoral and political situation obtaining in Scotland.
With the permission of the Committee, I will confine myself to saying only that at the present time. I hope the general question of United Kingdom representation will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in relation to Amendment No. 25, and I hope we may have a fuller discussion upon the number of persons who might properly be elected to the Assembly in relation to those Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl.
One other thing that perhaps I should say is that other bodies than the Government have considered this matter. For example, the committee which sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Home, at an earlier stage, and recommended the creation of an Assembly of a somewhat different character I think envisaged an optimum size of 125, mentioned in paragraph 289. Also the Kilbrandon Commission envisaged a membership of about 100. For those reasons, I submit that the number of 57 is far too small and the delay inherent in this Amendment is quite unacceptable. I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment and, by so doing, perhaps then prevent further debate upon the number which might take place upon subsequent Amendments.
8.46 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: As there is a principle behind this, I do not think it ought to be allowed to pass with quite the
120
amount of speed that there appears to be at the moment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord HarmarNicholls—but of course he will exercise his own judgment—that there is a principle and I acknowledge it. It is a principle in which he is interested and the Committee is very interested, but it arises quite sharply on subsequent Amendments and it may be that it would be more suitable to deal with it on those subsequent Amendments.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: That may be so but I do not think the noble and learned Lord ought to be allowed to get away with one of his "alibis". While one may agree that the actual figure mentioned in this Amendment could be questioned and, as the noble Lord has said, has not even got the support of the Royal Commission, the defence that I want to try to dispose of is the argument that there would not be time to do what might be right. The argument put forward by the noble Lord was that this Amendment envisages that there has to be some redrawing of the boundaries and the time that would take would mean that the Assembly could not come into being at the time when the noble Lord and the Government think it ought to come into being. One knows that that is the standard excuse from every Government if they can find any reason to produce it.
The truth is that if the Boundary Commission and Parliament wanted to get through a redrawing of these boundaries, if the principle were accepted, it could be done. I am never prepared to accept the argument that the time for carrying out something that is right ought to be taken into account. One has seen Parliament get through far-reaching and important legislation in the space of two or three minutes when they wanted to do so. If it has to go through the normal procedures in the normal way of course it can be made to take a long time. In this case the figure mentioned is 57. I do not support that figure, because my subsequent Amendment relates to a figure of 100; but I do not think the Committee ought to accept that the time it takes to do what is light ought to be a reason for not carrying out a principle that is sound.
I hope the noble Lord will not feel that he can get away completely with that

121
particular argument when we know that the Boundary Commission and Parliament and the people instructed to do these things can carry them out with greater speed than normal if the principle behind it is important enough to justify it. If the Government get this Bill on to the Statute Book there is no doubt that the representation from Scotland cannot remain as it is, otherwise it will cause trouble. Even if the Bill is right from every other point of view, if this unfairness exists where Scottish Members can talk about English matters and English Members cannot talk about Scottish matters, it will bring about the clash which has already been mentioned in regard to previous Amendments, which will be dangerous and unnecessary.
I merely wanted to intervene to say that the principle behind this Amendment is an important one. The figure may have to be open to discussion and amendment, but 1 hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will not think that the argument of delay is one that carries any weight at all if it is desired to do what is considered to be right in connection with the principle behind it.
8.49 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I think the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is rather a moot one, but since the noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned the Liberal Party I should like to say it is absolutely correct that we should be perfectly prepared to accept reasonable and equal representation in the British Parliament if we had an Assembly in Scotland which was working satisfactorily. It is a perfectly fair point that he has made, that Scotland, stemming from the Act of Union, is over-represented, but if you have a smaller country in a much larger conglomeration, however nice the Members may be they do strive for as large a representation as is legally possible. Therefore I think his argument that Scotland may be over-represented in the British Parliament is right. But in this case I do not think it is relevant to the numbers in the Scottish Assembly. In the Scottish Assembly it appears that 57 would be rather too low to extract a number of people for the Executive and leave some Indians as well as chiefs. So while I appreciate his point, perhaps in this case it is irrelevant at the present time.
Lord KENNET: May I start by completely detaching myself from everything said from the Benches opposite. I have no idea whether the Heinzian 57 is a better number for the Scottish Assembly than that proposed in the Bill. I do not believe that Governments, and especially Labour Governments, habitually say that delay is a reason against doing things. Nor do I go along automatically with the Liberal point of view that 57 is too small and therefore a higher number would be better.
I want to point out one apparent inconsistency between different arms of Government policy on the Election Bills now before this House. My noble friend has told us that if this Amendment were to be passed, and we were to wait while Scotland was divided into 57 constituencies for their own Assembly, the delay while the Scottish Boundary Commission carried out this work would be extraordinary—an "extraordinary delay" was the phrase he used —and would, therefore, be unacceptable. I take the point. If legislation is before the House, and if the Government think they have got the right Bill, they want to get it through as quickly as possible.
Let us compare the Government's attitude on that with their attitude on the European Assembly Elections Bill, where it is proposed that precisely such a delay should be faced by the country. The proposal there is precisely the same, that we should wait, that a delay should be incurred and that the delay should not be regarded as extraordinary, while the Boundary Commission divides up the country, in what we have been told would be a minimum of 10 weeks' work from the passage of the Bill into law, into the new extra large constituencies necessary for direct elections to the European Assembly.
My own attitude to the present Amendment, moved by Lord Morris opposite, will depend very largely on what answer my noble friend can give the Committee to the question why it is an extraordinary and intolerable delay to contemplate Scotland being divided up according to new boundaries, and why, on the other hand, it is an ordinary tolerable delay to contemplate the whole United Kingdom being divided up into new boundaries and to postpone the direct European elections until the time when that has happened.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not want to deal with the matter of the European Assembly; it is going to be debated in this House, as I understand it, probably on Thursday. When I spoke of delay and extraordinary delay, the Committee will know well that the Government in their Election Manifesto proposed the creation of a Scottish Assembly, and they did that in 1974. The working out of the scheme necessarily took some considerable time, and the Committee is fully familiar with the Parliamentary problems which the first Bill, the Scotland and Wales Bill, faced, and the necessity for the introduction in the present Session of the Scotland Bill. There has already been considerable delay. If the present Bill were to pass through this House and through the other place and go on to the Statute Book, perhaps amended in some way, it would be possible to proceed to elections to the Assembly some time later this year. That would certainly not be possible if one accepted the present Amendment and the Boundary Commission had to be instructed to redraw the entire constituency map of Scotland, which has stood substantially the same for a good many years. That was the kind of delay I was talking about, and it is a delay which the Government regard as unacceptable. I hope the Committee will see that to write such a delay into the Bill, as this Amendment would do, would certainly be seen by those who support the Assembly —and there are many in Scotland, without trying to quantify them—as a wrecking Amendment.
Lord MORRIS: I am very greatly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord has implied, that he will seriously reconsider the whole question of the size of the Assembly when considering other noble Lords' Amendments which touch on this subject. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is one of a series of Amendments—it goes with
124
Amendments Nos. 10, 16, 19, 21, 23 and 33—the sole purpose of which is to add after the word "initial" and before the word "members" the word "constituency", so as to distinguish the Members who are elected as constituency Members from those who are elected as Party Members. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Do I understand the noble Lord to be saying that this is really consequential on the Amendment the Committee has carried?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
8.57 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, leave out lines 13 to 15.
The noble Earl said: I put this Amendment down merely as an inquiry as to the philosophy of the Government in regard to this paragraph. It may be that other noble Lords would like to speak on this Amendment because it covers some of the same points as Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11. The point which occurred to me was that setting the initial numbers for each of these areas of which the electorate is more than 125 per cent. of the quota means that some constituencies would be of the order of 50 per cent. bigger than others. That is the mathematics of it. I have not been into the exact figures. It is quite true, of course, that constituencies change; sometimes they become bigger and sometimes they become smaller. But to start off with a variation of 50 per cent. strikes me as rather high. I wondered why the Government had selected 125 per cent. It seems to me rather a lot. There may be some good reason for it, but I have not thought of one.
The second point is that according to the Government—and there may be Amendments made on this in due course—where the 125 per cent. of the quota exists you will have three Members to each constituency. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that that is the direct antithesis of any form of proportional representation, because if all the Members of the Party, whatever the Party may be,

125
vote according to the Party call, readily do so, you will get three Members of the same Party in the same constituency. That is the very thing which proportional representation wishes to avoid. I wondered, therefore, why they selected that particular course.
The third point is that according to Schedule I they want to make this a permanent system. All these things struck me as being rather odd. I dare say the Government have a perfectly fine explanation of this particular philosophy; I do not know what it is. I would be interested to know what is the basis of this constituency organisation. I will say straight away that I have not the slightest intention of pressing this Amendment. There may be some remarks from other noble Lords who have Amendments down on this paragraph, and, if so, perhaps it would be convenient to the Committee and to the noble Lord that we discussed them together. I beg to move Amendment No.7.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should say that if Amendment No. 7 is agreed I cannot call Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Earl FERRERS: I do not know what would be for the convenience of the Committee. I have an Amendment down, which is No. 8, which calls into question the whole size of the Assembly. I should be quite happy to speak to that now, unless the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would prefer to deal with my noble friend's Amendment forthwith.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Of course, it is for the noble Lord to judge because if this Amendment were moved into the Bill his Amendment would not be called. It may, therefore, be for the convenience of the Committee—and it certainly would not inconvenience me to make my position plain—if the noble Earl were to speak to his Amendment at the same time.
Earl FERRERS: In that case, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I refer to my Amendments at the same time. I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 and Nos. 28, 29, and 30. Those two groups
126
of three Amendments each in effect reduce the number of Assembly men from 150 to about 100. Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 refer to the initial Members. Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 refer to the Members elected at the second and subsequent elections. That, of course, brings into question the whole size of the Assembly such as the Government have proposed.
The Royal Commission said that it was in favour of an Assembly of around 100 people. Quite correctly, it was hesitant to put forward a precise figure. Although the Royal Commission was not unanimous about everything, no one, in fact, demurred about the figure of around 100. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that he would defend what was in the Bill and I shall look forward to hearing him defend it. He equally laid great store on the Royal Commission, because, in the very first Amendment, he claimed as regards the word "Assebly none other than the wholehearted support of the Royal Commission. However, the fact is that the Government have proposed in the Bill a figure half as large again for the number of Assembly men. There has never yet been an adequate explanation as to why there should be such a substantial increase.
I have three overall objections. The first is one of cost because the more Members we have, the bigger what might be described as the infrastructure needed to serve them, and the bigger the cost. The second objection concerns the necessity. I cannot see the necessity for such a large Assembly. The third is the prudence. Is it wise to have such a large Assembly? At present Scottish affairs are looked after by 71 Scottish Members of Parliament. For a variety of understandable reasons, Scotland has a greater representation of Members of Parliament per capita than any other part of the United Kingdom. Those people look after all Scotland's interests. Whatever may be the argument for the Bill, no one has ever said that it is because the Scottish Members of Parliament are not fulfilling their duty adequately.
Therefore, to this effective and efficient body of 71 elected representatives, we are now to add a further 150 elected representatives. They will, of course, be elected to the Assembly. They will not

127
cover all the work which the Members of Parliament cover, but only part of it. Therefore, we get a curious situation where the powers which are devolved—and only the powers which are devolved—go from 71 elected representatives to 150 elected representatives. That leaves the powers which are not devolved—and only the powers which are not devolved—to be looked after by the 71 Members of Parliament who are, at present, as I have said, in some respects over-representative. So we are producing a new Assembly in which twice as many people do half the work. Those MPs who remain have half the work that they had before. So we end up by having 221 people doing the work which 71 did previously. I fail to see the logic of that.
Of course, it may be said that it is necessary to have such a big Assembly because by the time we have a number of different Parties represented—and certainly if the Amendment which we have just passed as regards proportional representation is carried into the Bill we shall have more Parties represented—and by the time we have taken out the Members of the Executive from the governing Party, there will be no Back-Benchers left on the governing Party's Benches.
The proposed size of the Assembly in the Bill, therefore, prompts the question: how many Executives do the Government visualise having in the Assembly? There may be a Cabinet or a Scottish Executive of possibly eight or nine Scottish Secretaries and I would hope that the noble and learned Lord would be able to explain this when he comes to defend the proposals in the Bill. Those eight or nine Scottish Secretaries may have Assistant Secretaries. Therefore, one could quite easily reach the state of having 19 or 20 Members of the governing Party who are, in fact. Members of the Executive. However, at present, all Scottish affairs are looked after by one Secretary of State, two Ministers of State and three Under-Secretaries—a total of six Ministers. Therefore, I wonder whether those 19 or 20 Scottish Executives are really necessary to do only part of the work which six Ministers did previously. Presumably, they would be additional to the six Ministers who are in the United Kingdom Parliament.
128
Of course, it may be that the Government will visualise reducing the influence of Scotland in the United Kingdom Administration by reducing the number of Ministers. If that is their intention, perhaps we could know it, because it may well be that the Government would prefer to have not six Scottish Ministers in the United Kingdom Parliament, but perhaps only two. Even if they had only two, that would give a total of somewhere around 22 Ministers of one kind or another to do the work at present done by six. Therefore, one gets the curious situation that, at present, there are six Ministers out of 71 Members of Parliament. In order effectively to devolve, the Government say that we must have Scottish Secretaries as well. In order for the Scottish Secretaries to carry out their job effectively, they must have Assistant Secretaries; in order for there to he enough people in the Scottish Assembly from whom to fill all these posts you must have an Assembly of 150 people—more than Kilbrandon ever envisaged.
I remember going to a play once called At the Drop of Another Hat by Michael Flanders and Donald Swann and in it there was a nice little song called "The Gasman Cometh" in which there was the line, "It all makes work for the working man to do"; one rather wonders whether there is not a bit of that in this. It does not necessarily mean that it will be more efficient or more effective. As my noble friend Lord Morris said, it will certainly mean more bureaucracy and not less, more expense. not less. It will not necessarily be more effective or give more satisfaction.
If we look around the world, we find that almost every other subordinate legislature does with fewer people than is proposed in the Bill. Scotland has a population of about five million people and the Assembly is proposed for 150 members. In Canada, in the State of Ontario, there are not five million but nearly eight million people and they have a legislature not of 150 but of 117. In Quebec, with a population of six million, they have an Assembly of 108 people. In all the other provincial legislatures in Canada they have between 42 and 75 members. If one looks at Australia, in New South Wales, with a population of 4.6 million (nearly five million), they have only 96 members. In Victoria, with a

129
population of 3·5 million, they have 73. In all the other provincial legislatures in Australia, there are between 35 and 82 members in each. In Bavaria, which is the largest of the subordinate legislatures in West Germany and which has a population of nearly 11 million, which is twice that of Scotland, they have 204 members, which is the equivalent of about 100 members for five million people. On the basis of what other subordinate legislatures throughout the world are doing, 100 members would seem about the right number; on the basis of Kilbrandon, 100 members would seem about the right number.
If I may draw the Committee's attention to paragraph 789 of the Royal Commission report, we read:
"The Northern Ireland House of Commons had 52 members. This number was acknowledged to be too small".
It goes on later to say,
"On the other hand a regional Assembly very much larger than this would be unwieldy".
This Assembly is three times the size of that mentioned in the Kilbrandon Report. The report then goes on to say,
"The precise number of members needed would depend on the extent of the devolved functions, the geographical area covered and the method of working, but we think that something of the order of 100 would be about right".
The Government's proposals are based solely on doubling the present number of seats held by Scottish Members of Parliament, not on any real assessment—atleast to date—of the appropriate size of the Assembly.
I would ask the Government to look again most seriously at the size of the Assembly for these reasons: first, the precedents in the other parts of the world to which I have referred; secondly, the people to be represented; thirdly, the work already done by Members of Parliament who will continue to do their work in the House of Commons; fourthly, on the basis of cost; fifthly, on the basis of the Royal Commission report. On all these counts, one would have thought that the Government, to put it delicately, had slightly over-egged the pudding.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, even if he defends the present system, will nevertheless not close his ears to these suggestions and many others which other noble Lords may care to make. These are supposed to be
130
helpful Amendments. They are not in any way motivated by Party political instincts. It is merely an attempt to try to get the Bill, if it is put into operation, as right and sensible as possible. At the moment I, for one, think that the Assembly is far too large.
9.14 p.m.
Lord BANKS: As I understand it, by passing the Amendment relating to a proportional voting system which we did, we appear to be agreeing in principle to the figure of 150, because the subject matter of the debate was a system which would involve 100 directly elected Members with 50 Members topping up that 100 in order to produce a proportional result. I want to support Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 12 because—as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said—they reduce the numbers of directly-elected Members to about 100. However, later I want to add the 50 topping up Members. Therefore, for completely different reasons from those put forward by the noble Earl, I want to support the Amendment which he will propose. Because I want to do that, I wish to oppose Amendment No. 7, which is now before us, which would prevent that possibility.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I should explain that I moved this Amendment only for the purpose of inquiry. I have no intention whatever of pressing it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether it would assist your Lordships if we could have a statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, of exactly which constituencies would have the three initial Members; that is, how many would be involved, having over 125 per cent. of the electorate? It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord could tell us that. As I understand it, in round figures 125 per cent. would give a quota of 65,000—those being the constituencies entitled to have three initial Members. As a starting point, that at any rate is a pretty low level of membership per constituency.
At present I think that one of the smallest constituencies is Orkney and Shetland which has an electorate of 26,000; it is almost as small as the constituency which the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, used to represent. However, that seems

131
to be a fairly small number. The one difficulty on which I have no doubt the noble and learned Lord will comment, relating to these Amendments with which I am associated for the same reason as the noble Lord has just explained, is that there is a sharp jump from one initial Member to two initial Members, which is rather steeper than the jump from two initial Members to three initial Members. That would give a good many constituencies with a very small number of voters per Member—admitting that under the Amendment there will be two initial Members for each area more than 110 per cent. of the electoral quota. It would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could so to speak draw a picture here, putting in the buildings and giving a complete structure of the constituencies, so that we can see exactly how this would affect the map of Scotland. It is not easy to do, but I have no doubt that he can paint such a picture.
Lord GRAY: Before we leave either the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Selkirk or the point in general, I should like to raise one matter which very much concerns me. It relates to the size of the Assembly and the number of Members per constituency. I am most concerned with the cumulative effect of departing from the principle of one Member per constituency. Quite obviously, constituencies are very large in area in the North and West of Scotland in particular, but have fewer electors than some of the constituencies in the industrial and central belts. The discrepancies in Scotland run from over 90,000 in the case of Midlothian down to 22,000-plus in the case of the Western Isles.
It is the disparity of representation between one constituency and another to which I wish to draw attention. If we have very large constituencies with three Members and smaller ones with two Members—and I believe that 31 of the constituencies will fall below the electoral quota—I see a serious risk of a cumulative under-representation of the interests of the rural and remoter areas of Scotland.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Would it not be better if the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, dealt with the probing Amendment tabled by the noble Earl,
132
Lord Selkirk, so that we could go on to discuss the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which we wish to support while at the same time criticising some of his reasons?
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am perfectly ready to withdraw my Amendment if that will help the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Earl said: As I have already burdened your Lordships with the principle of what was behind my Amendment, I beg to move that Amendment No. 8 be approved.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think the old-fashioned phrase was that it was infra dig to talk about cash. However, how much is it going to cost if we have all these Members in the Assembly? I was looking at Clause 31 where it says:
"There shall be paid to members of the Assembly, Scottish Secretaries and assistants to Scottish Secretaries such salaries and allowances as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
We know that nobody comes cheap nowadays. If we are going to have the vast numbers that the Bill suggests will exist, I should like someone to hazard a guess as to what the remuneration is going to be, so that we can see what sort of charges are going to be put on the legislation we are now passing. I remember the time in England when you sat on a local council and did precisely the same work that councillors do today and you did not get any money for it. You did not want it; it was part of a service. Now the payment put in the form of allowances is a very expensive item indeed.
Earl FERRERS: May I interrupt my noble friend? I hesitate to do so, but it is in order to keep our procedure correct. I moved the Amendment, but I do not think that the Amendment was actually put.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment proposed,

133
page 1, line 13, leave out "three" and insert "two".
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My argument remains as it was when I first made it. It is all very well to talk of high principle and of how desirable things are in theory, but when it comes down to cost one finds later on that that is a very important part of the decisions that are taken. Apart from the points made by my noble friend, the potential cost of having such numbers in the Assembly as are now envisaged ought to be taken into account. I should have thought, in anticipation of what is almost certain to happen once you start setting out what your own remuneration is going to be, that it would be very wise indeed to keep the figure at the lowest possible level, otherwise the Chancellor will not be able to balance his books.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I shall not detain the Committee for long. On the question of costs, and on the question of large numbers in this Assembly, of course we entirely agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the lower you keep the cost and the fewer people you have about, within reason, is right and proper. The reason we are supporting the Amendment is because we consider it more important to have the fair system which we think PR will give us. Therefore the 50 additional Members will make a big difference to the standing of the Government in Scotland.
The Scots are not rash, impulsive, free-spending people—or at least we are only that when compared with Englishmen. When we get an Assembly, I know that the first thing that the Assembly will look at is the worst expense we have had in recent years in Scotland; the enormous increase in the cost of local government due to the reorganisation recently carried out. There is no question that with the Assembly, the regions, and the districts we in Scotland will be very much over-governed. But do not think for one moment that the Scottish Assembly, which will not be composed of mutts, will put up with this for very long. I confidently expect that a Scottish Assembly will save a great deal of money in administration. Certainly if they find they are too large themselves, under the provisions of later Amendments they will cut the
134
Assembly down to size. In order to be fair, to give an impression of fairness in Scotland and to make the Assembly acceptable, I think that we will support the Amendment if it is tied to the extra 50 Members which will make PR work.
Lord HUGHES: It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is this side of the Border, because he is displaying admirable qualities that would make him very suitable to be a Member of the Assembly. As I understand his reference to Clause 31, it would seem to imply that you decide how much money you are going to allocate for the salaries of the Assembly. You then decide how much should be paid per Member. You divide one by the other. That determines the number that should be chosen—the number of constituencies. It is rather ingenious but 1 doubt whether it would work.
9.26 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: It might save time if I were to get to my feet at this stage, particularly because I am about to be drowned in a sea of bits of paper which are floating in my direction in answer to the many questions that I have been asked.
First, dealing with the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to give the Committee some information, one must of course look at the electorate as it is on the day when the electoral quota falls to be assessed. Based on the 1977 register, there would be five constituencies. The 100 per cent. figure is of the order of 53,337. I say "of the order" because a lot depends on whether or not you include Peers. If you do not, it becomes 53,336! The 125 per cent. figure is of the order of 64,000. The five constituencies are Dumbartonshire East, Kilbride East, Midlothian, Renfrewshire West and West Lothian. I might just mention that the largest of these is Midlothian, with an electorate at the present time of 96,254.
The smallest constituencies are both Orkney and Shetland which together have 27,748 in the 1977 register. But I think that Glasgow Central, which is smaller still, has 21,011 in the 1977 register. So there are quite considerable disparities between Glasgow Central on the one hand and Midlothian on the other.

135
I have already indicated that the Government would not claim that there was a right size for the Assembly. The figures quoted from the Kilbrandon Report, and indeed from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Home, some years ago upon a different kind of Assembly, indicate that there are obviously different views. One can quote many international examples. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quoted some. In a sense, I could play the same game and quote others which would tend to support the Government's figures. The noble Earl mentioned New South Wales. In fact, New South Wales has two chambers at State level, with a total of 159 representatives, for a population which is rather smaller than that of Scotland. So, looked at more closely, perhaps that is not so good an example as he suggested.
The reasoning behind the formula in the Bill is this: first of all, Assembly constituencies should be based on Parliamentary constituencies. Any other system, it is thought, would be impracticable. Secondly, because Members of Parliament are, in the Government's view, to some extent overburdened with constituency work, it would be desirable if each Member represented fewer voters than do Members of Parliament. Thirdly, it was thought that there should be some weighting arrangement to try, at least to some extent, to reduce disparities in the size of electorates. Of course, having given you the figures, you will see the enormous disparities that exist.
The 25 per cent. above-average figure—this deals with the point raised by the noble Earl in his previous Amendment, which he withdrew—and entitlement to a third Member, is justified because it represents a figure at which, in straight arithmetical logic, that area would become entitled to an additional Member. Therefore, if 100 gives two, 125 ought to give two and a half. So one becomes entitled, on that basis, to three Members. No comparable reduction should be made for constituencies which are substantially below the average because some at least—although it does not apply to them all, particularly to Glasgow Central—tend to be large and remote areas.
In the Government's view, an Assembly of the size produced by the Amendments
136
would be too small to carry out its new responsibilities. If one compares the size of the Assembly proposed under the Bill with the size of the regional councils in Scotland—and I have in mind particularly Strathclyde, which was set up under the local government legislation and which has 103 members to carry out the local authority duties—it is hardly surprising that the Assembly, with its nationwide responsibilities, should have rather more members.
One of the principles underlying the Government's proposals is the intention to bring Government in Scotland closer to the people affected by Government, and that is why the Government propose that Assembly Members should represent fewer constituents than do Members of Parliament. Under these Amendments, 41 Members of the Scottish Assembly would each represent one whole Parliamentary constituency, and the Government's intention of making each Assembly Member responsible to a smaller number of constituents than is a Member of Parliament, so as to forge more direct links with the electorate, would be lost.
The question of cost has been raised by a number of noble Lords. The Government do not accept that the Assembly should be smaller simply to save a modest sum of money. The Assembly will have an important job to do and will be responsible for a very large budget, and while of course it is important not to spend public money unnecessarily, it is surely equally important to ensure that the Assembly is adequately equipped to fulfil its role. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred to Clause 31(1) which provides, as he said:
"There shall be paid to members of the Assembly … such salaries and allowances as the Assembly may from time to time determine".
If he had looked at subsection (6) of that clause he would have seen that it says:
"Payments under this section shall be made out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund".
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is right to say that money will not be thrown away to all who want it; that fund will have many people making claims on it and the electorate will judge very harshly indeed if the members of the Assembly are seen or seem to pay themselves unduly out of the fund which is available to cover all the matters which

137
are devolved and which have to be paid for out of the fund.
As to the number of Executive Members, a subject to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred, that is a matter for the First Secretary to decide, and again the same principles apply as a political restraint on the First Secretary; he must choose the numbers and of course he will be scrutinised very carefully by his colleagues and the Opposition in the Assembly in relation to that matter. Of course, until one knows how much the Members of the Assembly are to be paid it is impossible to assess what the cost is likely to be. As to the question of the number of Ministers, of course that is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day to determine in the light of the circumstances.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: The noble and learned Lord will be aware, of course, that it is laid down in Acts of Parliament within what limits the Prime Minister can operate.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am obliged to the noble Lord for making that point, but at the end of the day the Prime Minister of the day can decide whether or not to fill all the offices which are available to him under the legislation, and no doubt in the light of the existing circumstances he would consider whether he needs the number of Ministers who at the present time are thought to be necessary. I would say in relation to the number of Ministers at the present time that many people feel that the Ministers in Scotland are overburdened because of the range of their responsibilities.
I am asked whether the Government will reconsider this matter and I can say, Yes. I can say that not for any other reason perhaps than this. Having regard to the fact that this Committee has moved into the Bill an Amendment on proportional representation, which seems to involve the number of 150 and to some extent affects all these provisions in the Bill, the Government must obviously reconsider their position on that particular matter, and in that context I think the Committee will understand that they should look at this matter at the same time. I hope noble Lords will accept that. All the arguments will of course be studied and perhaps the matter could be left there for the present.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I am sorry I absented myself for a moment or two earlier. What the noble and learned Lord said may he very reasonable, but what I want to be clear about is exactly where we are going. We have carried an Amendment relating to proportional representation and that was very much on the basis that there would be 100 elected Members and 50 additional Members. At least that was my understanding of the debate.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers has now made a proposal the effect of which would be to reduce the elected Members from 150 to 100, and that would leave it open to the Liberal Party to say consequentially that there should be at some later stage 50 additional Members. Of course I realise that the Government have to think out their position, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will agree with me here. I have not had the time to discuss the point with him at any length.
I do not want it to be said that we have created deliberately a nonsense as a result of this Committee stage. I am wondering whether the reasonable course may be to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, without prejudice to the Government's reconsideration. We could then discuss, and if need he pass, the Liberal Amendment, which would then be consequential to what had already been done. If the Government want to come to us with an alternative scheme, or to revert to their old position, if they think they can carry it, that may be more sensible than simply allowing to remain in the Bill an Amendment relating to proportional representation which would become nonsensical, if we either retain the status quo as regards 150 elected Members, or carry the full range of my noble friend's Amendments. I am anxious that we should be, roughly speaking, sensible at each stage of the Bill. I do not know what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, thinks about this.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I entirely accept what the noble and learned Lord says. Whether one likes or does not like what will be in the Bill at the end of the day, it ought to make as much sense as it can when it reaches us again at the Report stage. I think that in the circumstances

139
it would not be unreasonable if, prefacing the matter, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, without prejudice to the Government's ultimate position, I were to say that the Government would not resist the Amendments. Then the Bill would at least make more sense when we come to reconsider it, and we can all reconsider our positions and hope that we can make progress.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I understood the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to say that the more Members there were of the Assembly, the nearer the Assembly would be brought to the people, but I have suffered under Strathclyde. I have a place in the Western Highlands, and I find that Strathclyde is crawling with officials. Certainly it has not brought the people nearer to local government; it has taken them much further away. All that has happened is that the rates have been trebled since that reorganisation. What worries me is that the additional Members for the Assembly rather appear to be in Labour areas. If we are to have 150 Members, I should prefer to see more Members in rural areas. From the point of view of transportation, for instance, presumably more Members would be needed in an area like Argyll than in a small area in Glasgow. I am surprised to see that the additional Members are to come from urban areas. I do not think that this ought to be based entirely on population. My grandfather was the Member for Argyll for a long time and he had the largest geographical constituency in Scotland. He managed all right with one Member—himself.
If we are to have extra Members, for Heaven's sake! let us have them in rural areas where they can cover the ground more evenly. I do not say that I smell a rat, but it seems rather odd that the additional Members for the Assembly are to be mainly in Labour areas. I do not wish to impugn any motive for that; I merely wish to make the point.
9.40 p.m.
Lord WIGG: Whether the Minister smells rats or follows red herrings, I would ask him to take note of the fact, when talking about the number of the electorate in relation to the number of
140
Members, that if the number of the electorate remains constant and you increase the number of Members you have altered the value of the vote. In my submission—I am speaking entirely for myself—what is fundamental is the value of the vote. In terms of democracy and means of communication, there is no case whatsoever for increasing the value of a rural vote at the expense of an urban vote. I am not asking the Committee to make up its mind: what I am asking for is information.
The Minister has told us that the Government must reconsider their position in the light of the Amendment which the Committee has chosen to accept, and that he is going to go back and do the sums afresh. I would not ask him to put his civil servants to a great deal of trouble to work out the value on a hypothetical basis, but would he be good enough, either when he comes to your Lordships' House to report the results of his reconsideration or at some other appropriate moment, to tell us between what extremes the value of the vote is going to vary in the light of whatever proposition is going to be advanced? Because, may I submit to the Liberal Party, you can get a totally different result if there is in fact even a modest variation in the value of the vote. I do not want to go back to what I said earlier on, but any noble Lord who cares to take the trouble to examine the statistics which are available in the Boundary Commission reports in relation to the 1945 Election and the 1950 Election will appreciate exactly what I mean.
So far as I am personally concerned, I am standing on the Churchillian doctrine that the basis of British democracy ought to be one vote and one value; and if there is a variation of that then at least the Committee, if it accepts it, ought to know within what tolerance that variation will take place.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Perhaps I may say shortly in reply that all the suggestions and observations which have been made, whatever their animal connections, will be taken into account in the Government's reconsideration.
Earl FERRERS: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for stating the position and for saying that he will agree to the six

141
Amendments I am to move being incorporated into the Bill on the quite clear understanding that it will give the Government the opportunity to think again in the light of the Amendment which was accepted earlier on.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 1, line 13, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: I can assure your Lordships that I have changed my locality, and not my Party, and that only temporarily. I beg to move Amendment No. 10, which is consequential on previous Amendments. It is the same as Amendment No 5.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("125") and insert ("110").
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("two initial members") and insert ("one initial member").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment, too, is consequential. I would have wished to move it formally, but I think my noble friend Lord Lyell wishes to ask
142
a question of the Minister and, therefore, it will not be quite so formal. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to enlighten me. He mentioned figures earlier about the difference between 125 per cent. and 110 per cent. He mentioned a figure for 125 per cent. of the average electorate in Scotland. Now I not only smell a rat, but I think I have found one. My calculations did not match with what he said. If the figure that the noble and learned Lord had given was taken according to the list of electorates and constituencies that I have, I think it would make a difference of four or five seats over the Government calculations. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord—not necessarily tonight—could verify the figure that he has given?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall certainly seek to do so. I have a large piece of paper with many complicated calculations on it. They are not my calculations. My noble friend now offers me another large piece of paper covered with calculations, including some in a fair hand; but perhaps I shall take advantage of the noble Lord's invitation, check for myself and give an answer on another occasion. We shall certainly have another occasion, for there are many Amendments consequential on Amendment No. 8.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
9.47 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 2, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to section 80(3) below,").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment we come to another area altogether. We are not here talking about the proportion of electors to elected persons in the Scottish Assembly, nor about the system by which they should be elected, nor about the relative roles the Parties might play in Scotland after devolution, but about the position of the Orkneys and Shetlands after the Bill is passed, assuming that it is passed in whatever form it comes through. The effect of my Amendment I believe to be—I am working without legal advice, and the Government will doubtless correct me if I am wrong—the following.
Clause 80(3) is to over-ride, according to the Amendment, the provision by which Orkney and Shetland have one initial Member each. The purpose of that in my mind—and I hope I am right—is that if in the referendum Orkney and Shetland declare that they are against the application of the Act which we shall have passed—that is to say, against devolution for Scotland—it will not apply to them. That is provided for in Clause 80(3), the Grimond Amendment from the House of Commons.
The purpose of my paving Amendment is if that happens they should not then have their one initial Member each in the Scottish Assembly. Clause 80(3) says that if they vote "No" in the referendum then there will be a kind of interregnum or pause during which a Commission of Inquiry, starting from the beginning, will inquire what ought to happen next. I think the assumption is that it will be tabula rasa and the Commission will be allowed to recommend what it thinks fit about the future of the communities of Orkney and Shetland. The effect of my Amendment would be to leave that future open but to bar off one way only; namely, that they should be represented in the Scottish Assembly. It will leave them open to he represented at Westminster as they are now.
Why do I propose this? It is for the following reason. The Bill, as we have
144
it before us, does leave us with the awkward situation whereby a number of Scottish MPs at Westminster will be able to affect by their voices and votes, English, Welsh and, indeed, at the moment Northern Irish legislation on health, education, housing and all the other subjects which appear as devolved subjects in Schedules 11 and 12 to the Bill. The argument of the Government in the House of Commons (where the issue was fully discussed) was that although this was untidy and, indeed, unjustifiable in strict democratic logic, yet it was the worst of many evils because the only alternative to it was to have the system of so-called "in and out" voting. That is to say, that there should he Scottish Members in Westminster after the passage of the Act who would have their full voice and vote in United Kingdom legislation, and especially in defence, foreign policy and all the other reserved subjects under Schedules 11 and 12 to the Bill before us, but that it would be insufferable by reason of the complication thereof if they had to abstain on all discussions of health, education, housing and the other devolved subjects as they affected the rest of the United Kingdom and, notably, England.
The Government said that one could not have the Speaker ruling debate by debate, Division by Division and even intervention by intervention, in the House of Commons whether or not the subject of that intervention or vote was devolved, it being supposed that if it were devolved then the Scottish Member would not have a right to a say in it, and if it were reserved, then he would have a right to have a say in it; and it would simply be too complicated to settle such a matter vote by vote in the House of Commons.
Let us pause and look at that for a moment. Schedules 11 and 12 taken together, which say what is reserved, what is conditionally reserved, what is concurrently reserved and what is not reserved at all and therefore fully devolved, runs to some 24 pages. Somebody has to interpret those 24 pages on a strategic scale before any measure is introduced either into the Westminster Parliament or into the Scottish Assembly after the Bill is taken through Parliament. If we accept the Government's contention that it is possible to decide into which Legislature a given measure should be introduced or,

145
look at it another way, what measures would be susceptible of introduction into one Legislature or the other, and if we then further accept that, although that is possible, it is impossible for the Speaker to rule on a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis in the House about a given intervention on what is reserved, we see that the situation, though conceivable, is going to be extremely difficult.
The Government's main argument against "in and out" voting (which of course would abolish the difficulty) is that it was tried by Gladstone in the case of the Irish Members of the House of Commons. It was abandoned because it was too complicated. I would only say at this stage, since I am straying somewhat wide from the subject of my own Amendment (though I shall come back to it in a minute) that the precedent was long ago, and the result of adopting the course taken by Gladstone—that is, of allowing the Stormont Members since 1921 to have a say in the English legislation and not vice versa—has not been entirely reassuring when one considers the reproduction of the experiment on another and larger scale in the case of Scotland, though I know of course that Scotland is not a divided community like Ulster.
The conclusion that I draw from all that is that the system by which the Scottish Members in Westminster have a say in English legislation, and the English Members have no say in legislation on the very same matter in Edinburgh, is going to be a doubtful, dangerous but possibly a manageable one. Should we then, in view of its doubtfulness and dangerousness, willingly contemplate the reproduction of the system in miniature in Edinburgh? Without this Amendment that is precisely what we should do. We shall have two Orkney and Shetland Members in Edinburgh who, because Orkney and Shetland will have voted against the devolution Bill altogether—the application of the Act to Orkney and Shetland—will not be affected by it. We shall have these two people with a voice and a vote on Scottish devolved issues. But the Scottish Members—the other 123, or whatever the figure is, the majority of the Scottish Members—will have no voice or vote on legislation affecting Orkney and Shetland because they will be out under Clause 80(3). We
146
shall therefore have a muddle in Westminster, which we may survive, and that will be duplicated on a smaller scale in Edinburgh, which they may or may not survive: who knows
I move this Amendment now in the hope of drawing the attention of the Committee to the fact that if you tolerate a "maxi-muddle" in Westminster, it has effects all down the line and raises the question: should we tolerate also a "mini-muddle" by the Orkney and Shetland Members having a voice and vote in matters which do not concern them in Edinburgh? I do not pretend to know what is right, either on the major or the minor issue, and the purpose of my Amendment is to draw attention to the undeniable fact that they go together. If we are to have the one, we have to take a decision as to whether we also have the other. Who knows whether or not there may be others down the line which will follow from it? I cannot see that far, but perhaps other noble Lords can. Do we want the muddle in Westminster with the muddle in Edinburgh? Do we want the muddle in Westminster without the muddle in Edinburgh? I put the point forward for solution in debate at this moment because it seems to be the right time to do so. I beg to move.
9.57 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I do not know whether this Amendment is technically necessary and therefore I must reserve my own views until the Minister has guided us. Subject to that, I am entirely in support of what is plainly the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in moving this Amendment. His purpose, plainly stated, is to avoid "a muddle ", as he put it, in Edinburgh, resulting from a reproduction in miniature of the same sort of possible confusion that is going to arise as between Westminster and Edinburgh. But I do not know, until the noble Lord has enlightened us, whether in fact, as the Bill now stands, this would arise.
Clause 80(3) makes provision in the event—I understand the quite likely event—of the vote in Orkney and Shetland being against participation in this measure, that the Act shall not apply to them. If the Act does not apply, presumably that

147
non-application covers Clause 80(3) to which the noble Lord's Amendment applies. If the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can reassure me as to that, I shall be perfectly happy about it; but if there is any doubt at all perhaps the matter should be investigated further.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question of the noble Lord before he replies? Would it not be more satisfactory to your Lordships for him to indicate at this stage what he proposes to do about Clause 80(3)? It seems to me that, as that clause now stands, there is going to be a terrible muddle anyway, and I should have thought that, either at this stage or at the next stage, he would have to put down an Amendment to Clause 80(3). If that Amendment were made, perhaps it might not be necessary to have this Amendment which is being proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Viscount THURSO: I do not think that it is really necessary to put in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. It seems to me to be an "extra", because as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out, Clause 80 does allow the Act not to apply, and if the Act does not apply then it does not apply at this point. However, I see no harm in including the Amendment because it merely dots the i and crosses the t.
What I hope is that, when and if the referendum under Clause 80 of this Bill is held, the people of Orkney and Shetland will see that their future lies with the Assembly in Edinburgh. If we make a good job of our Amendments in this Committee, and if we improve the Bill, we may send back to the other place a Bill to which the Orcadians and Shetlanders can agree, which should be our aim. But if they wish to opt out of this new arrangement and stay with the Westminster Parliament; I see no great difficulty in doing that, any more than there would be for the Isle of Man or the States of the Channel Islands, and so on, to come into association with the Parliament in Westminster. We on these Benches would certainly agree to leave in this Amendment, and would not oppose it, but I do not think that it is entirely necessary.
Lord WIGG: There is something more in this than just dotting the i's and crossing the t's. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made it quite clear that his Amendment was to deal with the interregnum after the people of Orkney and Shetlands may opt out under a referendum. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, that if they do that Clause 80(3) will not apply. Subsection (3) states that "the Secretary of State shall lay … an order ". But the Secretary of State may take a long time to lay an order, and what will be the situation then?—because if the Bill goes through unamended there will be an initial Member for Orkney and another for Shetland. The people of Orkney and Shetland will, I hope, opt out under the referendum, and until an order is laid the Bill will apply. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought I heard the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, say that there will be an interregnum, and there must be a pause, between the decision of the people of Orkney and Shetland and the laying of an order by the Secretary of State. That is what the Amendment is about. Perhaps the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
Lord KENNET: No. I confirm that that was the point.
10.2 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: I also confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that his interpretation of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Kennet, as it applies to Clause 80(3), is indeed correct. I should also say to your Lordships, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Kennet, that the Government are impressed by the strength of feeling on this matter which has emanated from the Orkney and Shetland Islands; and that, following the decision taken in the other place, the Government accept that some special provisions relating to the Islands should find a place in the Bill.
But the Government see considerable problems arising from the approval of any order made under Clause 80(3). These have already been spelled out in some detail to the Islands' Councils, and were referred to in considerable detail in the other place by my right honourable

149
friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think that the fact that I make this point is a confirmation that the Government are looking closely at Clause 80(3). The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, directed my attention to that.
I think it is fair to say that the Government's intentions towards the Islands are entirely honourable, but the position is still very open and discussions with the councils continue. I might emphasise that it is only at this stage that we know that the Shetland Islands council, and only the Shetland Islands council, has taken a positive decision. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland hopes to visit the Islands, and continues to have discussions with them.
I do not think that I should say anything more in your Lordships' Committee this evening which might pre-empt what is a continuing dialogue, and I therefore think that these matters should be left just as they are at this time. I do not think that it would be useful for us to continue further on this point at this stage.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: Before the noble Lord sits down, I do not know whether he can go a little further, because that would certainly determine my attitude to his noble friend's Amendment. He said that Clause 80(3) needs amendment. Looked at technically, I am trying to see reasons for agreeing with him. But can he say now, and give an assurance to the Committee, that any Amendment that the Government bring forward will preserve the essence of this subsection; that is to say, if the Islands vote by a majority not to come under the Assembly, the Government will so provide that they should not come under the Assembly?
Lord KIRKHILL: No; at this stage I could not give an unequivocal assurance of that kind. It is part of a particular discussion which in the meantime continues. It would be wrong of me to go further than I have already gone at this time.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Would the noble Lord not agree that his refusal now to give an assurance is much more serious than his ever agreeable manner would allow one to suggest? He is always so plausible and kindly; we are always
150
rather relaxed when he comes to the Box and takes us into his confidence. However, a very serious issue is at stake. In effect, what the noble Lord has said is this: If the Islands choose to stay out we, the Government, are not going to let them do so. That is what the noble Lord said and that is how it sounded. Of course, the noble Lord did not mean it to sound like that, because he is much too nice, much too smooth, much too agreeable, much too plausible and much too friendly; but that is how it sounded.
Lord KIRKHILL: I think that the noble Earl is putting his own highly yet always interesting interpretation upon my remarks. I do not think that I went so far as the noble Earl suggested—certainly, I am convinced I did not. However, may I say this. All kinds of problems are attendant upon a decision of this kind, with both the Shetlands and the Orkneys saying, "We want nothing to do with the Assembly". Yet one must keep in mind that the honourable Member for the constituency does not take quite that point. He is on record as saying that he thinks that the Islands will have to work with the Assembly, and so much of their present position is totally related to the Edinburgh scene. These are the clear, practical politics of the situation. Having said that, one must then go on to say that a meaningful discussion is taking place. It would be wrong of me to go further because I do not want to prejudice these discussions.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: I appreciate very much what the noble Lord has said and I know that he is trying to be helpful, as he always is. However, the sheer fact of this matter is that the Scottish National Party argument for independence is based on Scottish oil, two-thirds of which is Shetland oil. That is the heart of the matter and everybody knows it. The noble Lord is burking the issue.
I want to say only this: while we shall all give him the benefit of the doubt in anything he says, particularly with his smile, his courtesy, his urbane charm and the rest, still there are some of us who are very concerned indeed to make sure that there is no ambiguity in the matter. Before we leave the Amendment, I hope that we shall be satisfied that the Government are not waffling and fudging but are saying firmly that if Shetland or Orkney,

151
either or both, want to opt out, they can, and will, and shall.
Lord KIRK HILL: That is not the present Government's position. Therefore, I could not confirm that that is the Government's view.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Could the noble Lord help us in one way while we are discussing the Amendment. I understand and appreciate the problem which the noble Lord and his colleagues face over Shetland and Orkney. We are surprised, knowing the Minister's charm and that he is from Aberdeen, that Shetland and Orkney, which have very close links with Aberdeen, seem to be escaping. However, to be serious, it is very important that when we come to a later stage in the Bill we should know what are the Government's thoughts about these two Islands. It will be very awkward for us if we are told whenever we come to these hurdles that the Government are still thinking about this. I hope very much that decisions can be taken soon.
Lord KIRKHILL: As the Committee knows, the noble Lord is a former Secretary of State for Scotland, and he recognises the demands which are placed upon that role. However, he will be aware, because it is on public record, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to visit the Islands. He has already met the Islands' Council and he hopes to visit the islands. Certainly he is continuing the dialogue. At this time I cannot go further than that.
10.9 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Would not the noble Lord go an inch further along the line?—although I know it is very difficult for him to do this. I remember being chastised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving the impression of questioning the integrity of the Government. I am not doing that. The purpose of a Committee stage is to probe. Already we have had the experience of the Government changing the rules half way through the game. We had this experience on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. The point we were putting was perfectly sound. However, in another
152
place the rules were changed, which completely altered the whole basis of the argument we were having.
The question posed by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter is quite clear. If the position is as he explained it, then he accepts the Government's position and there must be some Amendment; but he merely asked whether we could have some indication, if not an undertaking, that there is no question in the Government's mind of altering the rules should Orkney and Shetland decide not to join the Assembly, thus making it impossible for them to give effect to not wanting to join it. The noble Lord can speak about talks going on, but if it is that talks are going on in such a way that the threat of this sort of thing will cause Orkney and Shetland to make a decision they would not otherwise make, then I think it is the duty of your Lordships and indeed the other House to clarify the position.
Lord KIRK HILL: All I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, at this point is, that if he would address his mind to the hypothetical proposition he has put to me he will see the enormous practical difficulties that would emerge were such a situation to develop.
Lord HUGHES: Surely what my noble friend has stated to the Committee is that the Secretary of State is having discussions with the people in Orkney and Shetland. It is possible—I would not put it higher than that—that there may be agreement with these authorities about Amendments to the Bill which would meet their requirements. If that is the case then presumably we shall be told at the earliest opportunity the Amendments which the Government would propose. I hope that before we reach Clause 80 the Government may be in a position to say something about their intentions, and certainly by the Report stage of the Bill. I think the fears expressed that the Government may be seeking to "do the dirty" on Orkney and Shetland are quite unfounded because the remedy is in the hands of this House. If the Bill goes back to the Commons, in so far as Orkney and Shetland are concerned, in its present form, then the position of Orkney and Shetland is absolutely protected. If noble Lords opposite think that the Government are attempting to do Orkney and Shetland

153
down they can guarantee by their very numbers that the Government will be frustrated, so there is nothing to fear in that direction.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to say on behalf of my right honourable friend who is the Member for the two constituencies, and from my own discussions with the local officials, that what they feel in Shetland and in Orkney is that Clauses 3 and 80 give them protection at this moment, and they are satisfied that they are protected from their fears—and they have great fears as to what will happen in Scotland. If they come under the Scottish Assembly they fear that they will not occupy quite the special position that they do at the present time. I personally feel—and I think I can speak for my right honourable friend—that these fears are not justified, but he agrees that some special precautions and protection should be laid down.
I would ask the Government to endeavour to speed up the discussions. I do not think they should wait for any new bodies but should simply discuss with the present authorities and arrive at a conclusion fairly quickly. We might then get a tidy clause in the Bill which will satisfy the councils of both sets of Islands and enable the immense difficulties with regard to health, education, transport and everything else to be sorted out in a sensible way.
10.14 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think a further assurance is needed from the Government at this stage because I think what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said admirably summed up the situation. We understand that the Government are having discussions particularly with the Shetland Islands Council, and I think we in this House are all agreed that the position should be protected. But at some point the Government will have to take action and will have to make some special arrangement for the Shetland Islands if the situation remains as it is in the Bill. There will be administrative arrangements to he made and I can quite understand that they will be difficult and complicated. The assurance which I seek is that the Government are not trying to force the Shetland Islanders to change
154
their minds under duress, by saying that it is going to be much too difficult for St. Andrew's House and the civil servants to make the special arrangements, either during the interim period or later while they are working out with the Commission a new form of association.
I would just remind the Government that they are in this Bill proposing the greatest change in our constitutional affairs since 1707, and this, surely, is an appropriate moment for these two groups of Islands to be able to reconsider their own special position within the United Kingdom; they are not seeking to break away. For that they need a certain amount of time, and I congratulate them on taking a little time and not trying to do things very quickly, as many of us have been forced to do with this Bill. I do ask the Government to give that assurance, that they will not just go on talking and then, towards the end of June or July when this Bill is due to be considered again in another place, say: "We must make these Amendments because we have not put into train all the special arrangements which will be needed if Orkney and Shetland are to be kept in a special situation of their own".
Lord KIRKHILL: I can only confirm yet again to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is in communication with, and has been discussing the position with, the present Island Councils. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that the Government feel exactly as he does in the latter part of his comment; namely, that we cannot go too quickly in a matter of this kind. There is a question of judgment and balance, and the rights of the Island communities, as they see it, to a certain position; and the absolute difficulty which faces the Assembly and a new administration were they to opt out, and the consequential problems which flow from that kind of discussion. That is the present position.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: Could the noble Lord make this little addition: Could he not assure the Committee that the Government in their consultations—and the word "consultations" can mean a whole range of things—will not try to twist the arm of Orkney and Shetland?
Lord KIRKHILL: The Government are behaving with the highest standard of moral probity in the matter.
Lord WIGG: What worries me is not what the Government say or what the Government do; what worries me is what the Government do not do. If later on, in six months' time, a Minister wanted to find a justification for doing nothing, the scene has been well set by what the Minister has said. He has stressed all the difficulties: we must not hurry, we must not go quickly. I have heard that one before. Going quickly probably means there are two speeds, dead slow and stop. What I am concerned about is the simple issue. If the Government want to drag their feet—I am not saying they do—if the civil servants want to drag their feet, then, very good, Orkney and Shetland take their decision, and then the Minister shall lay an order. It does not say when he shall lay the order.
When the Minister is questioned in another place in a year he can draw attention to what the Minister has said tonight about these insuperable difficulties; he can say the House was warned of the difficulties, that "we are struggling, working 116 hours a week to overcome these difficulties and we will overcome them as soon as we can". In the meantime nothing happens. And, of course, if the Government were not altogether playing fair, they could go to Shetland and say: "Be very careful. You may fall between two stools. You may opt out of the Assembly and you will not be back in Westminster because the order has not been laid".
There we are, Orkney and Shetland becoming more and more dissatisfied. I am not saying that that is what the Government intend—far from it; but what I am saying is that they could dispel all fears. All the Minister has to do is to say, "If Orkney and Shetland opt out the order will be laid with the least possible delay"—not immediately, but with the least possible delay—"All the difficulties they now foresee will go, and the order will be laid at the earliest possible moment". If he will say that, I shall be satisfied.
Lord KIRKHILL: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is at this
156
present period arranging further meetings with the Island Councils. It may be that subsequent to these meetings Amendments will be laid before your Lordships' House. Beyond that point I cannot comment this evening.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: May I say that, coming from the very far north in Scotland, much farther north than most noble Lords who have spoken, I know Orkney and Shetland. Anybody who thinks that they can twist the arm of Orkney, or particularly Shetland, will find it rather difficult. It does not happen that way. The only thing I fear is that if we go on talking they will opt back for joining up with Norway, and that would be a great loss to Scotland.
Lord KIRKHILL: They have, of course, a tremendous administrative bond with the Edinburgh situation at the present time.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think I am right in saying that the particular subsection to which we are referring—Clause 80(3)—has not yet been debated at all in Parliament. Am I not right in saying that? Can the noble Lord give us any assurance that when we come to this matter at the Committee stage he will be able to say something about it—even only an interim statement? It does not seem to me that the Bill is satisfactory in its present state. We are trying to find out what Amendment he is going to make to it and when. We quite understand the delay, but will he be able to do anything about it during the Committee stage?
Lord KIRKHILL: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not think me unnecessarily pert if I say that I certainly shall be able to say something during the Committee stage, but quite what, I am not able to say at this time.
10.22 p.m.
Lord KENNET: This debate has been well worth while as a pre-run for the debate which I confidently expect the Committee will have on Clause 80(3). I picked out the following points from this most interesting and, to me, unexpected debate. First, my noble friend said that there might be difficulty in approval of any order made under Clause 80(3), by which

157
I assume he meant difficulty in approval by the Westminster Parliament of any order which might be laid by the Secretary of State. I wondered what kind of order would run into difficulties in Westminster, given the existence of Clause 80(3)—the Grimond Amendment coming to us from the Commons—and given the evident feeling of this House about the rights of the Orcadians and Shetlanders to settle their own future. What kind of order might run into difficulty?
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: I suppose that the noble Lord appreciates in saying that, that so far as this Committee is concerned, under Clause 80(4) what this Committee does, does not really matter, because the House of Commons can override us in 10 days.
Lord KENNET: That applies to almost anything else this House does. However, we have legislation before us and I shall come to that in a moment. The other matter that I picked up from the debate was the statement by my noble friend that the Secretary of State was having discussions with the Councils of the two authorities up there; that he intended to visit the Islands; tliat the discussions were meaningful and that he could not say, and could not be induced to say, anything about the Amendments which the Government might or might not propose to Clause 80 at the time when we come to discuss the matter, either in Committee or on Report. I also picked up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that if the Secretary of State for Scotland were now to come to an agreement with the local authorities of the counties of Shetland and Orkney, then it might be possible to introduce an Amendment to the Bill in this House, on the basis of an agreement between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the local authorities of the Islands. I do not think so.
What is before your Lordships now is a stipulation about a referendum under which the people of the Islands will, to put it shortly, have the right to settle their own fates. I believe that I am right in saying that the people of those Islands did not elect their local councils on any given plan one way or the other, about going with the devolved Scotland or staying with the unitary United Kingdom. If I am right about that, then it would,
158
of course, be quite wrong for the Government to frame any Amendment to the Bill now before us on the basis of an agreement struck between themselves and the local authority.
Having said all that and leaving now the dress rehearsal for the debate that will clearly be a crucial one on Clause 80 when we reach it, my Amendment is not an Amendment to Clause 80—it neither confirms Clause 80 nor changes it nor denies it. It has nothing to say on Clause 80. It simply subjects the existence of one or two initial Orkney and Shetland Members at Edinburgh to the operation of Clause 80.
It was pointed out by the first speakers in the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and speakers from the Liberal Benches, that if Clause 80 is left as it is and the Government are wise enough not to amend it, and if the people of Orkney and Shetland choose to opt out, then this is a Bill which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland. That is the case to which I ask your Lordships to address your minds. We have before us a Bill which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland. What kind of an Act do we wish that Bill to be? Do we wish it to be an Act which lays specific rights and duties on Orkney and Shetland or an Act which does not mention Orkney and Shetland in the section dealing with specific rights and duties? Unless we adopt the Amendment we risk having before us an Act of Parliament which does not apply to Orkney and Shetland but which specifies that Orkney and Shetland shall send one Member each to the Edinburgh Assembly.
That is a nonsense, and I think that given that Clause 80 has no Amendments down affecting it, either from the Government or from anyone else, and since in Committee we must consider the Bill as a whole and the interaction of one part upon another, it would be safer now to carry the Amendment which I have moved in order to make the Bill one which could logically not apply if in the referendum Orkney and Shetland decide it should not.
10.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 226) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Auckland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Abinger, L.

Avebury, L.

Belstead, L.

Airedale, L.

Aylestone, L.

Blake, L.

Aldenham, L.

Balerno, L.

Boothby, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Ballantrae, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Amory, V.

Banks, L.

Burton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Barrington, V.

Byers, L.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Platt, L.

Camoys, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Polwarth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hughes, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Hylton, L.

Rhodes, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Chelwood, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Chesham, L.

Jacques, L.

Rochester, L.

Chitnis, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Collison, L.

Kilbrandon, L. [Teller.

St. Just, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Killearn, L.

Seear, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Segal, L.

Cottlesloe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Croft, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lindsey and Abington, E.

Sherfield, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Shinwell, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon, V.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Sligo, M.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Snow, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Somers, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

McCarthy, L.

Stamp, L.

Elton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strathspey, L.

Foot, L.

Macloed of Borve, B.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Gage, V.

McNair, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mancroft, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Garrer, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Glendevon, L.

Middleton, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mills, V.

Thurso, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Minto, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Gray, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Grey, E.

Mottistone, L.

Vivian, L.

Gridley, L.

Moyne, L.

Wade, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Walston, L.

Newall, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Halsbury, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wardington, L.

Hamnett, L.

Ogmore, L.

Westbury, L.

Hampden, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Willis, L.

Hampton, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Hanworth, V.

Onslow, E.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hives, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Perth, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alanbrooke, V.

Greenway, L.

Parry, L.

Bacon, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pender, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Phillips, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Spens, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crooke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Thorneycroft, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Torphichen, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Long, V.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

McCluskey, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Monck, V.

Wigg, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fulton, L.

Morris, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Oram, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hylton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Banks, L.

Kennet, L. [Teller]

St. Just, L.

Belstead, L.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kinross, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Cathcart, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Snow, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

de Clifford, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swansea, L.

Digby, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Minto, E.

Thurso, V. [Teller]

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Torphichen, L.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Fortescue, E.

Morris, L.

Wardington, L.

Fulton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Gray, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wigg, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Windlesham, L.

Hives, L.

Polwarth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balerno, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pearl, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Perth, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hewlett, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Crook, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lockwood, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Walston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

McGregor of Durris, L.

White, B.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

George-Brown, L.

Parry, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Baroness STEDMAN: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING LEVY (ENGINEERING) ORDER 1978
7.27 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY Lord WALLACE of COSLANY rose to move, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd February, be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are a somewhat dwindling band to deal with a very important order. This is the first time that an industrial training levy order has been brought before Parliament for approval. It may help your Lordships if I explain in some detail why this is necessary.
The levy is the main instrument by which industrial training boards can encourage companies in their industries to raise the quantity and quality of training. Under the Industrial Training Act 1964, as amended by the Employment and Training Act 1973, an industrial training board can, with the approval of the Manpower Services Commission and the Secretary of State for Employment, raise a levy on companies in its industry up to 1 per cent. of emoluments—that is, of a company's wage bill. Parliamentary approval must be sought, however, for any proposal to raise a levy of above 1 per cent.
The proposal before the House is that for the major part of the engineering industry the levy on employers shou1d remain at 1 per cent., as it has been in previous years. The engineering industry training board is proposing however to raise a levy of 2 per cent. on large employers in the mechanical and electrical engineering construction section. This part of the industry includes those employers involved in building power stations, petroleum refineries, chemical plants and the structures which are necessary to exploit the North Sea. The order before the House sets out in detail the conditions which may have to be met before an employer is liable to the 2 per cent. levy: first, he must be engaged wholly or mainly in engineering construction activities; second,
108
the 2 per cent. levy will only be raised in respect of site employees; that is not those working in a company's head office but those actually working on construction sites; third, the 2 per cent. levy will apply only to large employers whose payroll for site employees exceeds £500,000. Where the above conditions are met an employer will be assessed for levy as follows: no levy on the first £50,000 of his payroll for site employees; 1 per cent. on the next £450,000; and 2 per cent. on the payroll above £500,000. The board estimates that in effect this will mean for a large employer an average levy on the total payroll of about 1·5 per cent.
Why is a higher rate of levy necessary for the engineering construction sector'? Basically the answer is that in the past there has not been sufficient training by employers in this sector, partly because training in the industry is difficult to organise due to the great mobility between sites. The engineering industry training board hopes to be able to use the 2 per cent. levy to raise the standard and level of training in the industry. It will be giving particular attention to maintaining and, if possible, improving the level of apprentice intake into the industry. And the Government's further year of support for special training measures to maintain apprentice intake at a time of recession should help the board in its task. Other priorities for the board in 1978–79 will be management and supervisory training, the training of professional engineers, and training in other important skills like welding, non-destructive testing, site draughtsmen, and instructional skills. Safety is another priority for this industry and I understand that all the training done to the board's standard must include a substantial element of training for safety.
These are all important areas for the future of the engineering construction industry and of those people who work in it. This sector contains a very high proportion of skilled workers: 75 per cent. of the workers on engineering construction sites are skilled. This makes it doubly important for the reputation of the industry abroad as well as at home that they are trained to a high standard, so that their job is done as well and effectively as is possible. Training is important also to ensure that the job is done as safely as possible. Work on

109
engineering construction sites is high risk work, but proper training can help to reduce the risk of accidents to site workers. I am therefore particularly pleased to see the importance which the engineering industry training board attaches to safety training.
My Lords, we must also look ahead for the future supply of trained people in the industry. The Engineering Industry Training Board will, as I have said, be giving priority to first and second year apprentice training in the industry. The Government will also be making funds available in 1978/1979 to encourage companies to maintain apprentice intake at a time of recession. In the last three years, this aid has amounted to about £135 million over industry as a whole; and in 1978/1979 a further £41 million is being made available. I understand also that discussions have been held between the Manpower Services Commission and the Board to see what other support the Commission can give to key training activities in 1978/1979. Areas to receive support are initial off-the-job training for apprentices, adult operator training and training of professional engineers, draughtsmen, managers and supervisors. The Engineering Industry Training Board is not starting from scratch in this sector. The Board and the Manpower Services Commission have already devoted a good deal of attention and resources to the engineering construction industry. The Board has set up a separate committee for the engineering construction sector representing both sides of the industry, and has made available to it £1 million on a loan basis to help it to get things moving. The Manpower Services Commission has also provided £3½ million over three years to the Board to help them begin the job of improving training in this difficult part of their industry. When the Commission provided the money, however, it made it clear that a gap was being filled and that in due course the firms in the industry would be expected to shoulder the main part of training to meet the industry's needs. This is why the Board has now come forward with these levy proposals.
In moving this order, I should like finally to draw attention to the support which the 2 per cent. levy has received from both sides of the industry—from the Engineering Industry Training Board
110
itself, on which unions and employers are represented; from the AUEW, the major union in the industry; and from the Engineering Employers' Federation and the Oil and Chemical Plant Construction Association, both of which have provided evidence of substantial majority support among their members. I very much welcome this support from employers and unions. It is important that both sides of the industry should co-operate to tackle the problems of training in the engineering construction sector. I believe that the support which this proposal has received marks a recognition that training is essential to the long-term good of the industry and of those who work in it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering) Order 1978, laid before the House on 22nd February, be approved.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, now that the captains and the generals have departed from the arguments over devolution, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the information which he has given us over this particular industrial training levy order this evening. One thing is quite certain: we are very happy to see, from these Benches, that the employers and the unions are in agreement over this vitally important training scheme levy. There can be no better way of helping those in the engineering construction industry. Many of us on these Benches know the difficulties entailed in the long training that some of these people have to bear and also the difficulties of financing themselves in one way or another.
The noble Lord mentioned the safety rules that must apply throughout the engineering construction industry, and certainly these are of vital importance because of the new technological equipment that is used. Anything that can be done to train these people will be of great importance for the future of the industry.
I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. If he can answer it now I shall be grateful, but if he cannot answer it tonight perhaps he will be able to do so at a later date. My question concerns the figure for those using this scheme—the number of people wishing to take up apprenticeships under this training levy

111
scheme. I think it would be valuable if we could get some idea of how many people are coming forward. It would be important for the industry as a whole to be able to know how many people are interested and wish to learn more by means of this scheme. We on this side of the House are deeply grateful for this order and for the idea behind it. We can only hope that in future more people, whether male or female, will be able to make use of the scheme.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my noble friends, should like to say that we are glad to be part of this cosy little group, and we wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for the clear way in which he has explained the terms of the order. We have little to say upon it but, like the noble Viscount, we should like to say how glad we are that the proposals it contains have clearly been the subject of much consultation within the Engineering Industry Training Board and among employers' and trade union representatives, and that the proposals themselves have been approved by the Manpower Services Commission before coming to this House.
We understand why it is that, in the case of engineering construction activities, the levy should be of a relatively high amount, and we endorse the view that is being taken that this should be a help both as regards safety training and, more particularly, as regards training more people for skilled occupations. We hope that it will do something to meet that shortage, particularly of skilled engineering workers, that was identified only last year by, I think, the National Economic Development Office as being a serious potential constraint on the further growth of output.
I, too, have only one question to put to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace; it relates to the exemption of small employers from payment of the levy, as defined in paragraph 5 of this order. Small firms are defined, generally speaking, as being firms whose employees do not exceed 60 in number. In winding-up the debate—and this is a point of which I have been able to give the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, notice—on the Second Reading of the Employment Subsidies Bill in another
112
place recently, the Under-Secretary of State recognised that the exemption of small firms from payment of levy, on account of the difficulties in dealing with them through industrial training boards, presented special problems regarding the provision of adequate training facilities in those small firms. As the noble Lord will recall, he promised to examine that question very carefully. I realise that this is a general point which I am raising, and that it is not confined to the engineering industry. But I wonder whether the noble Lord has anything to say as to any progress that may have been made in looking into that question. Subject only to that, we on these Benches are happy to approve the order.
7.42 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Viscount, Lord Long, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for their very kind remarks and for the welcome which they have given to this order. I should also like to thank them both for giving me advance notice of their questions. In the case of the noble Viscount, it was somewhat short notice, but I am glad to tell him that we have managed to get the information for which he asked. He asked for a general idea of the number of people using the scheme. The number of apprentices who started training in the engineering industry in 1975–76 was 25,200; in 1976–77 it was 24,500, and in 1977–78 it was approximately 25,000. Although the last figure is, of course, an estimate, it will give him some idea of the number of people using the scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, who very kindly gave me notice of his question, which is not strictly related to the levy order, raised the very important point of encouraging training in small firms. I shall not be too long in replying, but there are special problems and I feel that the matter deserves a fairly lengthy answer, although it is not too encouraging. There are special problems in encouraging training in small firms. Most of the industrial training boards have arrangements whereby small firms below a certain size are excluded from paying levy. They take the view that levy exemption systems do not usually suit small firms, which have very individual and intermittent training

113
needs, and that it would not be cost-effective for a number of board staff to be employed on the administration of the levy for a very large number of small firms.
This does not mean that the boards ignore small firms. Most consider that the best help they can give them is through their advisory services, through grants for key training activities and through the organisation of courses of management training. For example, the engineering industry training board makes available to small firms grants for off-the-job craft training, using partly its own funds and also funds from the Manpower Services Commission. It also organises management training courses for managers in small companies, and projects for individual firms where a training adviser goes into the company to advise on management training and development.
The present intention of the Manpower Services Commission is to review the working of the levy arrangements in 1979, when it has gathered sufficient experience of how the arrangements introduced by the Employment and Training Act 1973 are working. One of the matters that it will no doubt want to consider is the effect of the levy system on training in small firms. In the meantime, discussions are taking place between the Manpower Services Commission and individual training boards on the implementation of the Manpower Services Commission's "Training for Skills" programme. These discussions will be concentrating on the future needs and provision of skill training in industry, and this will inevitably cover the present arrangements in both large and small firms. I readily recognise, and am not surprised to find, that this will be a continuing subject for discussion in the not too distant future.
In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to Hugh Scanlon for the work that he has put in in leading the engineering industry training board. His work and experience have been extremely valuable and have been appreciated greatly by employers, in particular. Let us hope that his services may be available for some time to come. But I do not think that it would be out of place to pay tribute here, as indeed both Government and Opposition did in another place.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting suspended from 7.46 p.m. until 8.30 p.m.]

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.