Lords Sitting of 11 April 1978

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

EMPLOYMENT OF BOGUS DOCTOR
Lord CROOK: 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 can confirm the Press reports that an unqualified person posing as a doctor was involved in "quite major operations"at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, and was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital as an orthopaedic registrar; and whether they are satisfied that steps have now been taken to prevent similar occurrences in future.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I confirm that a man claiming to be a doctor was employed at Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton, as a locum orthopaedic registrar from 13th to 26th October 1977. While he was there he was involved, under close supervision, in no more than three operations to repair fractures. He was subsequently employed at Redhill General Hospital, again as a locum orthopaedic registrar, from 4th to 29th November 1977. The Government are satisfied that they have already taken, and that the two hospitals concerned are now following, steps which should help to prevent a similar occurrence in the future.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm whether in the cases of both these locum appointments this unqualified person was the sole applicant? Would not the most effective means of preventing these abuses be to make the posts more attractive so that a pool of applicants could be made available and some competitive element injected into these appointments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not aware that he was the sole applicant. I am aware that he was introduced to Roehampton hospital by a doctor on the staff of that hospital who believed him to be a doctor, and he was in fact allowed to carry on his work as a locum orthopaedic registrar. It was only when he did not produce the proper documents that the hospital was then able to deal with the matter.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he was better or worse at his work than the qualified doctors?
Lord CROOK: My Lords, can the Minister say what the facts are as to the re-employment of this man? He is reported as having taken part in operations at Queen Mary's where there were some irregularities—"and we began to smell a large rat". That being so, he was then taken on at the other hospital within three weeks, where he took part in operations, and was dismissed because of failure to put in a pin during an operation. His employment was justified, according to newspaper reports, by the fact that he had the right documents and answered the questions at the interview because he knew all the jargon.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I told your Lordships how he came to be introduced to the Roehampton hospital. His work as a surgeon was very closely supervised by the senior registrar who was present the whole of the time in the operating theatre; and this, of course, would minimise any risks to patients. When he was asked to produce the right documents which hospitals require, a certificate of registration together with proof of identity, he failed to do so, and when he was pressed again he said he had put them on the desk of the administrator and they must have been mislaid. This caused a search to be made. When he was told he must produce proof of identity and certificate of registration he left the hospital. He then went to Redhill, but at Redhill the senior doctor soon became concerned about the quality of his work and insisted that before he operated in future he must seek higher authority. He took exception to that and he left the hospital. I have been asked where he is now. Our information is that he is in

447
Canada. The General Medical Council of this country have notified the appropriate medical body there that this man is working under three different names.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, surely this man must have had some medical experience. Had he been a medical student and perhaps got as far as the fifth year, or something of that kind, or had he been a male nurse in the operating theatre? He could not possibly bring it off unless he had some medical experience, could he?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my information is that when he was interviewed he was able to give a very good and what appeared to be a plausible account of his experience in orthopaedic surgery in Australia.
Viscount DAVIDSON: My Lords, is it true that he has gone to Canada to become a tree surgeon?
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend explain to the House what steps have now been taken to prevent a recurrence of this abuse?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in January 1977 a document was sent round to all the Regional Health Authorities laying down the precise procedures which must be adopted before a person is taken on the medical staff of a hospital. I must say that these procedures were not followed in respect of Roehampton. A further letter has been sent round calling attention to the fact that if these procedures are adopted and hospitals do not use a doctor until he has produced a certificate of registration and been able to show that he is a member of one of the medical defence unions, and has been able to produce evidence of his identity, then this sort of thing should not occur in the future.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, has the noble Lord considered whether a criminal offence has been committed, and whether it is extraditable, and, if not, ought it not to be?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble and
448
learned Lord, but I shall obviously take this matter back to my right honourable friend because it is one that ought to be looked into.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, does the noble Lord know to which town this man has gone? Could it be Medicine Hat!

MAGISTRATES' COURTS: JURISDICTION
2.45 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 it is their intention to divert to the magistrates' courts some of the categories of crime which can at present lead to trial by jury; and if so which categories; and at what date they anticipate the changes will be made.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE: My Lords, when Part III of the Criminal Law Act 1977 is brought into force in the summer, certain offences which can at present be tried at the Crown Court will become triable only in the magistrates' courts; and some other offences formerly triable only on indictment will also become triable in the magistrates' courts if the accused and the court consent.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, but I should like to ask whether he is aware that the magistrates are quite agreeable to exercise duties in respect of suggested matters to be submitted to them. Is he aware that the necessary steps for adequate staffing would have to be taken—that is all that stands in the way at present—particularly in view of the fact that the Crown Courts are very heavily loaded and there is considerable delay in the trial of cases?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am very grateful for what my noble friend has said. As he rightly said, the Crown Courts are working at

449
present under very great pressure. As a result of this new procedure, about 6,000 cases a year will be transferred from the Crown Courts to the magistrates' courts. I very much welcome what my noble friend has said about the attitude of the magistrates.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has said, the magistrates' courts are very much overworked and also desperately understaffed. Until there are more clerks and perhaps bigger buildings, I do not think that there is any way in which the magistrates' courts, however willing, will be able to cope with the extra workload.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am well aware of the fact that magistrates' courts are working under very great pressure at present. I should not seek to deny that for a moment. On the other hand, I believe that the situation is as stated by my noble friend; namely, that the magistrates, notwith-standing all their very substantial difficulties at present, will, in fact, deal with the matter with their customary efficiency when the commencement order is made.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while I accept, of course, what has been said about the magistrates, may I ask whether the noble Lord will remember that there is a body of opinion which believes that nothing will really go right with the magistrates' courts until they are transferred to the Lord Chancellor's Department?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that raises a number of quite interesting questions which I should prefer not to deal with at the moment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, although I do not want to involve myself in the somewhat complicated and arguable matter that has been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, may I ask my noble friend to ensure—particularly in view of the heavy burden that has been placed upon the clerks and their staffs in the magistrates' courts—that he will supplement the numbers of those staffs as quickly as possible? Moreover, in view of the dedicated services which are
450
rendered by the magistrates and which they are anxious to continue to perform for the benefit of the country, will he see to it that the matter is dealt with as speedily as possible?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I have indicated, I am well aware of the point and I shall gladly, given the fact that it has been raised on both sides of the House, mention the matter to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any proposal to deprive people of their right to trial by jury, where their general reputation, character and integrity are at issue, will meet with fearsome widespread opposition?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Lord's question tends to take us back to some of the interesting debates that we had last year. I think that we all stated our position very clearly at that time.

ARMED FORCES' OVERSEAS ALLOWANCE
2.48 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: 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 the overseas allowance is cut off from families in Germany when their battalion is posted away for duty in Northern Ireland.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. If a soldier's family remains in Germany, he continues to receive what we term the family element of the allowance. This amounts to about 70 per cent. of the full allowance.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has consulted any lady accustomed to running a house about how much saving is to be made in having one less mouth to feed when all the overheads still must be met,

451
and whether, in fact, a competent man in the house does not, if anything, save overheads?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a matter that arises in the domestic experience of many of us. However, the point is that a decision must be reached as to what is done under these circumstances in view of the terms of the military salary. The decision that has been reached is that the Serviceman receives 70 per cent. of the allowance, he consuming apparently 30 per cent. of it.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, what happens to the men posted to Belize? What percentage do they get?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM:My Lords, that is another question, but I presume that they receive an overseas allowance because the cost of living in Belize must be different from the cost of living here.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any information about the percentage of the families left behind in Germany, when the unit goes to Northern Ireland, that have to resort to social security?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that. It must vary from month to month and from unit to unit. However, I will inquire into the matter and let the noble Lord know.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained the situation and why the 70 per cent. figure pertains. In view of the very real fear in this country about the pay of the Forces—and in particular about the pay of those in Northern Ireland—would the Government be prepared to review this matter?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, during Question Time, I could not commit the Government to such an action. But the noble Lord's standing in this area as a former Secretary of State must weigh heavily with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, I should like to make one point. The operational situation in Northern Ireland has been recognised by extending field conditions to all who serve there. That means that single personnel do not pay anything
452
for their food and accommodation, and married personnel who are accompanied by their families have their married-quarter charges reduced by the single accommodation charge—that is, reduced by 40p a day for ranks up to and including corporal; and areeither fed free by their units or receive 50p per day food allowance in lieu. In addition, Northern Ireland pay of 50p a day is given to all who serve over 14 days in that part of the world. So while the soldier in Northern Ireland may have his family element reduced by 30 per cent., he does receive free food and £1 a day in addition because of service in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, when an investigation is made, whether a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of families living in Germany in fact inflicts some kind of reduction in standards of living or some hardship?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I simply cannot answer a question like that. As I said, it must inflict more hardship on some individuals and units than on others, and on the date in question the state of the balance of currency and prices in the two countries must be taken into account. Unfortunately, one must have precision in this matter, and 70 per cent. remains with the soldier while he does a stint in Northern Ireland while his family remains in Germany.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, does not that answer give great weight to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the matter should be reviewed? It does not seem to us to be very satisfactory at all.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the House will know, the report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board has, in fact, been handed in and I hope that your Lordships will have an early view of it. This is part of the whole re-assessment of the remuneration of the Armed Forces.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that none of us wants to make a Party issue of this? Feeling has been addressed to the noble Lord from all parts of the House. Will he not remember that a General Election is coming, and he might be wise to pay attention to what we say?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that that is a stupid threat. Basically, the threat is not from the Conservative Party but from outside powers. What the Forces are paid must depend upon the actual need for the Armed Forces, which I am certain your Lordships' House agrees is paramount.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that the cost of the overseas allowance for troops in Germany, or the allowance paid to families who are on the strength of troops in Germany, is borne as a charge against the offset agreement which is recovered from the German Government? Therefore, is not the answer that the Minister has given rather a typical Civil Service answer?—because they are a little afraid that if they give away on this, they may be giving something away in Belize or elsewhere?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this particular factor must have been considered by the Review Board. I would hope that your Lordships will wait until we see the Government's reaction to the report of the Review Board. As I said, the report should be coming before your Lordships soon.

THE "AMOCO CADIZ"AND OIL SPILLS
2.54 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 part the Liberian merchant navy has played in the international struggle to save the Liberian supertanker "Amoco Cadiz"from complete destruction or in mitigating the damage threatened to French, Channel Islands and British coasts by the discharge of its cargo of oil.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, measures to assist stranded vessels and to deal with oil spills from them are primarily matters for the owners of the vessel and the coastal State. The flag State is not generally in a position to assist if the casualty occurs elsewhere.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that this small country, with a population of about 1·5 million and with a wonderful history, is listed in Lloyd's List as owning the largest merchant navy in the world? It has a great new port at Monrovia. Up to 1946 this merchant navy included 11 of these dubiously dirigible leviathans, with delightfully African names like "Esso Japan"and "Amoco Cadiz". The owners of the "Amoco Cadiz"are based in Chicago and the leviathan is unsuitable for navigation on Lake Michigan. The whole story of these ships is based on their rapid changes of name, their rapid changes of ownership and their leasing to charter parties. In view of the danger that has been caused to interests in the Channel, is the Minister satisfied that the whole system of flags of convenience ought to be internationally approved and allowed to continue?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, when a ship becomes a casualty off the coast of any country it is for that coastal State and not the flag State to provide the assistance or to intervene to protect its own interests. The salvage of the vessel is primarily a matter between the owner and the salvage company, but a coastal State has the right, under the 1969 International Convention, to give directions to those in charge of the stricken vessel or to take direct action itself in order to prevent or minimise any oil spillage or to mitigate its consequences. If it were one of our tankers in trouble off, say, the coast of Africa, we would not expect to wait for Her Majesty's Government to send salvage ships out there to deal with it; we would expect the coastal State affected to take the necessary action.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can the noble Baroness suggest anywhere in the world or any circumstances in the world in which this flag State would be likely to be of assistance to anyone, except itself?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Liberian Maritime Association is the registering agent for a great number of tankers and other vessels. My information is that it is now taking a strict line in providing that all these vessels arc sea-worthy and are staffed and manned by the right sort of crew. I think that it

455
comes ill from any other country to criticise what a recognised country and State is doing. We have our obligations as a registering nation and Lloyd's act on our behalf. As I have said, the Liberian Maritime Association is trying very hard and working very fast to put its house in order and to reach standards acceptable to countries all over the world.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in case there is any misunderstanding, is my noble friend aware that the Liberian Government do not own the largest number of merchant ships in the world; that such ships are simply registered in that country; and that many of them are actually owned by British owners and shipowners in various parts of the world? That is not the trouble. The trouble is that in Liberia they do not exercise effective control over the selection of crews, particularly the navigating officers. I have ventured to put this matter before the House previously; but unless we have efficient, qualified navigating officers, accidents are bound to happen.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend has said, but I can only repeat that the Liberian registering organisation is carrying out checks of its vessels and crew. I understand that so far as possible it is its ambition to check every vessel at least once a year, which is the sort of system which we like to apply ourselves. It is not perfect, but we are doing the best we can within the international conventions.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in thinking that if you are a British subject you cannot have a vessel registered under the Liberian flag? That was certainly the case when I had an interest in shipping. I am sure it is the law at the moment too.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, that is something I should have to check on, but I shall certainly do so and write to the noble Viscount.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whetherthe Law of the
456
Sea Conference now in session is considering the two matters which have been raised in this exchange: first, the responsibility for meeting the costs of these disasters; and secondly, the fact that a small nation can register so many merchant ships from so many territories?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords; I am afraid that I cannot give my noble friend an answer to that question, but again I shall check on it.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say how many of the tankers involved in incidents have been registered under flags of convenience?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness what offers of assistance by Her Majesty's Government were given to the French Government at the outset of the disaster? Furthermore, may I ask what reasons were given by the French Government for turning down the initial offers of assistance?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I am not competent to say what reasons were given by the French Government as to why they did not need our help earlier. It is a matter for the coastal State concerned to decide when and what kind of operation shall go on. The British Government made expert advice and help available to the French immediately we knew of the disaster, and before the clearing up operations were well under way we had a frigate and six tugs there which were helping to spray the water with chemicals to try to disperse the oil. We were available to provide help from the time the disaster happened, but as I tried to explain yesterday in answer to a Question, one cannot just make off-the-cuff decisions as to whether one is going to burn the oil off or what one is going to do. You have to look to see how much you can salvage, and it is for the coastal State to make such decisions.
Lord HALE: My Lords, does the noble Baroness think—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think we have had a good run on this Question.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I ask my noble friend—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART: I will have a word with my noble friend if the noble Lord wishes to ask something further of her. She will gladly answer any questions. I think we have had a good run.
Lord HALE: I just wish—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART:No; I think the noble Lord must accept what I have said.
Lord HALE: I think I am doing that. What I want to ask the noble Baroness—
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that we shall conclude now.
Lord: I do not know what the noble Lord said. I do not know whether anybody else does.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND OVERSEAS INVESTMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a pure consolidation Bill consolidating three Acts: namely, the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Act 1972, the Export Guarantee Act 1975, and the International Finance Trade and Aid Act 1977. It makes no alteration to the existing law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
458
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

OATHS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Like the Bill to which your Lordships have just given a Second Reading, this, too, is a pure consolidation Bill consolidating the Oaths Act 1838 and the Oaths Acts 1888 to 1977. These Acts also include provisions as to solemn affirmations. The Bill makes no change in existing law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SCOTLAND BILL
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I think it would be convenient if, before we start these Amendments, I ask for clarification about the state of the Marshalled List, because there are difficulties today about printing. I understand that no papers have been printed at all today. Most of us are in possession of what is called the Second Marshalled List of Amendments. So far as I know, that is the last one that has been printed and it was available yesterday. I understand that the only addition is described as a manuscript Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. That has in fact appeared as a separate annexe, although it is printed, and I would ask the Government whether they can confirm

459
that those two documents are the latest and represent the present position of the Marshalled List. Earlier today, it was rumoured that a third Marshalled List was coming out, but none of us has received a copy of that yet.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): I can confirm what the noble Lord has said. We do not know of any third Marshalled List, and we have copies of the manuscript Amendment.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Assembly]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 3, after first ("The") insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which is consequential on an Amendment made to Clause 1(1). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.17 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No.19:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("constituency").
The noble Lord said: This is the same as Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert:
"(4A) Fifty initial additional members of the Assembly shall be elected by the system of proportional voting set out in Part V of Schedule I to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent ordinary elections to cast a second vote, such votes being referred to in this Act as 'party votes'.
(4B) The number of additional members of the Assembly other than at the first ordinary election of members of the Assembly shall be half the number of constituency members at the ordinary election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number)."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment will take a little longer, but not very long. It is the first of the Amendments designed to give effect to the decision of your Lordships that the Members of the Assembly are to be elected by the system of proportional voting specified under this measure. This Amendment needs little explanation. I hope it is tolerably clear. The explanations will come on Amendment No. 33, which is rather more complicated.
The Amendment simply does two things. First, it provides that half as many additional Members as there are constituency Members—that is, initially 50—shall be elected under a system of proportional voting. Secondly, it provides that the system of proportional voting shall be that set out in Amendment No. 33. The basic feature of the system is that electors will be entitled to cast an additional vote for the Party over and above the vote, or votes, that they may cast for constituency candidates. The additional vote is called the Party vote. As I explained this on Second Reading, your Lordships may think it unnecessary for me to elaborate further now. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are indebted to the noble Lord for his further short explanation. I should say at this early stage that our attitude to this, as to other related Amendments, is that they are seen as consequential upon the Amendment which the Committee made following a vote, and accordingly they are regarded by the Government in that light.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH The Earl of PERTH moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert:
"(6) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the

461
first ordinary election of members of the Assembly review the system of voting prescribed by this Act and may by Bill amend that system.
(7) Notwithstanding section 17(3) below a Bill under subsection (6) above shall not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council until it has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble Earl said: As your Lordships will see, this is an all-Party Amendment. I believe it is one which introduces an important principle; namely, that the Assembly that we set up should be looked on as a responsible body which has the right to judge whether the way it is chosen is suitable for Scotland. That is the real purpose behind the Amendment, to which I am the first to speak.
I would observe that, so far as I am aware, in the original Bill there was no provision for any sort of change at any time. In other words, if the Bill had gone through in its original form what we had would stay for all time unless Westminster, at its goodwill and in its own time, decided otherwise. We know how often in those circumstances nothing is done at all.
In the Amendments which were originally moved by the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn, Lord Kilbrandon, Lord Banks and Lord Ritchie-Calder, there was, in Amendment No. 21, a third clause which would have allowed for change if it was thought suitable. But that change would only have been in relation to the added Member system, of which your Lordships approved by a large and important majority. It was felt by the movers of that Amendment that it would be better that this particular Amendment stood on its own because it introduces such an important principle and because under certain circumstances it could stand; and the Assembly would have the right to amend things even if the Amendment that has already been passed by your Lordships for the additional Member system was not accepted by the other House. That being the case it was felt in every way right that this Amendment should stand on its own.
Coming to the two clauses, Clause 6 is quite straightforward: namely, that after the first election the Assembly may review the system of voting and may amend that system by Bill. If, for example, they thought that even the additional Member system had a weakness—and I
462
remember that certain of your Lordships felt that—of two classes of Members of Parliament, it would be open for them to make a suggested change.
I very much hope that your Lordships, and the Government themselves, will accept this Amendment in view of the second clause that stands in this Bill and the fact that Amendments, if put forward by the Assembly, have to be approved by Resolution of each House. In other words, we are not by this Amendment just giving the Assembly authority to do what it wants without reference back. In the light of that, it is my hope that the Government will accept—or, if not, that the Committee will show its approval of—the Amendment in the form in which it now stands. I beg to move.
Lord TANLAW: I too hope that Her Majesty's Government will see that this Amendment cuts right across Party lines and really contains the spirit of this Bill. It was said on Second Reading that the motives of Her Majesty's Government were suspect in producing this Bill. I do not believe so. I believe that if this Bill contains the noble Earl's Amendment, to which I have put my name, it will prove to the outside world that the Government's intention is that of goodwill and belief in the future of the Scottish Assembly.
When one considers that the Assembly will be dealing with one-Chamber Government, one realises it will need to have the maximum representation. The whole idea is still experimental and there may well be needs for change which can only be applicable in Edinburgh while having no relevance down here in Westminster. I hope that the Government will also remember that there are three or four main Parties in Scotland which will be making up the Members of that Assembly. This Amendment will then give an opportunity for the Assembly to feel its way in its new form of administration. I trust therefore that the Government will take kindly to this Amendment, which was perhaps overlooked, or put right an oversight in the original Bill.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: As one of those who put their names to this Amendment, I feel there is nothing very much more that I can say as the subject has been very well covered. However, I think it is important to realise that the

463
Assembly will be a democratically elected body. I can see no earthly reason why they should not have the power to alter the form of representation if they so desire. There are very many good reasons for this. There is the possibility that another place might throw out our original Amendment for proportional representation—and that might not be popular in Scotland. It does give a chance of avoiding a general mix-up and bad feeling. I think that it could do no harm and nothing but good.
Lord HUGHES: Reference has been made by those who have already spoken to this Amendment to the Amendment on voting, to which the Committee agreed. I would remind your Lordships that that vote was a free vote of this House. But we must bear in mind, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, reminded us, that the other place rejected the system of proportional representation by a substantial vote, also on a free vote. I think, therefore, that it would perhaps be carrying optimism a little further than would be justified if we expected the other place, again on a free vote, to reverse the decision it has already taken. But it would not be unreasonable to express the hope and the wish that Her Majesty's Government would not oppose this Amendment, which, after all, still leaves the decision on the system of voting finally in the hands of this Parliament. I think it is reasonable that if, after the first election, the Assembly wishes to consider another system of voting, it should have the opportunity of putting that view before this Parliament. For these reasons, I do not think I need add any more to what has been said, but I hope that the Government will not compel a Division to be taken on this Amendment.
3.19 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: As my noble friends and I withdrew our Amendment in in favour of this Amendment perhaps I may be allowed to add a word or two to what has already been said. It is surprising that there is no specific provision in the Bill for a review of the electoral provisions, other than in Part II of Schedule 1. Assuming that it is desirable to have some provision for review of the Bill, we have to decide whether it should be the
464
Assembly or Parliament that should initiate a review of the system. Under the Amendment, Parliament will, of course, have the last word. So the question is: Who is to initiate the review? There can be no question of the Scottish Assembly simply amending the electoral provisions all on its own. Parliament would have to approve of that.
It may be said that if the outcome of the elections were such as to give one Party an absolute majority of votes over all other Parties having received a proportion of votes far short of an absolute majority, the last thing that Party would be willing to do in the Assembly would be to throw away its advantage, however unfair. That could happen only under the system that was originally in the Bill, the firstpast-the-post system. But surely public opinion in Scotland would react so strongly that that Party could not; to do so would bring into contempt the system, not only of elections but also of devolution itself.
The Westminster Parliament would be much less concerned to give time to the Scottish Assembly for an amending Bill. That is the point that must be remembered; it is very difficult to get time to do anything in the Westminster Parliament. There seems to be a very strong argument therefore in favour of allowing the Assembly to initiate the review and put up proposals through the usual provision of legislation to Parliament. It seems to me that the Government would be well advised to accept the Amendment, or at least, if they are not able to accept the principle or the drafting of the Amendment in detail, give it further consideration. I strongly support the Amendment.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: This Amendment is another example of what I would call a surface approach to a fundamental question because, while I do not necessarily oppose the Amendment, what are the consequences that might flow from it—indeed, which would flow from it? One can put it that strongly in the light of recent experience. If power is given to the Assembly to initiate a new voting system, whoever has the majority in the Assembly, they will initiate a system which they think will best suit them or that group. There is no argument about that and that may not be in the best interest of the United Kingdom as a whole.

465
If they do something wrong for selfish reasons, there is the safeguard, in the second part of the Amendment, of the Westminster Parliament being able to veto it; it must get Westminster's approval. However, the minute that were done we would have the cry, "The fascists in Westminster, the Whitehallites, are trying to tell Scotland what to do". We would be building in all the elements of this conflict—this dynamite, as 1 referred to it on Second Reading—and I suggest that we should be giving deeper thinking rather than just surface thinking to this whole question of who might initiate something. The things that could flow from this are of real consequence. That is not to say that I shall oppose the Amendment. I thought this was a good opportunity to underline once again the dangers inherent in the whole of the Bill as it stands. The whole thing should be taken away and looked at again.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I wish to underline what my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said. Assume for a moment that the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is allowed. Assume that another place does not overthrow or change our minds for us on the proportional representation clauses which we have already passed. Assume that, as in the case of Northern Ireland, one Party were to get a majority under the PR system. Then assume that that Party is the Scottish National Party. The Scottish Nationalists could say, "Let us ask Westminster to give us back our first-past-the-post system", because that would further increase their electoral advantage, which is exactly the point I believe Lord Harmar-Nicholls was intending to make.
Unless there were a major case of abuse being introduced into the voting system, I cannot see Parliament doing anything but agreeing to it, for the reasons advanced by Lord Harmar-Nicholls. What other chamber, discussion group or representative body—parish council, county council, district council, borough council or city council—has the right to change its voting arrangements? I cannot support the Amendment, for exactly the reasons Lord Harmar-Nicholls finds he can only just support it.
Lord BURTON: I support my noble friends Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord
466
Onslow and I would draw a parallel with what happened in South Africa; when the present Party got into power they immediately abolished the coloured vote and thereby assured their continuing return. I am not suggesting that the situation here would be as bad as that, but they could fiddle the proportional representation arrangements or various changes could be made which might secure their continuing return in subsequent elections. This is an extremely dangerous situation and, as has been said, it could cause further friction between the Parliament here and the Parliament in Edinburgh.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I cannot allow noble Lords to get off with accusing us of surface thinking. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that we in Scotland have been considering these matters for 20 years; they have only just realised that all this thinking has been going on. The logic of the matter is inescapable. The fact is that if Parliament were asked to endorse a system put in for selfish reasons, they would look at once at the total number of votes cast in Scotland and then Parliament would be able to see whether the measure would or would not he just and fair. Thus, the Amendment is entirely logical, and I urge noble Lords not to accuse other noble Lords of surface thinking when in fact we have been considering this issue for far longer than the noble Lords concerned have known the subject existed.
3.27 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that he is quite wrong to say that we in Scotland have been considering this matter for the past 20 years. We in Scotland have been considering the issue of devolution not for 20 years but since 1707. There was an occasion in the first decade following the Treaty of Union when a Motion was put before your Lordships' House demanding that the Treaty be revoked, and I think it was only narrowly defeated. Since then, we have been talking from time to time quite vociferously about devolution.
What your Lordships are concerned with today is not just the principle of devolution but the Scotland Bill which has been presented to Parliament. There is a

467
widespread feeling in Scotland—expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, despite what Lord Mackie said--that the Bill has inherently many dangers for the unity of the Kingdom and for the good government of Scotland. Relevant to this Amendment are only those matters to which Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Onslow referred, and in my view Lord Harmar-Nicholls was right to accuse some Scots of thinking too narrowly about it.
Of course, if one asks a Scotsman, "Are you for devolution?", he will always say, "Yes", and he has said, "Yes", ever since 1707. I can remember as a young man, in the 'twenties, when we almost elected a Scottish Nationalist to be the Lord Rector of Glasgow University. I was, for my own interest at that time, deeply disappointed that they preferred one of our former Prime Ministers, Stanley Baldwin, to Mr. R. B. Cunningham Graham, a descendent of Scottish Kings. The Amendment focuses on what many of the Amendments we have yet to discuss will focus; namely, that built into the Bill are many dangers for the unity of our Kingdom and for the good government of Scotland.
Viscount THURSO: Before the noble Lord sits down, he might like to know that the students at Glasgow University finally saw the light and elected my late father, the Liberal, Sir Archibald Sinclair.
Lord KILBRANDON: May I add one word to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, has said. When the Bill to set aside the Union was being debated in this House—I think it was in about the year 1712—the then Duke of Argyll made so offensive a speech about the Old Pretender that two bishops who were sitting in the House with proxies in their pockets left the Chamber. If they had remained and voted and operated their proxies, the Bill would have been carried. That is a minor matter, but to keep the historical side right perhaps I might mention it. I think it gives great offence in Scotland when it is suggested that thinking in Edinburgh is shallow and thinking in Westminster is wide. There is nothing in that at all, and I must say that I slightly resented the suggestion that, whereas the Assembly in Scotland in
468
deciding how its Members should be elected would be inflamed by unworthy Party political motives, such a thing could not possibly happen in Westminster. The utmost purity in these matters always prevails.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: May I say for the sake of the record that my recollection is that exactly that happened at Westminster, which is why I made the comments I made a minute or two ago. We have very clear evidence within the lifetime of most of us here how, when the present Prime Minister gerrymandered the electoral boundaries' decision after the Election, he thought to bring it in before the following Election would be to their disadvantage. It is precisely on that sort of evidence that I made the comments that I did. They are just about as sinful in Scotland, no more and no less, as we are in England.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: I am astonished at this debate. Is it not a fact that there has never been a Government in this country since the last war which commanded a majority of the electorate? Is it not a fact that the other House said that this is what will happen to the Scottish Assembly? But this House has said that it does not like the idea; it prefers a system of voting which may secure a better answer in proportional representation. But it fears—and 1 think it is a reasonable fear—that the other House may not accept the view of this House. Is there any better solution to that problem than to allow the Scottish people to decide—or at least to initiate—what they would like for themselves? Surely this is an opportunity that they are entitled to have.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I do not see why we are saying "Scottish people". This Amendment does not say, "the Scottish people". It says that the Party caucuses in the Assembly should have the power to do this. That seems to me a different thing altogether. It may not say it in the Amendment, but I am sure the noble Lord knows almost as well as I do that that is what would in fact happen.
Lord BROWN: I should like to support this Amendment and what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, said. The situation in the United Kingdom is rapidly developing

469
to a stage where a majority of the electorate wants proportional representation but the Parties in power do not want it. It is an absurd situation. One does not want to leave the Scottish Assembly in the position where, even if the Scottish people and the Scottish Assembly wanted to change the proportional representation, they would not be able to do so. It would be an absurd situation and I heartily support this Amendment.
Lord WIGG: I entirely agree that the Scottish people want to decide their own affairs and that they should have the right to do so. From the beginning, when I read the vast amount of papers, Bills and orders that have centred on this publicity, I got into my head that what is good for the Scottish people is also good for the English people. The idea—the informed principle—behind this Bill is an attempt to head off the more irrational, more extreme expressions of Scottish rights, particularly as they affect the Scottish people.
There is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and myself in hoping that the unity of the United Kingdom is going to be preserved, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, thought it was a bad Bill. The noble Lord also, although supporting proportional representation, hopes that the unity of the United Kingdom will not be affected. But surely this Amendment, if put into practice, will affect that unity. For example, it does not seem to be a very startling assumption that the Scottish Nationalists will get considerable representation in the Assembly—perhaps sufficient, with their allies, to voice the views expressed by the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches—and the Assembly, having gathered together, may say, "Right, we have tasted blood; let us have a bit more of it and we will now put forward a proposal for having a system of election which suits us.". So the very tensions that those who support the Bill have been seeking to avoid will at once come on to the stage with brass band and all, because it is more than likely that the demands that will be made will not have been modified by victory; they will have been accentuated, and demands will be put forward to give the Scottish people more rights; and that can surely only be at the expense of the English electorate.
470
My views about this are precisely the same as my views about the Common Market. I am not in principle opposed to the Common Market in what it set out to do, or in principle against the Scottish people having the right to run their own show, but I believe that the methods by which this is being secured, as indeed those by which the Common Market was secured, have glossed over the difficulties and that the day will come as surely as night follows day when the British people—and the English people particularly—will wake up to the fact that they have been sold a gold brick—but that it is not gold at all but made of some very inferior metal. This trouble is going to happen. Spokesmen for the Conservative Party speaking from the Front Bench on the debate as to whether there should be a Speaker's Conference made just that point. The day will come when the English people will find that something essential to them has been thwarted by Scottish voters. Then the demand, regardless of the consequences, for their right to have their say will, I think, find the jack out of the box with a vengeance.
To my mind, this Amendment reeks of liberalism in the worst sense of the word—or perhaps, if you like, the best sense of the word. Their bleeding hearts have run away with their bloody heads. They have not thought the thing through. It sounds all very reasonable that an Assembly, having gathered together, may decide, "Well, perhaps we can do it better in a more acceptable way if it wears a kilt". All right, kilt, bagpipes and all, they will start out to do it. Then it will come back to both Houses and it is not likely that the fears which have been expressed, particularly in another place, will be quenched by the way in which the battle is going to be fought in Scotland. It is not going to be fought in a particularly reasonable way. It really is going to be bagpipes, kilt and all and, "Let us reverse the anniversary of Culloden!", which occurs in five days' time, which settled things for quite a while. We shall have this with a vengeance.
I was particularly struck with the point made by Mr. Tam Dalyell—not exactly a supporter of the Bill. He recounted that the previous weekend he had a really rough ride at a club in West Lothian—I think it was the British Leyland Club.

471
Eighty people were there and they howled him down. They were all jacked up in their SNP trimmings. What was the row about? Why did he get howled down? Not on the issue of his opposition to the Scotland Bill, but because of his vote on the question of salmon fishing in one of the local rivers. That is what they were after in force and that is the thing that matters!
Noble Lords will watch the results of the by-election in Scotland this week. It will be a great victory for the SNP or it will be a great defeat for the SNP! Stuff and nonsense! That by-election will be fought not on Home Rule for Scotland, but on the fact that there is 20 per cent. unemployment in that constituency. That is the kind of issue involved. That is the stuff of which democracy is made, not hypothetical situations of this kind which have conflict built into them. I should have thought that there were enough matters in this Island at the moment on which we could quarrel, without finding another. So far as I am concerned, assuming that somebody else will put in a Teller, I shall unquestionably vote against the Amendment.
3.40 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: Strange as it may seem, the strongest argument yet adduced in the course of the debate for the Amendment has been developed by my noble friend Lord Wigg, because he apprehends that if the Assembly, when in existence, decides to amend the form of election, and decides on proportional representation, the example will be followed by England. I am very glad to hear it, because that is precisely what I want. After all, what is it about? The Scottish Assembly, when all the procedural elements involved in this measure have been gone through, and when it is operating, may decide in the circumstances, and because Scottish people prefer it—after all, they have to be considered in this matter—to amend the method of election, and decide on a form of proportional representation. Let it be understood that the decision will not rest entirely with them. It has to come back to Westminster. That is the form of the Amendment, and presumably Westminster will decide one way or the other. If they have any commonsense, they will take into
472
consideration the opinion of the Scottish people.
Judging by the opinions expressed in the course of the debate, there seems to be some fear that if we decide to accept the Amendment our friends along the corridor may be disturbed. I think that it was my noble friend Lord Hughes who said (following the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, in a previous debate) that we must not disturb the other side unduly; that it is not proper; that it is not the kind of thing expected of us. Well, it does not worry me in the least—not in the least. For, after all, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, so succinctly said in putting the whole case, the Scottish people should decide.
To listen to some of the expressions of opinion, one would imagine that the Scottish people are not in this at all; that it is a matter for Westminster, a matter for us, and that the Scottish people are not interested. That is not as much as the noble Lord on the Cross-Benches said when be talked about devolution being a subject which has been constantly under discussion in Scotland. I must say that in the long period of years I resided in that country, after having it mentioned in my Election address in 1918 (as I believe I have told the House before) I heard very little about it afterwards. We are discussing the matter now.
It was obvious from the previous debate that, regardless of whether we are a little confused about the form of devolution, generally speaking we agree about the principle of devolution; in other words, some form of autonomy for the Scottish people. As to the form, that is a matter for consideration, but we generally agree about the principle. The Scottish people agree about that. If the English people do not accept that, there must be a reason for it. Are they afraid that they may have more autonomy, or less autonomy? I cannot understand that argument at all.
My suggestion is that we should accept the Amendment. If there is a little trouble with the people along the corridor, we will do our best to overcome it, and if in the long run we are defeated, we will accept it with our customary fortitude, albeit with a few additional swear words. But do not let us be worried about them

473
very much. What I am worried about is what my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is going to say. Is he going to be overwhelmed by the logic of the arguments that have been adduced? Or will he tell us that we must not have trouble with the other place; that the Government have given this the fullest consideration, and it has been constantly under review, as well as a few more political and Parliamentary clichés, which I could quote almost by the thousand from long experience? After all, he represents Scotland in this assembly, as well as representing the Government, and I think that he ought to get up and say that, having listened to all the arguments, he has come to the logical conclusion that at any rate he will ask his right honourable friends to give the matter the fullest consideration, and will not ask us to enter the Lobbies and vote against the Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: In regard to this Amendment, I believe that there is a great danger of acrimony between Scotland and England. On Second Reading we heard that there is great danger of acrimony over the Bill, and I would find support for the Amendment if subsection (7) were omitted. If there is to be a Scottish Assembly, and if it wants to change its system of voting, it should be allowed to do so. If it chooses a certain system and then, as some other noble Lord said, Westminster says, "No, you cannot have that", there is bound to be great acrimony between the two countries. While it may be impossible to avoid acrimony between Scotland and England in the Bill, it is very important to try to do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said something about Glasgow. I cannot remember what it was exactly. I think it was about Glasgow University. But I am told that in Glasgow two-thirds of the Scottish National Party are Irish.
The Marquess of LINLITHGOW: I should like to put the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, right, if I may. He said that nobody is opposed to devolution, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that I am opposed to devolution in Scotland. I am not at all opposed to decentralisation, which is a very different matter. I have noticed that on a number of occasions we are all inclined, myself
474
included, to mix up the two. Decentralisation I do not mind, but the moment there is a devolution suggestion, one is up against the very problem which we now find in the Amendment. It goes all the way through the Bill.
In my view there is nothing particularly wrong in allowing the Scots to make up their own minds, once they have their Assembly—if they do—how they wish to elect each other. That does not really worry me. But there are dangers to it, so immediately we have to put in another clause to safeguard the so-called sovereignty of Westminster. This happens time and time again in a Bill where the sovereignty of Westminster is being challenged by the Bill itself. Every time something is suggested which is supposed to safeguard the sovereignty of Westminster one immediately looks at it and says, "That is going to cause violent trouble between the two countries", and, far from helping the two countries to stick together, it is almost guaranteed to make it more difficult for them to do so.
It is in the nature of the Bill that subsection (7) has to be included. Therefore, although I am not against the first part of the Amendment, I would for this very reason be against the second part. I am against it because I am against devolution, and I am against devolution because I do not believe it is going to hold the two Kingdoms together.
Lord WIGG: I should like to put one thing right. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, did not talk about devolution or decentralisation. He went much further than that. He said that we were all in favour of autonomy. I am certainly not in favour of autonomy, and I do not believe he would say he was in favour of autonomy when he had thought about it. Lord Shinwell makes brilliant speeches off-the-cuff, but sometimes they are a little superficial. On this occasion he was more superficial than usual.
4.1 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: We are well accustomed to my noble friend Lord Shinwell giving us a personal account of past history, but today he has shown us a surprising acumen for predicting the future. He has said so much of what I am likely to say that I am indeed overwhelmed.

475
May I make a preliminary point? I am certainly overwhelmed by one thing which I should like to mention and pay tribute to. We have listened to 17 speeches in the course of 47 minutes. Some people predicted that your Lordships might seek to delay the Bill, and I should like publicly to acknowledge that this Committee has not sought to bring about any delay at all, either last week or today.
Turning to the merits of this particular matter, the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, specifically used the word "oversight". He wondered whether the absence of this provision from the Bill was perhaps an oversight. That is not so. May I begin by referring to the Kilbrandon Report? I have a copy of the relevant passage with me so that I will not misquote it. The Kilbrandon Report, in paragraph 1140, envisaged an Assembly as being a single-Chamber body of about 100 Members directly elected for a fixed term of four years by the single transferable vote system of proportional representation; and it went on to say that consideration might be given to the exceptional use of the alternative vote system in single-Member constituencies. Then it then went on to say:
"All matters relating to the franchise and elections to the assembly (but not elections to local authorities in Scotland and Wales) would be reserved to Parliament".
So that was the considered judgment of that distinguished body under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. The Government agree with that view. The view of the Government is that the responsibility for the maintenance of, and possible changes to, the essential democratic, representational framework of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements should be exclusively reserved to Parliament, which should remain the sole custodian of constitutional matters; and that is seen by the Government as a point of firm principle.
It does not follow from this that identical systems for elections and franchises need to be maintained for different representative institutions. Indeed, this is not at present the case. For example, Peers can vote in local government elections and it is proposed that they may do so in Assembly elections. The principle is that Parliament alone, representative as it is of the United Kingdom's
476
interests as a whole, should have the responsibility for determining what those systems should be. It will be Parliament that proposes the devolution settlement to the people in Scotland, including the form that devolution is to take, the powers to be devolved and the protections to be afforded, and only Parliament, in the Government's view, will be able to contemplate the modification of that settlement. The electoral arrangements to be adopted at the outset or in the future will he central to the working of devolution in practice, and responsibility for them must remain at Westminster.
Several noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hughes, pointed, of course, to the second part of this Amendment, the provision proposed in subsection (7); but in the Government's view the principles involved here are not met by that provision. It is true, and I acknowledge, that it would allow Parliament to reject proposals that the Assembly had reached for changes in voting arrangements or the franchise, and that such proposed changes could not be put into effect without the approval of Parliament. But, acknowledging that, Parliament would be in the position of having to approve or reject an Assembly Bill without further modification. That Bill would undoubtedly be one which had been under consideration and scrutiny within the Assembly for some considerable time; and I would agree with those who have said that that would be a recipe for conflict between the Assembly, on the one hand, and Parliament, on the other.
Perhaps I might add that I have been in your Lordships' House for only a fairly short time, but on many occasions I have listened to the compelling argument that your Lordships' House, and Parliament generally, does not like having to consider an order or a matter of that kind which comes forward on a "take it or leave it"basis; it likes to examine these matters and make such changes as it can. The Amendment which is before us today is of a kind which would enable Parliament either to say "Yes"to the proposed Bill or to say "No"; it could not make any modification, and accordingly, in our view, that is unsatisfactory. Perhaps I may also point out that the Amendment does not provide for any sort of test or criterion which Parliament might apply in its consideration of

477
such a Bill, and in this respect, therefore, is very different indeed from what the Bill provides for the protection of reserved matters in Clause 35.
Other noble Lords have drawn attention to the fact that the Scots arc entitled to have a view on this; or, rather, that the people in Scotland are, because in the context of this Bill I do not like to use the terms "the Scots"or "the Scottish people", because the Bill applies to those who inhabit Scotland. If there developed a strong feeling in Scotland that the electoral arrangements for the Assembly should be changed, and if those views were sufficiently reflected in the Assembly itself, surely it is reasonable to believe that these views would come to have a very considerable influence at Westminster. They certainly could not be ignored for very long; and to this extent an elected Assembly which truly represented the Scottish people would indeed have influence in seeking such changes, the changes to be made at Westminster.
A further point which was made in the debate and which I should like to pick up is that changes in constitutional practice and constitutional matters are always likely to prove difficult and contentious. This is certainly the experience of this Parliament, and there could be other issues in the future which would illustrate the same point. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, suggested, it is an inevitable feature of debates on such matters that allegations are made that the proposers of any particular change are seeking that change for some political advantage or for the promotion of some political interest, and such suggestions would inevitably arise on the consideration in the Assembly of changes in electoral arrangements. As the Government see it, as its first task this Assembly will have the job of demonstrating the contribution it can make to the better government of Scotland. It will inevitably take some time to adopt its role and develop its own character. Is it not better to relieve it of the possibility of that kind of acrimony on as fundamental a question as this—this question of electoral arrangements? It would be unfortunate indeed if, instead of getting on with its real tasks, legislative and administrative, within the devolved areas, the Assembly were to spend all
478
its time studying its own constitution. That, as I see it, would be the public equivalent of hypochondria. For these reasons, the Government ask the Committee not to approve this Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I would start by thanking the noble and learned Lord for his gracious acknowledgement of the brevity of the speeches which have been made in this debate. As he said, following the debate today and the proceedings on Tuesday of last week, no one can accuse your Lordships of wasting time on this Bill, but it was good of him to point it out from that Bench.
As the sponsors of this Amendment have explained, their intention is to give the new body (we call it the Assembly for the moment, at any rate) an opportunity to review, after the initial election, the system for elections; and the second subsection, numbered (7), ensures that Parliament at Westminster would still have to give its approval. But it has been pointed out that that approval has to be complete, and the only alternative is rejection of the system. There is a disadvantage in that, because a great deal of work would have gone into preparing the system and yet it would just get thrown out if either House disliked it. I think it would perhaps be better to approach it another way—this is my personal view—so that that situation would be avoided. But the pros and cons in regard to this Amendment have been briefly and ably presented in the speeches.
I differ from the noble and learned Lord in giving this new Assembly the credit for more responsibility than that, in its first months, it should spend a great deal of time on this subject. I would say this: As the Amendment is at present drafted, it says that at any time after the initial election this matter of the review of the electoral system can take place.
There is an argument that it would be a good thing to allow the Assembly to settle down with the new system for an election or two—whatever that system is, whatever is the first system. be it firstpast-the-post or some form of proportional representation—before starting to consider a change. That is a reasonable argument; but I would not put it in the way that the noble and learned Lord put

479
it because I think that he regarded the Members of the Assembly as being somewhat irresponsible if they were going to give up a great deal of time to that consideration instead of all the other matters they would have to deal with when starting their deliberations.
There was considerable support in this House last week for the set of Amendments introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn; and I, myself, supported those Amendments. I must confess that I am not as enamoured of the Amendment before us today. I will not elaborate on the reasons which have been given in the debate; and 1 mentioned a consideration or two myself. But I want to say from this Bench that we do not seek to guide noble Lords in how they may wish to vote on this Amendment. We regard this as a matter for individual Peers to decide as they think best.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I hesitated in getting up at all. I saw my noble friend Lord Perth rising and possibly committing himself to a Division. I do not know what his intention is; but I think that there is a good deal in the argument that the Assembly should have a chance to settle down before it starts talking about a revision of its voting arrangements. I was rather struck by the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to this Amendment when he said that it would have to be on a "take it or leave it"basis. If my noble friend felt inclined and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, should show some sympathy, I was wondering whether it might not be better to postpone a vote on this Amendment until the Report stage, so that more thought could be given to the exact form in which to try to achieve the object that my noble friend Lord Perth has in mind.
The Earl of PERTH: We have had a wide-ranging debate. Those who support this Amendment have been called shallow thinkers, have been accused of reeking of liberalism—which is not a bad thing, perhaps—and so forth. We have also been referred to by others as being the equivalent of local authorities or even compared with the Government of South Africa. Never mind. That is all part of
480
the wide-ranging debate. It has also been pointed out that this Amendment may, in two respects, be weak or faulty. The point that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and mentioned by my noble friend Lord Home, was that at the present time we say,
…at any time after the first … election".
There was a particular purpose in that; it was that, if the House of Commons decided not to accept the additional Member system (which we have already approved) and therefore the first Assembly was chosen under the Westminster firstpast-the-post system, there would be no opportunity to change. It was for that reason that we put in the words:
"at any time".
On the other point—the all-or-nothing situation—it is difficult. I think it is something that we certainly should consider. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that the Amendment be voted upon as it stands and that, at the Report stage, we see whether we can change it taking into account those two points. I suggest that for this good reason: We have heard the noble and learned Lord say quite categorically that this was a matter of principle, that the right to decide how the Assembly should be chosen was a matter—and I am sure he used these words—exclusively for Westminster. I, on the other hand, believe it is right for the Assembly to consider whether they would like to make a change in the way they are chosen and, if they so decide, they should put this before the Westminster Parliament. I would accept that, if this Amendment is carried by the Committee, at Report stage we should see whether we could not find a way of ensuring that Westminster had not got to take it hook, line and sinker, or nothing at all.
I hope that your Lordships will feel with me that this matter of principle is so complete and absolute, that the lines are so clearly drawn, that unless the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment, we should go to a Division.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No.24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Fortescue, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Ailsa, M.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Airedale, L.

Gainford, L.

Northchurch, B.

Alexander of Potterhill, L.

Garner, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Allerton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amherst, E.

Glendevon, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Platt, L.

Arran, E.

Gray, L.

Porritt, L.

Auckland, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Avebury, L.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Avon, E.

Hampton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Balerno, L.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ballantrae, L.

Hertford, M.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Banks, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boothby, L.

Hood, V.

Saint Brides, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Davids, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hughes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brown, L.

Hunt, L.

St. Just, L.

Byers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Seear, B.

Caccia, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chitnis, L.

Inglewood, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clancarty, E.

Keith of Kinkel, L.

Sligo, M.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kilbrandon, L.

Slim, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Croft, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Tanlaw, L. [Teller.]

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Thurlow, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinross, L.

Thurso, V.

De Freyne, L.

Kintore, E.

Tranmire, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Dundee, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Vernon, L.

Eccles, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lovat, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Westbury, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wigoder, L.

Energlyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Winstanley, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Marley, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Faithfull, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fulton, L.

Maelor, L.

Balogh, L.

Gage, V.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Birk, B.

Gardiner, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Merrivale, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenway, L.

Middleton, L.

Burton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Monck, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Haig, E.

Monson, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hale, L.

Morris, L.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hampden, V.

Northesk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Northfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Hawke, L.

Onslow, E.

Cudlipp, L.

Henderson, L.

Oram, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Hives, L.

Parry, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Digby, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Robbins, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Rochdale, V.

Dowding, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Luke, L.

Shackleton, L.

Elles, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shepherd, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Soper, L.

Ferrers. E.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Spens, L.

482

483

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Tweeddale, M.

Wigg, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wall, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wells-Pestell. L.

Wise, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

White, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Torphichen, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.17 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
(6) No election to a Scottish Assembly shall be held until the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies in Scotland have been revised so that the electorate of the average Scottish parliamentary constituency immediately after such revision is no smaller than the electorate of the average English parliamentary constituency."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is threefold: to ensure justice for the people of England who, let us not forget, comprise the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the United Kingdom; and, following on from this, to prevent the United Kingdom from being torn apart, whether this occurs in the short, medium or long term, by suspicion, resentment and jealousy. Thirdly—and on a slightly anti-climatic note—it is to enable the Scottish Assembly, if and when it comes into being, to start its life off on the right foot, that is, with the maximum possible goodwill from the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
I need hardly say that this Amendment is in no sense anti-Scottish. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would hardly have added his name to the Amendment if that were the case. Moreover, a considerable number of honourable Members in another place representing Scottish constituencies either tabled or spoke to Amendments with similar broad objectives. It is common knowledge among Parliamentarians and other politically aware people that Scotland has for many years been substantially over-represented at Westminster. However, it is not common knowledge so far as the Englishman in the street is concerned. This is a matter of considerable potential political significance. Various reasons (or excuses, depending on how one looks at it) are trotted out in an attempt to justify this state of affairs. Very few of these will stand up to objective examination, as I
484
hope to demonstrate in a moment. But so long as the status quo continues, so long as there remains one sovereign Parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, Scottish over-representation can to some extent be overlooked, or at any rate grudgingly accepted.
However, should the Bill before us become law, then radically different considerations will apply, We will then be faced with the prospect—indeed, the certainty—of Scottish MPs exerting a powerful and often decisive influence upon such contentious matters affecting England alone as family planning; abortion; adoption; housing; rent rebates; caravan siting; rating valuations; rate support grants; new towns, and whether and where they come into existence; the control of pollution, an important issue; aerodromes and transport generally; forestry; ancient monuments and historic buildings; public holidays; betting; gaming and lotteries; liquor licensing, shop opening hours; legal aid; sexual offences; criminal penalties; compensation out of public funds for victims of crime; and so on and so forth.
Against this, the Englishman will have no voice whatsoever in such matters, in so far as they affect Scotland alone. I suggest that the people of England are going to find that intolerable. A Scottish Nationalist Member in another place thought this to be of little consequence. On 31st January last (at column 397 of the Commons Hansard) he declared:
"The people of England have no say in this matter. It is up to the people of Scotland and not to the House of Commons or the people in England."
With all respect to the honourable Member, I disagree. It is a matter for Parliament and for the people of England, and I am sure that the Committee will support me in this contention.
Let us look for a moment at the justifications hitherto advanced in favour of Scottish over-representation at Westminster. They number no more than

485
three. The first is the cultural homogeneity of small self-contained geographical units such as the Orkneys and Shetlands. Second is the distance from London, the seat of Government, and the allegedly prosperous South-East. The idea that the South-East is markedly more prosperous than other parts of the United Kingdom is somewhat illusory nowadays. Third is the low population density of certain constituencies whch makes it difficult for MPs to visit all their constituents.
However, it is impossible to deny that many English and Northern Irish constituencies also suffer from these disadvantages and yet are not more favourably treated in consequence. Strive as one can to see the other point of view, on close examination it appears that there are only five Scottish constituencies where a certain degree of over-representation is perhaps valid and justifiable: the Orkneys and Shetlands, the Western Isles, Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, Caithness and Sutherland. As for the others, they are comparable in most respects with "disadvantaged"—and that is a word that I do not particularly like—English constituencies of similar character; for example, Birmingham, which is represented by 12 Members of Parliament. Accordingly, one might expect that Glasgow, with only five-sixths of the population of Birmingham would be represented by no more than 10 Members; yet in fact Glasgow sends no fewer than 13 MPs to Westminster! Birmingham has all the same problems of inner city deprivation as Glasgow: what earthly excuse is there for Glasgow being over-represented to the tune of 30 per cent. as compared with Birmingham? It is hard enough to justify that today and it will be impossible to justify if devolution becomes a reality, so that 13 MPs from Glasgow are able to cast perhaps decisive votes on matters intimately affecting the people of Birmingham, from education and housing down to licensing laws and shop-opening hours, without the MPs representing Birmingham having any say whatsoever on comparable matters affecting Glasgow.
Nor is this an isolated instance. The electorate of Leeds is slightly larger than the population of Edinburgh: yet Leeds has six MPs to Edinburgh's seven. The mining constituencies of Lanarkshire
486
are over-represented compared to the mining constituencies of the North-East of England. The electorate of Galloway is only 60 per cent. of the electorate of Hexham, a similar agricultural constituency, not contiguous but fairly close to Galloway across the Border. I think these comparisons demonstrate that the excessively favourable treatment of Scotland is not, with the very few aforementioned exceptions in the remoter Highland regions, justified in any way even under present conditions—and how much more so will that be the case if the Assembly comes into being?
It is gratifying to note that the official Liberal view on this matter is, if anything, even more forceful than my own. A Front Bench Liberal spokesman in another place declared at column 319 of the Official Report of 31st January:
"The Liberal view throughout has been that there should be a common United Kingdom general electoral quota. … the disparity between … Scotland, … England and … Northern Ireland cannot he defended… . The problem has nothing to do with devolution… It is a matter which deserves rectification in its own right.".
It was doubtless because the Conservative Amendment then being debated in the other place was somewhat halfhearted and inprecise that the Liberals felt unable to support it in the Division Lobby. I believe that this Amendment conforms rather more closely to Liberal principles, and therefore I do not doubt that they will give it their full support.
A consequential effect of this Amendment, if it is carried, will be to reduce the number of Assembly seats from 150 to about 120—or at any rate that would have been the case had not the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, been carried. These Amendments have rather thrown my earlier calculations into the melting pot and I am not certain what the precise effects would be. I do not want to reiterate in detail the arguments for reducing the proposed size of the Assembly but I must point out to your Lordships that 150 seats would make the Assembly proportionately as large as, if not slightly larger than, the New Zealand House of Representatives, the uni-cameral legislative chamber for a completely independent self-governing country. Is there not a danger that, if Scotland has an Assembly of the size appropriate to an independent

487
self-governing country, pressure will inexorably grow to adapt Scotland's institutions accordingly, thereby leading in the long run to total independence? Surely the Province of Ontario is a much more apt unit for Scotland to model itself on, and not merely because of the large number of Scots who populate Ontario in general and the city of Toronto in particular. On that basis, the Assembly would have 100 seats or fewer.
However, this Amendment is deliberately drafted to leave open a number of options. For example, if it is carried, there is no reason why, at a later stage, other Amendments should not be moved which would have the effect of restoring the number of seats in the Assembly to 150, if that is what your Lordships wished. The Amendment does not seek to lay down exactly how Scottish representation at Westminster is to be reduced—whether it is to be by means of a Speaker's Conference or by straightforward legislation. Nor does it lay down whether Scotland should have parity with England, or with Northern Ireland on a Stormont analogy, although 1 would not personally wish to go quite as far as that. It is also compatible with either the acceptance or rejection, as your Lordships may decide, of Amendment No. 210, which bears the names of noble Lords on both sides of this Chamber. The important point is that it paves the way for something vital and necessary which must be done to rectify what is increasingly seen as a glaring injustice. That is, after all, what we are here for. I beg to move.
4.28 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: It is absolutely right for the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to emphasise that this Amendment is sponsored from all parts of the Chamber, which prevents it from being dubbed as having any Party political motive behind it. The noble Lord himself sits on the Cross-Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, who has a similar Amendment following on, has given a clear indication of his view. Before the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, produces a bit of history that I have not heard about, I would have to say that on 16th November 1977, at column 620 of the Official Report in another place, Mr. Steel, the Leader of the Liberal Party, said:
488
"I would accept the Kilbrandon proposal of reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to the correct number proportionately."
So all parts of the Chamber accept the justice of the levelling down or levelling up that this Amendment would bring with it. For my part, from these Benches, I think I made my position quite clear on Second Reading. On matters of constitutional change, I believe that merit, fairness and logic should be given priority over mere political expediency.
It may be convenient for the Government to ignore the clearly accepted fact that, compared with England, Scotland is over-represented at Westminster, because they think that the existing situation is worth a few votes in the Lobby on certain occasions. But the unfairness is such that it is likely to provoke repercussions which will shatter the hopes that anybody may have that this devolution policy will be accepted and will work amicably in the future. I believe that this underlying sense of unfairness will make it almost impossible for this policy to work in the kind of spirit that is desirable.
One can only repeat the facts for the argument itself to be almost unanswerable. The average size of an English constituency is 66,000 yet in Scotland there are now 11 constituencies with fewer than 40,000 voters. A reduction of these 11 seats is the minimum that we should accept; certainly the minimum that I should accept, in order to feel that the true interests of the Westminster Parliament are being looked at. Reducing the number of Scottish seats from 71 to 60 will still be a generous recognition of the size of the constituencies in Scotland and the extra acres that they cover. A figure of 66 in England and 40 in Scotland would give ample room for acreage to be taken into account.
But it is not only in Parliament that there is some unanimity on this matter. H' we look at the report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution, we find that they say:
"Scotland is at present represented in Parliament by 71 Members, and this number would be reduced to 57 if Scotland's total representation in proportion to population were to be the same as that of England."
Then they go on:
"In the case of Scotland, for example, should it remain at 71, be reduced to 57 or, following the

489
example of Northern Ireland, be reduced even further? "
They go on to say later in their report:
"On the other hand, it is possible to argue for the removal of the over-representation of Scotland and Wales on the grounds that it would both be undemocratic and constitute a grave injustice to the people of England."
Those are very clear expressions of view, from an impartial and objective Commission which has taken evidence and looked into the matter in depth, in the real meaning of that term. They go on:
…the amount of this reduction would be a matter for discussion in the light of the extent of devolution, and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules ".
It is because I accept that view of the Commission that I suggest to my noble friends that it may be a good thing to debate this Amendment and to put our views on the record, but not to vote on it, making it perfectly clear that, when we get to the Report stage, we hope that the strength of the arguments that we have presented, plus the evidence which we have produced from our side, will have put the Government in a position where they see the justice of our case and will give some guidance on how this matter, which is generally accepted, should he dealt with, in order that this policy can work without any unnecessary friction.
I have quoted the Liberal Party, through the mouth of their leader; one is expressing one's own view from these Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has given his view from the Cross-Benches. Here 1 have a pamphlet issued by the Labour Group which calls itself the "Vote No"Campaign. It is useful to have on the record what this important section of the Labour Party thinks about this subject. This is what they say in their pamphlet:
""W ' is for the so-called West Lothian Question, whereby under the Scotland Act, 71 Scottish Members of Parliament will be able not only to talk but to vote money on the gut issues of politics, and socialist priorities, in relation to West Bromwich or West Ham, but not West Lothian. How long can such a situation possibly endure? (Not least since the average Scottish Constituency consists of 53,000 electors and the average English constituency of 65,000 electors). The fact is that the day there is a United Kingdom Government of one political colour, and an English majority of another, the ' settlement between Scotland and England' created by the Scotland Act will simply crumble. It is one thing having a Labour Government and an English Conservative majority at present, when the United Kingdom Parliament is responsible for the whole of Britain. It is an entirely different
490
matter having an over-representation for Scotland deciding the most controversial matters of English domestic politics—matters for which the Scots MPs have no responsibility in their own constituencies. Such a position is neither logical nor lasting. The reason that the Government have not answered the West Lothian Question is that there is no answer to give. It was one of the rocks on which the Scotland and Wales Bill perished in February, 1977, and it is still there ".
This is not extravagant language. This is a very real risk which will undermine good government in both Scotland and England, and indeed in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I suppose that one of the reasons why one has been given the honour of joining your Lordships' House is that one is sometimes able to bring evidence as to what has happened in the past. I remember vividly the period between 1964 and 1966, when the then Labour Government had a very narrow majority indeed. The then Prime Minister used extreme language against the 12 Unionist votes that came from Northern Ireland. He used to argue that they ought not to be allowed to vote on nationalisation and matters of that kind which affected this country. I quote that from my own recollection, merely to show that these are not just negative, destructive arguments that one produces when one tries to point out, from time to time, the danger that there is in this Bill to the unity of the United Kingdom and the powers that it can have in the world, and the way in which it could undermine the very endeavours that we ought to use to help strengthen ourselves, at a time when competition in the world needs the extra strength which we must have if we are to maintain our present living standards.
So I feel that, because it is recognised on all sides that this over-representation exists, we ought to deal with it. We might not have wanted to deal with it, had there been no suggestion of this devolution Bill and the risk of eventual separation which may flow from it. But if we are to concede the need for an Assembly in Scotland, this is the ideal time for also settling this question of over-representation. If we ask for the over-representation to be remedied at the same time as we are suggesting setting up the Scottish Assembly, then it is a decision that is likely to be accepted in Scotland, which will be for the general good of the whole United Kingdom. But if it is left to some

491
different time, it will be judged to be another Sassenach attempt to undermine the separateness and individuality of Scotland itself.
So that on grounds of logic, on grounds of fairness, on grounds of merit and on grounds of good sense in wanting this Bill to work, if it ever becomes an Act, I suggest that, even if we may not vote on the Amendment now—if that is the decision of my noble friends—the Government ought to find ways and means of seeing that running alongside this Bill is an alteration in the representation of that country, so as to avoid the dangers which have tried to describe.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: In supporting this Amendment, I agree that, if devolution goes through and the Assembly is set up, it is essential that it should be a success, and essential to ensure that it will work. In order to do so, it must be seen to be fair. It must be seen to be fair to the English majority representing no less than 83 per cent. of the electorate in the United Kingdom. Nothing will be more disastrous than a smouldering resentment, capable of being fanned into an English backlash blaze, as a result of unfair overrepresentation in one part of the United Kingdom—that is to say, Scotland—representing only 9 per cent. of the electorate, in the changed circumstances that will exist if the Scottish Assembly is set up.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has just pointed out that the average size of a Scottish constituency is 53,000 electors. This has to be compared with the average size of an English constituency which is 65,000 electors. Purely on a statistical basis, England, therefore, is some 14 seats short, Scotland has about 12 too many, Wales has four too many, while Northern Ireland is four short. Nobody expects there to be rigid adherence to statistics, but the present position is not practical if devolution goes through.
I feel that the absurdity of the position is rather highlighted by the case of Northern Ireland. During the 50 years or so that Northern Ireland had its own Parliament at Stormont—which admittedly had somewhat greater powers than those envisaged for the Scottish Assembly—Northern Ireland sent only 12 Members of Parlia
492
ment to Westminster: there was an average of 86,000 electors per constituency. Now it is rather belatedly proposed, as a result of the Speaker's Conference, that there should be 16 Members, which would result in the average size of a Northern Ireland constituency being 65,000 electors —exactly the same as in England.
If and when Northern Ireland again has Home Rule of some kind or another I cannot believe that it is very likely that the number of Members of Parliament at Westminster will be reduced to only 12. Now that Scotland is to have a substantial measure of Home Rule, no one is suggesting an average constituency of 86,000 electors. Of course not. It is imperative that Scotland should have fair, proper and full representation. I would say that, eventually, all four parts of the United Kingdom should, so far as possible, have equal representation at Westminster on the basis of population.
I find it difficult to see what is so sacrosanct about this number of 71 Members of Parliament. There may have been valid reasons for it in the past, both historical and geographical, but for the first time since the Act of Union was passed the position is now to be fundamentally changed. Scotland is to have a home Parliament; I prefer to call it a Parliament and be done with it rather than have all this talk of an Assembly or a Convention. Nobody wants to see vast rural areas represented by one Member, but we are living in 1978 and not in 1928 or at the turn of the century.
Despite the worst that British Rail, industrial action and so on can do, modern means of communication, such as radio and television, reaching into every home surely mean that the position is rather different now to what it was 50 or so years ago. I do not see why it should be harder to reach Westminster from Aberdeen than from, say, Londonderry or from the Western Isles than the Scilly Isles. In any case, gross disparity in the size of constituencies is commonplace in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I should have thought that any reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster should surely come not so much from the rural areas as from urban areas such as Glasgow where, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson,

493
has pointed out, there are 13 constituencies with an average electorate of only 42,000. This is 20 per cent. below the average for Scotland and one-third below the average for England. I feel that the Government must face up to the fact that this problem—the"West Lothian anomaly"as it has been called—just will not conveniently disappear. On the contrary, it will continue to haunt and plague the Government.
I was rather disappointed with the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to the Amendment put down last week by my noble friend Lord Morris. I believe that the noble and learned Lord said that the Government would, because delay might result from a redrawing of constituency boundaries, regard such an Amendment as a wrecking Amendment. Without such an Amendment, however, or without some action to put right this matter, it seems to me that it is the unity of the United Kingdom which is liable to be wrecked.
when English people wake up to what is being done they will just not put up with it. To do something after the Assembly has been set up and after the next General Election, which no doubt the Government hopefully think may just go their way with the block vote of their Scottish Members of Parliament, will be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. One can imagine the kind of reaction there would be if we had a Government which abolished independent education, ended private medicine, banned the sale of council houses, nationalised agricultural land and so on. And what would be the reaction if all these measures were brought about in England by a Government who were in power after devolution only because of the large number of Scottish Labour Members of Parliament? It would inevitably be regarded as absolutely intolerable.
I feel, therefore, that the Government should be very careful to ensure that there is fair play in a matter which involves the most fundamental change in the Constitution since the Act of Union. If there has to be devolution, I think it is far better to have a delay of several months or a year in order to get everything right, or at least to get everything as right as possible, rather than have the present botched-up arrangement, which could so easily lead to disaster and to the break up of the Union.
494
Lastly, surely the referendum question is being put to the Scottish people upon a false prospectus. I understand that it is being put to the Scottish people on the basis that Scottish representation at Westminster will be unaltered, although it is surely obvious that Scottish representation must and will be altered—if not now, then at any rate very soon.
4.48 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, referred to the Assembly and suggested that we should sweep away this nonsense and call it a Parliament. It will not be a Parliament. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign. The Assembly that will be formed in Edinburgh after the passing of this Bill will not be sovereign. The Westminster Parliament will be sovereign and will be able to dissolve that Assembly at any stage.
This is the first time that I have intervened on this Bill, although my association with it has been just as long as that of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I saw the Bill in its very first stages and I saw the very first papers. I am a convinced devolutionist. I believe that we need to devolve more and more power away from central Government and the centre of London. However, I shall not hide from the Committee my growing sense of disquiet as I looked at the papers and proposals that came before us. That is not meant to be a criticism of the proposals. For the first time, we are trying to introduce a form of written Constitution. I hope that the Committee will support the plea made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that there should not be a vote on this Amendment. The Committee has had a debate upon it and views have been aired. I understand the sense of risk to which the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, referred: that, if one devolves certain powers to an Assembly in Edinburgh while retaining the same number of Members of Parliament as were provided by the Act of Union, one makes a nonsense, or at least that the matter is open to a degree of critical review.
I am quite certain that whatever change is made in the membership of the House of Commons, whether it results in more Englishmen or less Scotsmen, that change should not be brought about by this Bill.

495
If we were to bring it about by this Bill, I do not believe that any other Bill would bring about what we all want to see; namely, the retention of the unitary State. I believe that, if there is to be change, that change should be made outside these proposals. Let these proposals stand, let them be worked and then let Parliament, through its normal procedures, consider not only the representation of Scotland but the representation of Northern Ireland. When the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, quoted the average sizes of some of the Scottish constituencies, I thought of the size of the constituency of Newcastle Central. Perhaps it is indefensible and no doubt it will be dealt with but, in terms of Scotland and the sizes of the constituencies—I am not a Scot but I appreciate the position because it is a country which I visit fairly frequently— there are vast distances and there is great difficulty in communication. Therefore, as a consequence, there is bound to be, and there ought to be, some degree of over-representation.
I beg the Committee, whatever may be the value of the arguments which are adduced in another place in regard to the changes which should be made, not to tie it to this Bill because I believe that, if we were to do so, there could be no greater recipe for disaster, and by that I mean the break-up of the unitary state.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: It has probably not escaped your Lordships' notice that this Amendment stands in the name of three Englishmen and one Scotsman. Therefore I would claim that it is a British Amendment, a claim which would be more fully justified if it obtained the support of one speaker from Northern Ireland today.
A noble Lord: And one from Wales.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: I am intruding into this debate because I have spent much of my life working in, I believe, the interests of Britain, with Englishmen. I have always been treated with courtesy and goodwill by them and have obtained their full co-operation. Accordingly, I do not like to feel that we Scots have—fortuitously, it would seem—obtained a proportionately greater influence in decision-making in another place than our
496
English colleagues. Of course that has not always been the case. In what I believe was the first Westminster Parliament which included Scottish representation—that of June 1653, which was known, I believe, particularly by schoolboys, as the"Barebones Parliament"—Scotland had five seats out of 140 and it was under-represented in all Parliaments for the next 230 years. Under the Cromwellian Ordinance of Union, Scotland got 30 seats out of 460. Under the Act of Union in 1707, the Scottish Commissioners accepted an allowance of 45 seats while England and Wales got 513.
To put it another way, in relation to population, Scotland's quota was one seat for 24,000 of the population, England and Wales getting one seat for 10,700 of the population. That situation remained practically unaltered for the next 125 years, for the first Reform Bill, that of 1832, gave Scotland one seat for every 45,000 of the population and England and Wales one seat for every 28,000. In fact, Scotland remained under-represented until the Reform Act of 1884 when seats were first allocated strictly on the basis of population, with the result that Scotland got 72 seats out of 670 and from that date Scotland could not complain of being under-represented at Westminster.
Under the 1918 Act, on the basis of population, Scotland got 74 seats which, with the abolition of the university seats in 1948, was reduced to 71, at which number it stands today. But there has been a very dramatic change in population since 1918 and, as has already been stated today, the Kilbrandon Report found that, on the basis of population, Scotland's representation should he reduced from 71 to 57. Scotland is accordingly over-represented by some 14 members and England is underrepresented.
It is that situation which this Amendment seeks to redress by making the electorate of the Scottish constituencies no smaller than that of the average English constituency. I cannot see how any Scotsman can possibly object to such a change. It is just, it is fair and the time would appear to be appropriate when it is proposed under this Bill to transfer so many functions from another place to a Scottish Assembly. Accordingly, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment.
Lord WIGG: I shall not detain the Committee long, but I was a little struck by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who held out great fears if this Bill were to change anything and, so far as I could understand it, his argument was that it does not change anything. Of course, he may be arguing against a change in numbers or sizes but surely he cannot argue that the Bill does not involve a changed role in the House. It is surely impossible to escape the conclusion that there are whole areas of legislation and administration which will be transferred as a result of this Bill and, surely all our experience, both as Members of this House and of another place, points to the fact that, when one starts to make changes, the changes that take place are very often quite different to the ones envisaged when the matter was first considered. Indeed, one can almost say that it is axiomatic that the changes which one does not foresee are the important ones.
Surely, with his long experience in these matters, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, must have faced up to the fact that, over the whole of the devolved areas, Members representing Scottish constituencies will be unable to vote on matters affecting Scotland but will be able to vote, as now, on things affecting England. That will apply to every Member. So we should have a situation in which honourable Members of another place representing English constituencies would not be able to vote on matters affecting Scotland but, as the Bill now stands, Scottish Members would be able to vote on those same issues so far as they affected England.
Surely that is a change of gigantic magnitude and, as I said earlier this afternoon, the day will come—and I shall take on the mantle of the prophet and say that it will most assuredly come—when English Members will wake up to the fact that British people have been affected against their wishes by the votes of Scottish Members without English Members having a similar right. This may or may not be right. These may be the proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is enthusiastic about, but to suggest for a moment that this does not constitute change, and change of the first magnitude, seems to me to be stretching the imagination too far.
Lord SHEPHERD: I did not suggest that this Bill did not make changes: what I sought to say was that Parliament still remains sovereign. The Westminster Parliament is sovereign and my plea which was really made in response to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was that, if we were to have a change in representation, it should not be as a consequence of this Bill but should be the result of a different Bill brought forward for a different reason.
Lord WIGG: But what the noble Lord does not see is that Parliament is a corporate body whose sovereignty is equally spread, whereas we are going to limit the sovereignty of English Members while enhancing the sovereignty of Scottish Members. That must influence the whole and to say that Westminster will remain sovereign when you arc explicitly removing from its direct responsibility whole areas of both legislation and administration seems to me to be playing with words.
I tried to understand what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was saying, and I thought he was directing his remarks to the concept that he did not want the Bill altered in terms of numbers and that is why he was opposing the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his friends. What I would say to him in return is that you cannot separate role from numbers; they are the heads and tails of the same penny. If you play around with the size of constituencies, you alter the number of constituencies, and inevitably this must have an effect upon the role. Conversely, if you alter the role, by removing whole areas from London to Edinburgh, you will ultimately have affected the constituencies. That seems to me quite inevitable.
Indeed I think Lord Shepherd's speech is to be welcomed. He is one of the godfathers—not one of the parents—of this measure. He has pointed out from his intimate knowledge an even greater weakness than we had suspected. In fact the interrelating of functions of role and constituency have not been thought out. This is what I have always suspected. This is a political measure to deal with a short-run emergency—in the nature of politics they are always short run—in the hope that Scottish Nationalism will go

499
away, will disappear. I do not believe it will disappear. I believe this Bill will intensify, it, and if this Bill is enacted I fear it is the death warrant of the unity of the British people.
5.3 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: Like the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I am glad that my noble friend Lord HarmarNicholls indicated that he is not going to seek a vote today. With due respect to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, I do not believe the mathematics implied in the Amendment can be satisfactory in the large country areas of Scotland. I do not think they could be worked out in this way and they would not be acceptable. I really want to give some preliminary reflections on the Scottish representation in the Westminster Parliament raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and others. That Scotland is over-represented at Westminster is nothing new, and there has been no revolt about it. The 71 Members representing Scotland has been the price which the Westminster Parliament has felt it worth while to pay to enable Scotland to be a willing partner at Westminster in the United Kingdom. This has been accepted without protest.
The last point I want to make, which perhaps Lord Ellenborough would consider, is that, even if the number of representatives is reduced to 57, it will not remove the West Lothian problem. It will simply mean that 57 Members of the Assembly are voting on English matters instead of 71. So I come to the conclusion that this is a matter largely for another place, that another place will have to decide in the end how many Scottish Members they will swallow. I suspect they will swallow 70, although they would prefer 57. So I do not treat this matter as one of enormous importance, because I still think that on the whole the Westminster Parliament will decide, as it has done in the past, that whether it is 70 or whether it is 71 it is worth while in order to maintain the unity of the United Kingdom.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Monson, on bringing forward this excellent principle, and I would very happily agree with all that he says the
500
Liberals have said about it. Of course, it is fair and just that there should be some adjustment to the number of Scottish representatives at Westminster. But I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this is the wrong Bill to which to move this Amendment. It is a matter for Westminster; it is a matter for the established machinery, and it is a matter that can be dealt with by Parliament here at Westminster. What I think is entirely wrong is that you should try to tie it to this Bill. The question of devolution for Scotland and the question of Scottish representation at Westminster are linked to a very large degree, but they are not linked in this Bill or in our present situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, talked about the size of Glasgow, the number of representatives there, as against Birmingham. One of the reasons for the rise of the feeling in Scotland that all is not well, that Scotland could be better governed, that perhaps we should make our own mistakes in domestic matters, is, of course, emigration—not immigration, which bothers some people, but emigration—from Scotland, which has enormously reduced the size of Glasgow, while Birmingham has been growing. So that you have the situation where, if Parliament put through a Scottish devolution Bill which works, then the people of Scotland, the Assembly and the Scottish electorate, will very happily accept what they would regard as a fair representation at Westminster.
If you look for anomalies you will find them all over the place. The only logical thing for the unity of the United Kingdom is to have a federal system, but the fact is that the people of England are not ready for it; they have not thought about it; they are frightened about the break-up of the United Kingdom. The optimistic Scots (I certainly am one, and noble Lords on all sides of the House share my opinion) take the view that devolution for Scotland—a Scottish Assembly that is effective and is seen to work well—will make the Scots very much less chippy, less crusty, more trusting, better partners, and will make the security of the United Kingdom, as a whole, very much greater. I am certain this is right.
The views expressed as to the numbers in Scottish constituencies are, of course,

501
correct. I hope that the English will continue not only to regard distance as a factor in the size of constituency but also to regard the kind of life that people live in these constituencies as very important. Obviously, if you represent a Highland constituency, as I did in Caithness and Sutherland, then the problems and the thinking of the people are different; they differ between Caithness and Sutherland and Argyll. It is not only numbers and it is not only geography. But, as I say, given that we produce from Westminster a workable Bill, I do not think the question of over-representation of Scotland will be any problem.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: I rise because I have taken part in every Election in Glasgow from 1935 until 1959, and during that period Glasgow sent 15 Members to Parliament, not 13. I would not particularly defend that, but I would only say that it has been reduced by two. I think it could well be reduced by more. What I really feel very strongly about is this West Lothian question, as it has been called, which is at the root of the reason why I think this Bill will not work. I do not think it is right that Scotland should send Members of Parliament to vote solely on United Kingdom matters which may be, as has been pointed out, largely, or very often, quite personal to England or to Wales.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, when he talks about"federalism ". That is entirely wrong. I do not agree with the people who say that a possible break-up of the United Kingdom does not worry them. It would be extremely serious. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that it is vital that the United Kingdom should remain united. In fact I think that an enormous majority in both Houses share that view and only a few Scottish Nationalists and a few Liberals are against it. It would be most unfortunate if we did not face up to this matter right away.
The Amendment under consideration and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls is a very good one. I shall be quite happy if it is not thought necessary to have a Division now because this matter can be discussed further. However, I do not think that we can ignore it or say that it will come right if we
502
leave it as it is—it will not. I agree with the quotation which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, read from the Labour "Vote No"Campaign. I have a copy of that pamphlet here. I think that it is perfectly right. We must face up to this matter. We have an impossible position. I do not think that we can have 71 Scottish Members being able to take part in every single English or Welsh question and then do nothing about what happens in the Assembly.
As I think noble Lords know—I said this during Second Reading—I am not happy about the Assembly. However, if it goes through and we are faced with this situation, then the West Lothian question is one that must be tackled before anything else happens, otherwise we shall have great unfairness. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that we can just write it off as something that will not worry people very much. It will worry people a great deal and it may be quite disastrous not only to the Assembly, if it gets through—I would not mind that so much—but to the United Kingdom Parliament. I hope that we shall be firm about this matter and ask the Government to reconsider it, and if we do not take a vote tonight we can raise it again during the Report stage.
5.13 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: I should like to intervene. I have been trying to speak for some hours and on previous occasions. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter. Naturally one always bows to the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and I am loath to disagree with him. I perfectly well accept, and I think that the Committee would, that the 71 is part of the sacrifice or arrangement whereby Scotland became part of the United Kingdom. It has always been slightly overrepresented ever since, and I accept that. However, we are taking or are in danger of taking action to devolve a whole range of responsibilities to Scotland, and that I think makes the injustice and the unfairness greater. That is why I think that we, as a constitutional Chamber, have an obligation to consider this matter most carefully.
I absolutely accept the argument that we have the constitutional duty to discuss

503
this matter, but I should hope that the House of Commons will feel the obligation not only to discuss it but perhaps to act on it when the next Boundary Commission takes place. However, I cannot quite accept that argument for I do not think that we can wait for the outcome of a Boundary Commission as the Amendment suggests, because they take a most unconscionable time. I vividly remember that the last one was set up in 1965. There were four Boundary Commissions—for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. They reported, I think, on the 19th June 1969. They took over four years before they reported. Even then we had a slight difference of opinion, because the Home Secretary of the day was very loath to lay the order.
Noble Lords will remember that we believed that one of the reasons for the delay was the fact that it would have given 11 or 12 extra Conservative seats if those boundaries had been honoured. There was very strong criticism in this House and eventually the Home Secretary of the day, Mr. Callaghan, made the order on 28th October 1969. By then nearly five years had passed since the Boundary Commission was set up. Incidentally, he then led his Party into the Opposition Lobby to vote against the order which he had laid and thus we lost some 12 seats at the 1970 Election. However, it did not matter very much because we won it anyway.
However, it still is a wrong principle, and I wonder whether we ought to accept without question the fact that there is a certain amount of gerrymandering built into this Bill. Not only is there the unfairness of the over-representation of Scottish MPs, which I believe is a matter ultimately for the House of Commons, but it is strange that there has been a complete change since the White Paper which I have here—Command 6348 of November 1975, called Our Changing Democracy—in which it is suggested that there should be three Assembly Members for Parliamentary constituencies with more than 125 per cent. of the quota and only one Member for those with less.
What has happened? The Scotland Bill proposes that there should be two Assembly Members for each Parliamentary constitu
504
ency plus an extra one for constituencies with more than 125 per cent. of the norm. It so happens, if we take 1977 figures, that the effect is that there are only five such constituencies, of which four are held by Labour and one by the SNP. Therefore, this change will help Labour representation.
To take the second point, the Bill has now dropped the idea that there should be only one Member for smaller constituencies. We wonder why, until we see that there are 13 such constituencies, eight of which are held by Labour, two by Conservatives, two by the SNP, and one by the Liberals. So here again there is an element of gerrymandering and there has been a change in Government thinking—perhaps they have been doing their arithmetic again. However, all of this is highly undesirable and, as a constitutional House, I think that we have a duty to draw attention to it.
I agree with those who have said that it is not right to vote on this matter. The movers and those who have put the Amendment down have done a great service to the Committee, and I am grateful to them. However, I hope that the other place will take action and we shall, in due course, have a Boundary Commission and an adjustment. I do not know that it should be down from 71 to 57, but I think that a Boundary Commission will, in due course, reveal what it ought to be.
Lord BROWN: I think that it is time someone from this side of the Committee said a word on this matter. If we try to make the Bill perfect we shall not succeed because, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, the situation is full of anomalies. We cannot create a perfect Bill in these situations. However, let us suppose that we treat every clause of the Bill in the manner in which this clause is being treated, pointing out the obvious anomalies that arise from the whole process of devolution at this stage. It is possible that we shall end up without a Bill at all and we shall be repeating a historical mistake that this House made in the late 1890s when it turned down Gladstone's proposals for Ireland. We all know what we are suffering today from that failure to take a long-term view.

505
Therefore, I suggest that this sort of perfectionist attitude, when perfection is simply not possible, is the antithesis of what is required in the long run. We had better take a long-term view in this House, because if we do not and if this Bill is an offence to a lot of people in Scotland, or if it fails to work because we have amended it in certain ways, then we shall hand over a situation to the Scottish National Party and, with sufficient support, it would not be long in creating that separation about which we are all so anxious.
5.18 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I should like to say word or two about this Amendment. In the first place I would apologise to the House. I was invited to attend a meeting of the Procedure Committee and therefore I was unable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I heard only three-quarters of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, which led me into a procedural error when another noble Lord was in the Chair. However, I think that this is a rather more difficult matter then we have realised. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was very wise to indicate that he, at any rate, hoped that there would not be a vote at this stage, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, when he comes to reply to the debate will take the same view.
There are, as I tried to point out on Second Reading, two related general difficulties about the Bill. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel was quite right in saying that this particular Amendment deals with only one of them. But in a way they are quite separate, and it is important to realise that they are separate. The first is the number of MPs representing Scottish constituencies who will be elected to Westminster after Assembly. It is only that to which this Amendment is relevant. The other question is the rights of individual Members of another place to vote in the Westminster Parliament after Assembly They are really two separate problems.
In fact, this Amendment does literally nothing to cure the second of the two defects. The first can be dealt with—and I shall return to it because this is essentially at the heart of the Amendment—by a reduction in the number of representatives of Scottish constituencies, but the second
506
cannot. The only logical way—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie—in which that could be dealt with would be by a true example of federalism in which the frontiers were delimited between the rights of the Westminster Parliament and the rights of the Assembly. In other words, it would be a true federal solution. I cannot go into that on this Amendment. Nor do I propose to probe the question of whether England is "ready for it", as the phrase was. I merely point out that that is the only logical way of dealing with the second of the two difficulties.
The noble Lords who have put their names to the Amendment have, I think, drawn the attention of the Committee to a very real grievance. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd (and one is always glad to see and hear him in his new place below the gangway), I think that the Government and some Members of the Party opposite would be unwise if they did not realise the strength of feeling on this side of the Committee and in certain other parts of the Committee about the first anomaly which this Amendment is designed to cure. The point that is being made is very real.
For a long time it was thought by the Scots that the right to possess 71 MPs in the House of Commons was built into the Act of Union. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has demolished that heresy—it is not so; it is simply wrong. But what is absolutely clear is that even as matters now stand the Scots are over-represented, and when they are given an additional right to have an Assembly of their own—that is, if it passes the referendum and all else—they really must consent to a substantial adjustment being made in their representation at Westminster for the very good reason that their representatives will have less to do and fewer subjects to represent. They must make that adjustment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel that it is no good trying to put this matter into an exact mathematical bed of Procrustes. There are at least three separate factors to be considered in delimiting a Westminster constituency. One is population, another is geographical area and the other is the sense of community in which one tries to draw the boundaries so that local communities are

507
separately represented. These are difficult and delicate matters, and I think that the Government must understand that subject to the difficulty and delicacy of it, they really must move in this matter to satisfy some of us.
Then one conies to the Amendment itself. The feature of this Amendment is that it seeks to impose a sanction; that is to say, no election to the Assembly unless there is satisfaction on this point. I have the greatest possible sympathy with this frame of mind, but I have very considerable doubts as to whether it is a prudent course to take. I think that its effect would be to postpone the actual Assembly for a very long time, and the price one would have to pay in would probably be higher than the virtue of it would be worth. I also have a pedantic difficulty which I shall share with the Committee at the risk of being called an as "dry as dust"lawyer, which I confess to on every possible occasion. The lawyer's motto has to be:
"The spirit killeth, the letter giveth life."
All lawyers in all countries have to point out the importance of that principle. But the Long Title of the Bill is:
"to provide for changes in the government of Scotland and in the constitution and functions of certain public bodies".
We can alter the Long Title. I am not sure whether it is the intention of my noble friends to alter the Long Title—they can do so—so as to enlarge it, but I wonder whether, as it stands at the moment, the Long Title is adequate to support a provision in the Bill which says that nothing shall happen until the number of Scottish representatives at Westminster is reduced to a given figure. I think that it is something which we shall have to consider and I hope that with their customary skill the Clerks at the Table will, if we need it, give us advice on that.
However, I think that that second difficulty must be taken into account. I say to the Government that sooner or later we shall have to handle this problem. It may well be that my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing is right in saying that the delay in the ordinary course of procedure would be unconscionably long. I hope that the Government, having taken the advice which is available to them and not to us, will consider the possibility of
508
ensuring that the delay is not unconscionable. As Mr. Gladstone said:
"The resources of civilisation are probably not yet exhausted. "
We may, indeed, at a later stage of the Bill or by independent legislation—I know not which—seek to press the Government into some form of intellectual activity on this point because the situation is intolerable. As I ventured to say earlier on in the afternoon in a totally different connection, a General Election is coming up, and I am sure that the last thing that this enlightened Government would want would be to have it thought that they were trying to get one or two extra seats by a trick.
Viscount THURSO: I should like to add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has said. I think that it is a dangerous precedent to link the grievance and the anomaly which the Amendment has uncovered to the passing or otherwise of this Bill. I am sure that if the Bill falls, the grievance and the anomaly will not—the unfairness of over-representation will not go away. Therefore, I beg the mover of this Amendment, and indeed others like myself who do not necessarily support the Amendment but who understand the grievance and the anomaly, not to link this grievance and anomaly with the Bill.
The other side of the coin is that if there is no Bill, then we must leave the Scottish representation at Westminster at its present high level. I think that that would be just as objectionable as to link the representation at Westminster to the giving of a Scottish Assembly. Therefore, although noting the grievance and the anomaly which this Amendment has raised, I think we should say firmly that it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill and must be dealt with by another Bill at another time.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There is a counter-argument to the argument which was produced by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and that concerns the passage of this Bill. The Government are very keen to get it passed, and they will have no motive to reduce the Scottish membership after this Bill has passed. If anything, they could have a motive for leaving it as it is, because I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could give us an undertaking that, when the Government considered

509
this Bill, there was no Party political consideration given to it. If these two factors were not linked together there would be no pressure, except popular discontent in England. I am sure that the popular discontent in England will be very strong indeed when the full implications are understood. For that reason I strongly believe that something should be done about it. I obviously have doubts as to whether this Amendment is right when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, says it is not quite right. One takes everything that he says on this issue very much to heart. However, something must be done about it, and in this Bill.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I suppose it is quite impossible, but I should like to ask whether it is possible to debar Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster, if and when we have an Assembly—it could not be done in this Bill —from voting on English domestic legislation?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: There is a later Amendment about that.
Earl FERRERS: May I make a few observations before the noble and learned Lord replies?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: May I just say that I should like to speak?
Earl FERRERS: There is nothing that I should hate to do more than debar my noble friend from speaking. If my noble friend wishes to speak, please do so.
5.32 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I have found extremely interesting all the different Amendments that have been moved to this Bill, which apparently nobody seems to want at all. Certainly my Scottish friends tell me that if there were a referendum in Scotland they would not want this particular Bill. Certainly in the part of the world from which I come, which is the North-East of England, we do not want the Bill at all.
I rise to support Lord Monson's Amendment. I have listened to people pointing out the number of constituents
510
they represent in Parliament, and so far as I am concerned most of the figures have been entirely wrong. I wanted to put on the record that, when I represented Tynemouth, I represented over 80,000 constituents, which is a much greater figure than anybody seems to have raised today. Therefore, I think it important that Lord Monson's Amendment should be carried in due course.
There is something else I should like to say, which is a little difficult. I live in and represented two constituencies near to the Scottish Border. I had great sympathy over the years when I heard of the number of unemployed in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland. When I was first elected to my part of the world I was faced with 84 per cent. of the employable population being unemployed. Scotland has a great advantage over my part of the world. When a new shipbuilding order has been forecast and arranged, I often wondered why, generally speaking —not always, of course—it seems to have arrived on the Clyde.
I have had great sympathy for those who were unemployed on Clydeside in the same way as I have had great sympathy for the unemployed in any part of the country. But, you see, Scotland has had a Secretary of State for Scotland, and Edinburgh has had a great advantage in speaking its mind. It has been sometimes difficult from my part of the world—although we have had both Party Governments trying to help—to get up in Parliament and say,"Why is that order going to Scotland? "
On the whole—I say this with great regret—Scotland has often got more shipbuilding orders than we have been able to get in my part of the world. I think that that is because there have always been so many people in high positions to speak up for Scotland—and very well some of them have done it. I only wanted to make that reference because when this new Bill comes into operation we want it to be a fair Bill so far as all parts of the country are concerned.
Although I do not necessarily agree with all of Lord Monson's Amendment, I thought to myself,"Well, at any rate, here is a chance of seeing that there will be fewer representatives to speak up for Scotland, if they have got to place orders

511
and take into account the needs of my part of the world."Our Members of Parliament, whether they belonged to the Conservative or Labour Party—and, I think, one to the Liberal Party at some time—have always done their best for my part of the world, but Scotland has had an advantage.
I could not bear it, when Member after Member got up and said that most constituencies have 65,000 members, or a little fewer, when I realised that I had over 80,000. I was delighted to try to do what I could for them. It was not always successful, but when you are in politics you realise that sometimes you win battles and sometimes you lose them, and you get used to it. I want to support Lord Monson's Amendment because I want it to be certain that there is a fair representation of seats based on population both in Scotland and in England.
That is really all I have to say. I have enjoyed listening to all these Amendments. In fact, I think you are very lucky that you have not had a lot of speeches from me, because I am always regarded as being a speaker and I do my best. Anyhow I am delighted to have made this point. Please remember that when you have great power in an area through Secretaries of State and Ministers who can make representations at Cabinet level, you also have to be fair. I think that sometimes my part of the world, the North-East coast, has lost out because special advantages were given to Scotland.
I am not sorry that they did not get their orders, but at the same time I should like to think that sometimes there are some people who will speak up from Northumberland and Durham. I do not really represent, and never have, Durham, but we are a highly industrial area, and we have not got much country. Therefore, I would support Lord Monson's Amendment, hoping that it will at any rate produce fair representation in Scotland and fair representation in England.
Lord BURTON: While having the greatest sympathy with the Amendment, I do feel that it does not take into account the remoter areas. No English constituency has a mass of islands like the Western Isles or Orkney and Shetlands. Inverness has already the biggest land area
512
of any constituency in the United Kingdom. Some boroughs may be covered by a 10-minute bus ride. I do not see why they should not have rather more constituents than some of these enormous, remote areas. Therefore, I feel that the Amendment is not really very sound, as we cannot base the constituencies on population alone.
Viscount HANWORTH: I do not think I am alone in believing that in the fairly near future some changes—and possibly even fundamental changes—are required and will come about in our Constitution. To give one example, there are those who believe that when devolution occurs—if we get it—there should be a written Constitution. There is, of course, the matter of the future of this House. I believe that this issue could well be considered at the time when other major issues are considered and that it would be a pity, in a way, to regard it in isolation.
5.43 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: There is no doubt that the problems which have prompted this Amendment, and the one that follows, go to the heart of the Bill. I was glad when my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said that in fact he did not intend to press this Amendment, and when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that that would be a good thing. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that in his view the right thing to do was to introduce a special Bill. That certainly requires consideration. However, even though this Amendment may not be pressed, I do not think that we should be under any misapprehension that the issue concerned is absolutely essential to the whole Bill.
We know that ever since the Act of Union, Scotland has been represented by 71 Members of Parliament—and more recently than that. It is a fact that Scotland has been represented by 71 Scottish Members of Parliament. The Scottish and English Members of Parliament, together with other Members of Parliament, have together acted in equality as Members of Parliament over all matters.
If we create an Assembly especially for Scotland and devolve to it all the domestic affairs from Westminster to Edinburgh, that inevitably calls two matters into

513
question. The first is this. Why should those Members of Parliament who are sent to Westminster from Scotland be allowed to continue to involve themselves in English domestic legislation, when the English Members of Parliament are denied the ability of involving themselves in similar affairs of a Scottish nature? We shall come to that question on a later Amendment. The second point is this. Now that the Scots will have an Assembly of their own, which will henceforth look after all Scottish domestic affairs, how do we justify the continuation of the same number of Members of Parliament being sent to Westminster when half the work which has been removed from them, and when those present, who will be left, will be required to do half the work they did before?
These problems, and how they are resolved, are essential to the future success of the workings of Parliament. They deeply affect the whole balance of interests within the United Kingdom. That is why—as has been said so often—this is not just a Scotland Bill; it is a United Kingdom Bill. However, as yet the Government have produced no satisfactory answer and have, if I may respectfully say so, constantly ducked the problem. This is the devastating weakness of the whole Bill. What will the 71 Scots Members of Parliament do when their responsibilities have been removed from them in this sphere? How do we justify, in terms of logic or common sense, continuing to send the same number of Scottish Members of Parliament to Westminster when half their work has been devolved to another Assembly and given to twice as many people to do elsewhere?
Of course, what they are left with is very important: the economy, defence, foreign affairs. These are matters of huge and fundamental importance to the whole of Scotland. The contrary argument is this: Is it right that Scottish representation on these basic and most important issues should be less than it is at present? If it were lessened, what a stick it would be to put in the hands of the Scottish National Party! It is not impossible to hear them say, "Now that Scotland, with the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs that has taken place, is to have even less influence in Westminster over the matters that are basic to Scotland, the sooner we have complete independence and control
514
all these affairs which affect us, the better."That is quite an understandable attitude for the Scottish Nationalists to take. This is the fundamental weakness, I suggest, of the whole Bill, because by devolving domestic affairs to the Assembly and reserving other affairs to Westminster, the Government are giving a federal system to Scotland. In another Bill they are giving a federal system to Wales. Yet they are retaining a unitary system for England. I should have thought that we could use either one system for the United Kingdom or the other, but we cannot have both if it is to work fairly or sensibly. Yet that is precisely what the Government are proposing in this Bill.
We may go from one place to another either by bicycle or by motor-car, but we cannot use both methods of transport at the same time without getting into a muddle. I venture to say that we are in precisely that muddle. Both the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the other Amendment put down by my noble friend Lord Onslow later, are attempts to resolve this difficulty. Lord Monson's Amendment is an attempt at reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament to Westminster by saying that the constituencies should be no smaller than English ones, which, as we know, would have the effect of reducing the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland. We understand the reasons for this, and particularly the telling argument that says it is not fair that Scotland should have special treatment twice over.
Part of the agreement that was reached —and indeed part of the practice which has occurred since the Union—has been that there should be 71 Members of Parliament from Scotland. It was known and appreciated at the time that this would result in a greater representation per head of the population by Scottish Members of Parliament than there would be by English Members of Parliament. One of the reasons was, of course, the size of the country in question. The Royal Commission stated that to base representation simply on the basis of counting heads was to ignore the important nationality factor. The nationality factor has been recognised by the over-representation of Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster.

515
However, the nationality factor has also again been recognised by the granting of an Assembly to Scotland. Is it right (one may ask) that Scotland should have special treatment twice over? The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said that we should take a long view of this matter and that an Amendment such as has been proposed was not necessary. But if I could address his mind, and the minds of your Lordships, to the Royal Commission again, I would say this. On the other hand, it is possible to argue for the removal of the overrepresentation of Scotland and Wales on the grounds that it would be both undemocratic and constitute a grave injustice to the people of England if this overrepresentation were to be retained when Parliamentary time had to be very largely devoted to debating and legislating for England on matters for which Scotland and Wales had their own legislative Assemblies.
Indeed, in those circumstances, there would be much to be said for reducing the representation of Scotland and Wales below the level based on population, as was done in the case of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is at least not in agreement with the Royal Commission—or, to put the matter another way, the Royal Commission takes a view that is different from that of the noble Lord.
Lord BROWN: While the noble Earl is spending quite a lot of time putting forward arguments to the effect that the Scottish representation is too large, I doubt whether anybody in this Committee is in diagreement with him over that. The only question which arises is whether or not the matter should be dealt with in this Bill. As I say, I do not think any noble Lord thinks that the Scottish representation at Westminster should in future remain at its present figure. That is not the argument at all; the argument is whether the matter is dealt with in the Bill.
Earl FERRERS: That is not the impression I received from the argument that was adduced or from what the noble Lord said. From the point of view of the relationship between England and Scotland and for the future of the balance of interest within the United Kingdom, this is a very important matter indeed. The Amend
516
ment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggests that there should be this alteration and so far the Government have said that it should not take place, and I do not really blame them for being hesitant; there are not many votes to be obtained as a result of telling the electorate of Scotland that they are to have fewer MPs. This shows the mess we have got ourselves into, because to reduce the number of Scottish MPs sent to Westminster would be a fundamental alteration and an alteration which would be bigger than on the surface it appears; and of course it would be an unpopular move to make.
If we did it under this Amendment or any other we should delay the Bill. If we did it, we should strengthen the Scottish National Party and the prospect of separation. If we did not do it, it would permit the inequity of Scotland getting special treatment twice over. If we did not do it, it would permit an inflated number of Scottish MPs to interfere with English business and would, if nothing else were done about it, in turn generate English nationalism. The Government have, by this Bill, put the Constitution on Morton's fork; one cannot win. If we do anything about it there will be damage and if we do not do anything about it there will be damage. Every time the Government have been presented with this conundrum they have sidestepped it.
I should be happy to accept the view, which a number of people have expressed, that it would be quite wrong to make this Amendment to the Bill as drafted. However, it is not wrong that we should discuss the matter and ask the Government to accept the real problem which they have created, that they should recognise the problem and tell us how they intend to resolve it. After all, they have created it and it is a problem which must be resolved, whether or not in this Bill. I hope the Lord Chancellor will say precisely how the Government intend to resolve it, because the one thing they cannot do is leave it alone and do nothing.
Lord HYLTON: A brief question: Is there not a possible interim solution to the problems we have been discussing under this Amendment? I suggest the answer may be that a constitutional convention

517
should grow up whereby Scottish and perhaps Welsh Members in another place should always abstain from voting on matters which are purely of English concern.
5.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: When the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, spoke he pointed out that the Amendment was in the name of three English and one Scottish Peer. I hope it will not be regarded as unhelpful for one who firmly believes in the United Kingdom's unity that a Welshman should now intervene.
We are discussing in effect both Amendments Nos. 25 and 26, and the effect of them, whatever their intention may be, will be, first, to delay for at the very least a very long time indeed election to a Scottish Assembly or a referendum. Try as one will to reduce the time taken by Boundary Commissions to evolve what is suggested—a reduction of the representation of the Scottish people from the present figure of 71 to 57—it would take many months, probably some years. It would be a task allocated to the independent Boundary Commission, who would no doubt move as fast as they could, but as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said, the last experience we had was that it took four years.
The other effect of the Amendments would be to indicate that your Lordships' House supports reducing Scottish representation from 71 to 57. What greater joy could either or both of those together give to the Nationalists? It would be regarded as betrayal and as an avoidance and would stir up, as one noble Lord said, far more than exists now, and I think the consequences would he very serious indeed.
On the question of the numbers of Scottish Members, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, said, there has been over-representation for a very long time. But, at any rate, Parliament has thought fit to determine the right number of constituencies, both in 1918, when representation was considered, and in 1944; it was not fewer than 71 and that was repeated and embodied in the Redistribution of Seats Act in 1949. A number of noble Lords have pointed to the special circumstances in Scotland which justify that figure of representation of
518
71 but, as has been said, whatever view may be formed on that question, this Bill is not the appropriate machinery for dealing with it.
I come straight to the proposition that the Government do not accept that our proposals for devolution carry with them inevitable consequences for changes in representation in Parliament. In regard to the position and role of Scottish Members at Westminster, I agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and this is a matter which I think comes up more expressly for consideration in respect of Amendment No. 210, so 1 have no doubt that we shall return more than once to the Midlothian concept.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I think the noble and learned Lord meant to say West Lothian.
The LORD CHANCELLOR. West Lothian, of course; I trust that is a forgiveable error in the light of history. A great deal of concern has been expressed once again in this debate lest the Bill will have an adverse effect on the sovereignty of Parliament and the unity of the United Kingdom. In my view, that is a false analysis, a false prophecy, and I say that because we have sought throughout the work on the Bill to ensure that all the matters essential to the unity of the United Kingdom will remain the sole responsibility of Parliament. That responsibility will continue to be exercised after devolution here in Parliament.
It is in Parliament that the matters which are at the heart of our political system will remain to be considered. It is not right, if I may say so with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to say that all domestic affairs of Scotland will no longer be a matter for the Parliament at Westminster. So far as the major matters that he indeed accepted remained responsibility of the Westminster Parliament, he has referred to some of them. It is in Parliament that will be determined foreign policy, the conduct of international affairs including our developing partnership in the Community; it is in Parliament that policies relating to national security and defence will be determined, that matters relating to trade and industry will be resolved, employment and industrial relations, the management of the economy.

519
The devolution scheme contains no tax-raising powers to be given to Scotland. That will remain the responsibility of Parliament, and indeed the decision as to how much money is to be conferred on the Assembly will also be a matter for the Parliament at Westminster. The exercise of responsibility for these matters vitally concerns every single member of the United Kingdom. They are at the heart of Government whether he be an Englishman, Scotsman, Northern Irishman or Welshman. In my submission, in the consideration of those matters Scottish Members will have as important a role as they have now.
In my view there are no grounds for seeking a reduction in the representation of the essential interests of those who happen to live in Scotland and Wales if and when devolution comes to pass. What is more, the proposals in no way diminish the inherent sovereignty of Parliament to legislate on all matters including those to be devolved. The maintenance of that sovereignty of Parliament is, I submit, central to the concept of devolution. It is both essential to the concept and is inescapable from it. It cannot be viewed, save on the narrow and chauvinistic approach of the Scottish National Party, as any thing other than the sure foundation on which devolution is to he built and secured.
Parliament is being asked by Bills to legislate to provide for devolution to elected Assemblies in Scotland and in Wales. It will retain its power to modify and transform that devolution settlement itself—what Parliament has given Parliament will he able to take away—and the sovereignty of Parliament, in my submission, rests on full representation from all parts of the United Kingdom. Incidentally, Parliament will also maintain an effective oversight of the use of the reserve powers in the Bill. Parliament will be able to move the rejection of Assembly Bills where appropriate, as provided for in Clause 35, the provisions of which might affect a reserved matter and the enactment of which would not be in the public interest. Similarly, exercise by the Secretary of State of the powers to prevent or require executive action and to revoke subordinate Instruments will be subject to the approval of Parliament, save where international
520
obligations are concerned. All this maintenance of the sovereignty of Parliament remaining at the heart and the pinnacle indeed of our political system underlines, in my submission, the need to maintain the full right of representation from Scotland.
May I add a further and perhaps broader and more fundamental point. On being elected to the other place Members of Parliament become representatives of United Kingdom interests as a whole. I know of no Member—at least I do not recollect meeting any in another place during my 29 years there—who regarded the contribution the MP makes to debates as being narrowly confined to the interests of his constituency and its particular concern. Members of Parliament are not delegates mandated to the views of any particular interest, and if the House will bear with me perhaps it will do no harm if I read again the extract from the famous speech of Edmund Burke to the electors of Bristol, which improves even on the rhetoric of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, if he will permit me with no unkindness to say so. The final words you remember are that,
"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain as an agent and advocate against other agents and advocates. Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation with one interest —that of the whole; where not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good resulting from the general reason of the whole. "
You choose a Member indeed but when you have chosen him he is not a Member for Bristol; he is a Member of Parliament.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY LEBONE: Does not the noble and learned Lord realise that the logical implication of what he is now saying is that the Government would be perfectly well justified in giving representation solely to those constituencies likely to return Labour Members because then they would be just this congress of ambassadors of which he is speaking? Does he not realise that every word he said is engendering intense displeasure on this side of the House?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I hate to feel that any of my observations cause displeasure, but it is not the first time in my political exchanges with the noble and learned Lord here or elsewhere

521
that this may have come to pass. He must bear the disappointment and distaste with forbearance. He will have to continue to suffer it. May I now continue my speech?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: If the noble and learned Lord provokes me he must remember that there is a Division Lobby.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: So be it, but we shall perhaps see.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There are—
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry, I must be permitted to continue my speech. I shall observe with interest whether the noble and learned Lord leads his Conservative colleagues into the Division Lobby to reduce Scottish representation by the course of this Bill from 71 to 57. We shall see. As I was saying, the function and role of the Scottish Member after devolution, if it comes to pass, in another place will be crucial because the crucial decisions affecting the United Kingdom will still be determined there, and the need therefore for representation on the scale which Scotland has enjoyed will at any rate remain in the foreseeable future.
The noble and learned Lord raised a legal matter as to whether the Long Title in any event precluded this proposal. He may not have noticed—and I say this in a wish for once not to anger him but to point it out—that the last Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Morris, seeks to deal with this; whether it does it effectively or not we shall have to see. I admit that the anxieties that have arisen in the course of the debate about a matter which would certainly cause me grave concern—namely, that the unity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament would be adversely affected—exist, but I believe that they are not well founded. I, as a Welshman who owes so much to belonging to this great comradeship and fraternity of the United Kingdom, would certainly not seek to be a party to breaking it up. I am, I hope, as good a Welshman as any, but I also feel an intense loyalty to the unity of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that what is proposed will damage that unity or the sovereingty of Parliament.
6.11 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Before the noble Lord replies on this matter, I should like to say that I originally suggested, for very good reasons that have since been expanded, that we ought not to vote on this point because the issues were such as ought to come afterwards. I doubt whether I would have said it with the same confidence and belief had the noble and learned Lord made his speech earlier. Having respected his sensitivity, and having sat with him in both Houses for a good number of years, I have never witnessed a more insensitive reply to a debate than that which we have just heard from the nobleand learned Lord. Quite objectively and quite apart from any Party or political considerations, the way in which, despite the evidence that has been produced, he completely wiped the whole matter off as though those points of view did not exist, or ought not to exist, has shown insensitivity, which is rather sad. Even at this late stage, I still believe that the technically correct thing to do is not to push this matter to a vote now
I had hoped that before the noble Lord withdrew his Amendment, we should at any rate have had an indication from the Government Front Bench, as we have had from the Opposition Front Bench, that, once this Bill was being dealt with, this important matter, which ran alongside it and which in essence was part of it, would be dealt with separately. The noble and learned Lord has given no such indication: indeed, he has given the opposite indication. We started in the debate with the point that the Royal Commission had said that there was some justice in what was behind our Amendment. The noble and learned Lord has completely demolished that. He has indicated, in very clear words, that he thinks there is no justice in it. The only point that has come out of the reply that he has given your Lordships is that he is terrified of the Scottish Nationalists. He said that we must not do this, for,"Look at the joy that it would bring to the Scottish Nationalists; if we do not take action, the Scottish Nationalists will! "
Is it the duty of a Parliamentarian to do things out of fear of an extremist section, or is it his duty to look at matters on merit, and to deal with a question objectively as

523
it exists? The noble and learned Lord may quote Burke, but I wish that he had acted in many instances today more like Burke did on many occasions. I do not think that there is any suggestion that even the Long Title would not cover this matter if we wanted to push it. With great deference to my noble and learned friend, there is nothing in the Long Title which prevents the Bill laying down a formula as to how the Members to the Assembly should be elected. That is all our Amendment does, and it cannot in any way be contrary to the Long Title. I had hoped that the expression that has come from the Cross-Benches, from the Government Benches, from the Liberals (through the voice of their Leader, which has been quoted) as well as from these Benches would have called for a more sympathetic reply than that given by the noble and learned Lord.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord will have realised that, following the expressions made from all quarters of the Committee, his reply will have given much disappointment, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. From all parts, this concern was expressed not in a vindictive way, but simply on the basis that, if what is proposed in the Bill is done, it will in fact give Scotland special treatment twice over, and that doing that will be likely to create a problem in the future. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether, even having rejected those remarks as he did so swiftly, he will be good enough still to think about them again before the Report stage, because there is no doubt that there are many people who are as concerned as he is to see that the unity of the United Kingdom is maintained. Our real fear is that the Bill, as constructed, will damage that unity. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are both seeking a solution. The noble and learned Lord in his reply wiped away—or so it appeared—any inclination to find a solution. I hope that he will think again before the Report stage, because we shall try to think again.
I should like to ask him two questions arising from his reply. How does he counter the argument, which was put forward when the Royal Commission reported, that over-representation under
524
these circumstances would constitute a grave injustice to the people of England? How does he reply to that? Secondly, will he not accept that if they do nothing, the Government will be giving special treatment to Scotland twice over?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As I ventured to say, so far as the West Lothian question—to which that matter is directly related—is concerned, we shall be debating it shortly. My noble and learned friend and I will be dealing with it, and we shall come to it. The devolution Bill itself is an attempt to deal with a very serious problem; namely, the feeling, we think, of the Scottish people that political decisions upon matters of immediate concern to them are made remotely. That has engendered a position in Scotland which demands that action be taken with respect to it. The Bill has endeavoured, in considering all the factors which have been indicated today, to come to a solution. I was seeking to assure noble Lords that I believe the package that has emerged will be directed to ensure the two matters which have concerned the Committee most today; namely, the unity of the United Kingdom, and the sovereignty of Parliament. If in emphasising those matters, I have offended in any way, I am very sorry, but I should be very surprised if it were so. That is the position, and I adhere to the view which I have expressed as to the matters which arise on these Amendments.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I must say that the noble and learned Lord has wholly failed to understand both the case and the offence which he has given. What my noble friend said, and what I said, had nothing whatever to do with the so-called "West Lothian problem", which we expressly said had nothing to do with this Amendment. The question concerns the numbers of Scottish MPs who, after the institution of the Assembly, are to represent Scotland in Westminster.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, and his noble friend sitting beside him, Viscount Thurso, said, in terms, that there was nobody in this Chamber who did not think that Scotland would be over-represented after the Bill was passed. The offence which the noble and learned Lord has given has directly

525
to do with that. The whole bent of his speech—every word of it, including the absurd repetition of Burke's letter or speech to his constituents—was directed to the proposition mat, after the Assembly, there was no reason whatever to alter the representation of Scotland. I find that profoundly unacceptable. If the noble and learned Lord finds that people vote against him in this Chamber it will only be because he has made such a provocative and insensitive speech. However, we have more sense than that, and, I hope, more sense than the noble and learned Lord has shown. I only hope that he will think again before he speaks again on this subject.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Since I have been quoted, perhaps I may say a few words on this subject. It appears to me that we are getting rather hot about a point which has been covered over and over again in debate. I said that our Party recognises quite simply and frankly that, with a good and working Assembly, the case for extra Members in Scotland would tend to fall. If the Lord Chancellor disagrees with this, then he is in line with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, who thought it would not be altered.
But as we have had such an excellent Second Reading debate and as we have had such excellent debates in Committee, I hope we are not going to degenerate into waving the big numbers because we disagree. I agree that it is enough to make one want to force a Division if people keep quoting Burke at you, but perhaps it is not wholly in line with the traditions of your Lordships' House (which, as a new Member, I hesitate to point out to anybody) to use the vote, the big stick, instead of argument. I hope the Conservative Party will carry on in the way they started, and will use argument instead of waving the big stick, however badly the Government may put a good case.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: But the real point is this. If the Government will not listen to argument, they must face voting. If they will listen to argument, then of course we can go on as we have been going on; but the trouble was that the noble and learned Lord read out his speech as if nothing had been said during the course of the debate. Even the noble Lord,
526
Lord Brown, behind him, said that there was no argument about the over-representation; and as I understand it nobody made a contrary proposition until the noble and learned Lord read out his speech, including the awful repetition of Burke.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am wondering, after that intervention, whether the noble and learned Lord was listening to my speech. It may well be that when he reads it in the morning, in the calm mood which so often characterises him in spite of these occasional outbursts, he will think that, for once, he has done an injustice to me. I have endeavoured to deal with the matters raised. It is true that 1 was referring to notes on part of the constitutional matter, which I think is not unimportant when someone in my office takes the liberty of expressing a view about it. I have certainly listened to what has been said, and I endeavoured to deal with it. Indeed, I called in aid some noble Lords who appeared, curiously enough, in spite of the indignation of the noble and learned Lord, to agree with what I was saying; and there it is.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There are just two questions I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, after his speech. Having argued that devolution means over-representation, that presumably means that the Government are now instantly going to introduce a Bill to increase the number of Irish seats; because his argument cuts that way, just as well as it does for Scotland—and in my humble opinion it is not a very good argument. The second thing is that in some of my remarks I asked the noble and learned Lord to give an undertaking that when this was discussed the question of Labour Party political advantage was not part of the Government's thinking.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: I do not know what will be the eventual number of Scots Members of Parliament at Westminster. I suspect the fair number is probably 57, and I think that if I had to bet now I would bet that that will be the eventual number. All I want to say is that I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is going to change his mind and press this issue to a Division, but, if he does, then, as one of my noble friends said earlier, I think he

527
must realise that the mathematical formula in this Amendment would simply be chaotic because of the chaotic conditions in the Highlands, and I should have to vote against it for that reason.
Lord MONSON: If I should decide to ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw this Amendment, it will certainly not be because I can possibly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, or the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that, to quote Lord Shepherd's words, any change ought not to come from this Bill. On the contrary, I think it is vital that a change be written into this Bill, if not today then at a later stage. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, has put his finger on the reason why. If and when this Bill becomes law, there will be absolutely no incentive for the Government to take measures to reduce Scottish representation to fair proportions. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, pointed out that it was a simple matter of justice and fairness; while my noble friend Lord Ellenborough made the excellent point that it would be quite unwise for the Scottish electorate to face the referendum with a false prospectus being laid before them: they ought to be given the clear-cut choice of the present over-representation at Westminster and no Assembly, or an Assembly with reduced—but still fair—representation. Here, I am bound to say that I cannot possibly agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that any sensible and fair-minded Scotsman would consider fair representation, at English levels, to be a"betrayal ".
However, I am to some extent persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that there is perhaps a case for a very slight over-representation, taking into account the under-populated Highland areas. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, suggested 60 seats rather than the 57 which my Amendment, if passed, would produce; and I think there is something to be said for that. I think it would also meet some of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie.
In passing, I may say that I started out by welcoming the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, which seemed at first
528
to support my case, but which turned out to be something of a double-edged claymore. I should also like to see if I can meet the constitutional objections raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, although I am bound to say that, after prolonged discussion, the Chairman of Committees in another place found there was nothing improper in debating, and possibly ultimately passing, similar Amendments.
It has been a most useful discussion. I am grateful to all those who have participated, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, for their support. I assure them that I intend to move a revised and possibly somewhat"softened Amendment at a later stage—unless, that is, Amendment No. 26, which is down in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is passed this evening, which may perhaps solve our problem. But so far as this Amendment goes, I feel I need a little more time to think, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert —
("(6) No referendum under section 80 of this Act shall be held before Parliament has determined how many parliamentary constituencies there shall be in Scotland after the enactment of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in the Marshalled List which stands in my name and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. I feel that in some way I am responsible for the tension we have just experienced because I noticed that, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came to reply, almost his opening words coupled my Amendment with the preceding Amendment. I took it (translating it into language which I understand, which is of course far less refined than that used by the Lord Chancellor) that he was inviting me, when I moved my Amendment, to "belt up"and to be as brief as possible. I intended to do that; but I must say that, as his speech progressed. that sort of jocular mood concerning myself, with which he started, vanished.

529
I have known the Lord Chancellor, in another place, for a very long time, and I thought that his language, or rather the whole tone of his speech, was not in keeping with the agility that he usually shows. For example, to say of another place in the context in which he was saying it that what Parliament gives Parliament can take away is all right for the nursery but surely not for an assembly of this kind, most of the Members of which have spent a lifetime in politics. It may well be that theoretically what Parliament gives another Parliament can take away, but even that is a bit doubtful and there are a few obstacles.
The idea with a Bill of this kind—a Bill that has been fought as it has for the length of time that it has been considered and debated and considering the emotion that it arouses in Scotland—that what one Parliament can do you can then turn round and go back on and do something quite different seems to be divorced from political reality. I put down this Amendment—and I did not canvass any support for it—trying to find a way round what I perceive as a great difficulty. I have done what I have done ever since took part in public life: I have done my homework. I studied with very great care what was said in another place. I noticed that the Conservative Party had put down an Amendment to refer the Bill to a Speaker's Conference.
If I had been there 1 would have spoken against it because I do not believe that a Speaker's Conference, dealing with boundaries, could reach a solution without, as it were, approaching the role. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke and made the point that lie did not want this Bill to change anything, I got to my feet to point out that the role of the constituencies, their sizes and number are heads and tails of the same penny. You cannot split them. You can try, if you like, to do something in one Parliament and hope to reverse it in another.
The point that I want to make is that Parliament in this country—thank Heaven! —is not something suspended in the air supported neither from above or below. It has its roots in the hearts and lives and aspirations of the people who sent it there. This is what my Amendment is about. Nothing could be simpler or more plainly expressed.
530
I do not want the constituents, be they Scottish, Welsh or English, to buy a gold brick. They must know what they are buying. And they need to know it before the Elections; and it needs to be spelled out. The purpose of my Amendment is in realising from the debates in another place that a Speaker's Conference would not solve it. Speaker after speaker, so far as I can see, was saying that the problem is completely unsolvable. One is faced here with the problem of overrepresentation. Quite clearly, if overrepresentation gives one Party an advantage, then it must be at the expense of somebody else. I do not need to go back and read Burke to arrive at that conclusion. It is obvious and has been a real grievance for a long time.
If you start to change—then never mind what Lord Shepherd has said—you are going to change. That is why you do it. You may try to head off the Scottish Nationalists and hope at the same time to leave things as they are. That is what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is doing. He is a great lawyer, a very skilled advocate. What he was doing was engaging in verbal knitting. If 1 were a Scottish Nationalist, I would take his speech and turn it into a gramophone record and play it in every constituency. The result would be a great impetus for the Scottish Nationalists, because what he said, so far as Scotland is concerned, was the biggest gold brick ever; that nothing will change at all; that it is all going to be reserved for another place; that everything will remain the same. Of course, everything is not going to remain the same. It may be that the present Prime Minister when Home Secretary—and he started this off—and Mr. Wilson when Prime Minister thought that they would be able to get away with it and that everything would remain the same. But Jack is out of the box; and they cannot get him hack. This is what the Bill is about; they are trying to put Jack in the box again—in the same box but only one Jack. But there is more than one Jack!
I am going to give the Lord Chancellor some advice. The first requirement of a democrat is not mathematics. The noble Lord, Lord Home, is right. You cannot solve this problem through mathematical formulae. That cock will not fight. The first requirement individually and collectively of a democrat is the ability to make

531
up your mind on very limited evidence. The genius of the British people down the centuries has been, whenever they have been faced with the facts, that they have never refused to face them. That is why when the crunch came in the last war that once again our democracy showed its strength.
All that I plead on this issue —and I do not ask anyone to accept the sincerity of what I say: but I assert it—is that on this issue as on the Common Market issue and on conscrption, I stand where I stand and I say why. I am not against devolution per se. And I was not against the Common Market per se. I am in favour of conscription. What I want people with whom I have political contact to understand is why I say it. I say it because I believe it to he true. You must make your intentions plain to those you are seeking to guide. That is the second requirement of those who seek to lead in a democracy: get your facts right and stand by what you say and make every effort to get those facts across.
If the Government have any sense—and I say that as a lifelong member of the Labour Party—they will go to endless trouble to make sure that this is spelled out, so that those who take part in the referendum coining up to the General Election understand exactly where the Government stand. We do not want here to play around with the size of constituencies or hide behind a gloss because the facts are awkward. Therefore, I ask the Government to face up to the really fundamental issue, the all important objective: that the voters must know—not afterwards but before—what the sizes of the constituencies are going to be. The Boundary Commission must report some time after 1979 so that the size of those constituencies will inevitably affect the role. If the existing over-representation of 71 is to continue, that fact ought to be known. If, on the other hand, you are going to put it right, and it went the other way, it is likely that those who may be very keen on devolution, or on decentralisation or, (as my noble friend Lord Shinwell for the convenience of the moment described it) autonomy or whatever name you may care to put on the jampot, the name is known and the contents are known.
532
The Amendment that I have put on to the Marshalled List—supported on the other side of the Committee, for which I am grateful—I would ask the Committee to accept so that, as an absolute minimum, before the referendum is held the electorate should know, as a result of the deliberations of the Boundary Commission, what size the constituencies are going to be and the number of them, not for the convenience of any one political Party but for the convenience of democracy itself.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I put my name to this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, because I felt that perhaps there ought to be an alternative to the method suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Monson, for dealing with the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, in his speech on the last Amendment said that every Member of this House recognised that there was a problem. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor showed that he was in a minority of one. He sat down and refused to answer the question of whether it was done for Party political advantage or not or whether it had been raised.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Does the noble Earl really think that is a question to put to me? This was a decision of the Government which was taken after examining the whole position on the basis of their view of the political and constitutional solution to the problems arising in Scotland. It was done on that basis, and I entirely repudiate any suggestion by the noble Lord that this has been motivated wholly by squalid Party political considerations.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord asks me whether I think it an appropriate question to ask. I would hesitate to say that I asked it because I thought it was an appropriate question to ask. The noble and learned Lord has said that I suggested that it was done for squalid political considerations only. He has denied that it was done for squalid political considerations only; he has not denied that there were not squalid political considerations involved.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope that we can raise the level of the debate above this, I must say.
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor refused to face facts. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, brought out this point with his usual skill. One of the other reasons why I put my name to Lord Wigg's Amendment was because it seemed to be a method of dealing with a problem which was felt widely in England, and that he represented one tradition of England. He sat with distinction and for a long time in another place for the Labour Party, representing a Midlands industrial constituency. I have sat in the House of Lords with considerably less distinction for a much shorter time; my interests are agriculture and I live in the South of England. So there is a contrast of background and history between the two noble Lords who have put down this Amendment. This underlines the widespread feeling that exists in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, also said that it was better to have a second-rate Bill than no Bill at all. I find that an infinitely depressing argument. Surely the House of Lords prides itself on being a collection of some of the most intelligent and experienced people in the Kingdom. If we are prepared to accept the second-rate, then we ought to go home, pack up and do nothing.
There is no doubt that the membership of the House of Commons, as a question of numbers, was dealt with by the Government of Ireland Act 1920; so it is perfectly legitimate, in my submission, for this situation to be dealt with in the Scottish Bill. The Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and myself enables it to be dealt with slightly more quickly. We are not forcing the House of Commons to do it; we are suggesting that it should be done and that it should be discussed.
The following point has not been raised as an argument but it might be worth doing so now: people could say that it is not for a hereditary or appointed House to say how an elected House should elect itself. I do not think that that argument is tenable, especially as I suspect that there could one day be a"noble Lord, Lord Skinner of Bolsover ", who at present spends his whole time discussing and complaining about the membership of the House of Lords. The Amendment post
534
pones the referendum: we know a referendum is a fairly dubious and recent constitutional innovation, but it is there and I should have thought that Parliament itself could have discussed it.
Finally, why the Scottish Nationalists should be appeased by having 71 as opposed to 57 seats, I do not know. That is an argument of astronomical flimsiness —if that is not mixing metaphors. If we make sure that Parliament reinvestigates this question properly, this will make sure that the Scottish people as a whole will have to face facts. If they read the reports of today's debate, they will read that there was only one man who made a complacent speech and who regarded the present state of affairs as being idyllic.
6.44 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: Before we go any further, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, this question? When he speaks of the size of constituencies what does he mean? Is he referring to population or square miles? I am sure the noble Lord will agree that, in Scotland, square miles are a serious consideration.
Lord WIGG: I did not want to prolong my speech. I referred several times a week ago to the principle of one vote, one value. I should have mentioned this earlier because I noticed that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrets, when he referred to my speech later that night, spoke of"one man, one vote ". I believe it should be one vote, one value, in so far as it is practicable. At that time I quoted the source of my inspiration as Mr. Churchill. He produced the axiom of one vote, one value, which obviously means that there may be some constituencies, particularly in Scotland, which will be very large indeed. For that reason, the size obviously has to be limited.
I kept away from attempting to define the size of constituencies, either from a geographical or a numerical point of view. These are political decisions. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, on this point. The political instrument for carrying out the survey is the Boundary Commission. If the Boundary Commission makes its report in the light of all the circumstances, then to some extent one is meeting the point—I will not say harbouring the suspicions—made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow.

535
There are those who think that, over the years, the handling of the Scottish constituency question has been a piece of gerrymandering by the Labour Party. It is obvious to me that those days have gone. I do not believe that 71 seats can be justified. Therefore, it is a political decision as to what the number should be, and it should be treated politically. On the point that was mentioned, I personally would go as near as is possible to one vote, one value. The difficulties are certainly great in Scotland. There are also parts of England where there are difficulties.
6.48 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was quite right in saying that this Amendment goes along with the previous one. One upholds the other. This Amendment strengthens the last argument, and the last argument strengthens this one. This Amendment is quite clear: we are committed to a referendum under this Bill if it becomes an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is quite right, before one asks the people of Scotland to give a decision in a referendum, they must know what it is that they are deciding upon. It may well be that there will be many citizens in Scotland who will say:"If the price I have to pay for the Assembly is giving up X number of seats in the Westminster Parliament, I will not do it ". Others may say:"That is a cheap price. I prefer the Assembly to the membership in Parliament ". But they ought to know.
I do not think there is any need to say in answering that that the time factor would defeat the Bill. In supporting this Amendment I would not ask that the Boundary Commission should be called into being and give a decision. I would be satisfied at this stage if we could get the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberals to give an undertaking that, following the passing of this Bill, if ever it is passed, they would reduce the Westminster membership for the reasons which have already been given down to a certain level. The figure I suggested was 60 as against 57.
If this Amendment had been put down from these Benches, I suppose that it could have been called a wrecking Amendment. But it has been put down from
536
the Government Benches by someone who is experienced in Government matters. I think—if I may lobby for the reply that I should like—that the response we should like is this:"This question will be looked at to see if words can be found which will identify what the membership of Westminster will be after the referendum, and an undertaking is given to adhere to whatever formula is recommended ". That may well do the trick. I believe that before one asks people to give a decision on a referendum, they should know both the headlines and the small words that go to make up the package. That, I gather, is what this Amendment asks for.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do hope that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor comes to reply he will give a more conciliatory reply than he gave last time—and when I say"conciliatory"I do not mean merely being nice, mellifluous or even unduly complimentary: I mean that he should deal with the substance of the case. It is his failure to do that which has caused the offence on this side. The noble and learned Lord chided my noble friend behind me for lowering the tone of the debate. Let me tell him why I think it is his fault that the debate has taken on this change in tone.
One of the fundamentals of democracy is that the different areas of a united country should be properly represented. I tried to help the noble and learned Lord in my original speech. Obviously this is not an altogether simple problem but one factor, and perhaps the predominant factor, which has been recognised in all countries is the number of votes in a constituency, whatever that may be. Obviously, sparseness of area counts for something. Nobody, for example. would expect the area that was formerly represented by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel to have the same number of votes available as a closely-packed urban constituency: there is too much geographical area to cover. Equally we have to recognise the third factor that I mentioned earlier: namely, that the boundaries of the local community have to be taken into account. That has also been universally recognised, but the predominant factor is that large numbers of people should not be gerrymandered into large constituencies and small numbers of people expanded into very small constituencies.

537
The noble and learned Lord, with all his knowledge of Burke, which most of us learned when we were still at school, failed to mention the most important part of the function of a modern House of Commons. It is to choose the political colour of a Government. That is its most important function of all. It decides whether there will be a coalition Government, a Labour Government, a Conservative Government or a Liberal Government: that is its function. If you cause great areas of a country to be overrepresented and other great areas to be under-represented, you are gerrymandering democracy itself; and I wish I could make the noble and learned Lord understand this very simple point. When my noble friend Lord Onslow attacked the noble Lord and asked him a rather plain and possibly uncomplimentary question, I must tell him this: we on this side remember what was done in 1948 about the boundaries of constituencies by a Labour Home Secretary. We remember what was done in 1967 when the present Prime Minister was the Labour Home Secretary; we remember what was done later, when the present Prime Minister was the Labour Home Secretary, about postponing local government elections.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot, with his great personal charm, prevent our entertaining those memories when we find him saying what he said from his brief in answer to the previous debate. His point was (I am only paraphrasing him because I was not able to take a verbatim note) that it did not matter that Scotland was being overrepresented; it did not matter that the Assembly would take over a great deal of the work from the hands of the present Members. It did not matter that Northern Ireland had a different basis of representation during the currency of Stormont. He regards that as unimportant. Well, we do not so regard it: we regard it as of the essence of the matter.
We recognise, of course, that Parliament is a congress of, as it were, representatives and not mandated delegates. We have known that ever since we were 12, but it does not have anything to do with the present situation and the present subject under debate. It has nothing to do with the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, which preceded it. We know
538
that Members of Parliament are supposed to represent the interests of their country as a whole; but we also know, having lived most of our lives in public life, that what they regard as the interests of the country as a whole is slightly influenced by their political affiliations. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor does not recognise these facts of life, he must not complain if my noble friend Lord Onslow finds him a little exasperating. And of course we know that Scotland did have over-representation, for perfectly identifiable reasons; but we think that this particular Bill alters the fundamental situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has a great deal to be said for his Amendment. 1 hope that at this stage we may he able to pass things over perhaps until Report, until we have had time to think about what has been said. But he says he agrees with us to this extent: that if the people of Scotland want their Assembly there are those among us, including myself—though not all my noble friends behind me—who say that if they want their Assembly they must have it after the referendum, but that they must also recognise in doing so that the people of England and of Wales, who will henceforth enter into a new type of partnership with their friends in Scotland, will have something to say about the extent of representation which the Scots shall have in the future in Westminster.
Knowing that, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has reason on his side. He says that when the referendum comes it may or may not be the case that his Amendment is the right way of dealing with the matter, but when the referendum comes the people of Scotland should be under no illusion as to what is to happen. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, was right: they must know what they are buying. They must know whether they are buying over-representation plus an Assembly, or an Assembly without over-representation—because sooner or later the people of this country are not going to listen to the sort of nonsense to which the noble and learned Lord has treated this Committee.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry that the atmosphere of this debate has now moved in such an unpleasant direction—not, if I may say so, assisted by the extravagant words of the

539
noble and learned Lord. But I am accustomed to these occasional outbursts which are fortunately compensated for by a quick reaction of ordinary courtesies afterwards. The Amendment which my noble friend has moved certainly raised, as the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has said, some at any rate of the main issues which arose in his Amendment. I certainly meant no discourtesy to my noble friend by dealing with the two in my speech, or seeking to deal with them. I quite agree that when the referendum takes place what is being offered should be clearly stated; and, whether your Lordships like it or not, what the Government are stating is that the proposal is that there should be 71 Scottish Members of Parliament.
That figure was not arrived at by a gerrymandering Labour Government, but arrived at in 1944 under a provision of the 1944 House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act during the Government of a great leader of the country, Winston Churchill. It was not a Labour contrivance. It is true that there was a repetition of that figure in 1949, so that the parentage of the figure of 71 is an honourable one, and it will remain as the figure which will be presented to the Scottish people when the referendum comes.
As I think my noble friend already concedes, the effect of passing this Amendment would inevitably be a denial for a very long time to the Scottish people of an opportunity of deciding on the issue, because, as he has drafted it—I am not, of course, turning on a pure question of drafting—it says:
"No referendum … shall be held before Parliament has determined how many parliamentary constituencies there shall be in Scotland."
That, of course, means that there would have to be legislation in Parliament in a new Redistribution of Seats Act before a referendum could take place, and Parliament would normally operate in that field only after an examination of the matter by the Boundary Commission. So it would inevitably he a very long interval of time. I know that my noble friend is eager to get up, so I shall give way to him.
Lord WIGG: The point is that you can play this long or short, according to what you want. The wording is"Parliament
540
has determined"and I have left it like that. 1 freely concede that these are political questions. Obviously my views are not as informed as they ought to be, and are not as informed as the Government's would be. But if the Government accept the Amendment, there is nothing in the world that need delay the referendum by a day if they are so minded. It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, there that could be a Speaker's Conference, in the sense of a meeting between the main political Parties and a decision could be reached as to how many seats there should be. The Boundary Commission are going to report. Personally, I should prefer to go to the Boundary Commission and ask them to get on with it. It could be done, if the Government wanted to do it. On the other hand, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor wants to make it respectable and use the argument of a long delay, it is up to him.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have put the point that what is proposed would require prior determination by Parliament itself on this matter, with an Act of Parliament and an inevitable period of delay. We have covered this ground for a substantial period of time, and I have indicated to my noble friend that the stance of the Government in the presentation of the devolution Bill is that Scottish representation in Parliament should be 71 Members. I have endeavoured in my speech to indicate that, as the major problems of the governance of the United Kingdom will remain in Westminster, that does not seem to the Government to be an unreasonable suggestion and is, indeed, one that meets the needs of Scotland itself.
7.3 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, intends to do about his Amendment, but I hope that he will see fit not to press it this evening. There is a great deal to be said for it, and I think that he has a lot of sympathy among noble Lords for what he has put forward. It is infinitely more gentle than the last Amendment. But I accept what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor says, in so far as if Parliament chooses the number of MPs who are to represent Scotland, it does not just pluck a figure out of the air. It is bound to

541
take advice, whether from the Boundary Commission, from a Speaker's Conference, from a Committee of Members of Parliament or whatever it is. It is bound to seek advice.
The mere fact of seeking advice will take some time. That would delay the referendum, under the noble Lord's Amendment, and that would be construed by some as wrecking the Bill. On the other hand, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is entirely right to say that if a referendum is to be held on this Bill the people of Scotland should know precisely what is involved, and should know, if there is a price to pay, what is the pice that they are being invited to pay. It may well be, as my noble friend Lord Home said, that if he had to make a guess, and if his guess was anything to go by, the figure of Scottish MPs would eventually come down to 57. There is a sound argument for saying that, if that is to be the case, it is much better for the people of Scotland to know that in advance of voting in a referendum on this Bill.
For that reason, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will not press this Amendment. But I hope, equally, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be kind enough to give this matter further consideration. He has said that it is the Government's stance that there should be 71 Scottish representatives. We understand that that is the Government's stance. On the other hand, I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord, with his ability, great as it is, to understand the other point of view, will accept that there has been a very great deal of concern expressed this evening not about denying Scotland the right of representation in Parliament, but simply about the fact that under the Bill as it is at the moment there could be special treatment twice over, and, in many people's view, the possibility of a lack of harmony and a diversity of interests as a result, which would affect the United Kingdom and its unity.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not totally shut his ear to these thoughts, which have been expressed with very great conviction this evening, because I am certain that somebody will return to this matter on Report stage, and it will be helpful if we can have some kind of concordat of agreement, as
542
opposed to the noble and learned Lord saying"This is the Government's view and we are not going to budge, whatever anybody else says."
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: I am attracted to the Amendment which has been moved, for two reasons. One is the certain democratic logic in the argument put forward, that a vote in any part of the United Kingdom should have more or less equal value. Secondly, the one argument that encouraged my sympathy was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, to the effect that,"We have to pass this Bill, or the Scot Nats will get you That has been the argument for the Bill right from the beginning. I spent a little time in the last week or two in Garscadden, where there is a by-election and, so far as I could assess the feeling, I found that the Assembly was not a very important issue. I am satisfied that the Labour Party will win the Garscadden by-election, not because they have the Assembly in their programme, but because they have at long last attacked the Scottish Nationalists and exposed them for the spurious Nationalists that they are. So I do not think that we should be unduly influenced by the argument that we must get this Bill through, even if it is a second-rate Bill, or the Nats will move towards a Northern Ireland situation.
At the same time, as 1 am attracted by the logic of the Amendment, I suggest that it be not pressed. If there was no provision for a referendum on this matter, which required 40 per cent. of the electorate to support the Bill, I should perhaps support the Amendment. But the weaknesses of this Bill, which have been exposed in the long debates this afternoon, are the kind of weaknesses which will be exposed and demonstrated to the people of Scotland during the debate on the referendum. The West Lothian question has been discussed here; the fact that my local Member of Parliament for West Renfrew-shire can debate and discuss education in the West Riding of Yorkshire, but cannot debate and discuss education in Scotland, although he is a Scottish MP.
There are anomalies of that kind, and there has been the warning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that if the figure of 71 is maintained, then sooner or later the people of England will complain about over-representation in

543
Scotland, and that this will be a source of constant irritation which is not good for Parliament. I expect that in the debate on the referendum in Scotland these matters will be fully exposed, and I suspect that the Scottish people will see the weaknesses in the Bill. For that reason may I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that at this stage he should withdraw his Amendment and that we should proceed with the Bill. However, those of us who feel that the Assembly is not so important in the Scottish situation as others seem to feel will at least get the opportunity to debate that matter publicly when the referendum takes place.
Lord WIGG: I am very grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this Amendment. I am going to accept the obvious feeling of the Committee and ask for leave to withdraw, but before I do so may I make this point. When the Government put this Bill on the stocks I believe that they ought to have taken into account the political realities of the situation. One can get away with the over-representation of Scotland and the political advantage that it gives to the Labour Party so long as "Pussy" does not wake up; but once one puts Pussy out in the garden a lot of people will take notice. So one cannot bring Pussy in again and imagine that notice has not been taken of it and that the problem will go away.
This seems to me to be the Government's great weakness. Whenever they are confronted with a problem, instead of grappling with it they invent some kind of formula for glancing it off, hoping that it will go away. But the one lesson which politics have taught me, whatever the subject, is that the reality of the situation lies in the background and that one must deal with it. Once the devolution Bill became a political reality, in the sense that public debate would take place, there was no longer any question of Scotland continuing permanently to be over-represented. Those are the political facts of the situation.
I ask leave, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment, although at the Report stage I shall again seek to put it down. In the meantime I hope to have access to somebody with greater experience and wisdom
544
than I possess to find out whether a formula can be found which will not delay the progress of the Bill. I do not want to do that. If it is the wish of the Scottish people to have an Assembly they should have it, provided that they realise that whatever one has in this life has to be paid for in hard coinage. If the Scottish people wish to have an Assembly they must know what they are buying. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question. Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) (APPROPRIATE ARRANGEMENTS) (No. 2) ORDER 1978
7.13 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved. This draft order is specifically about machinery. It is to establish the arrangements that are necessary to settle matters if a dispute arises between two housing authorities over which of them should accept the responsibility for securing that accommodation is available for certain homeless people. When the Bill was being considered—both in your Lordships' House and in another place—considerable concern was expressed on behalf of authorities about the potential responsibility to secure accommodation for people who had no connection with their area. In response to this concern, what is now Section 5 was introduced into the Act.
The section provides that where:

(a) an authority are satisfied that a duty arises under the Act to secure that accommodation is available for a particular homeless household: but

(b) they are of the opinion that no member of the household has a local

545
connection with their area, that a member of the household has a local connection with another authority's area and that no member of the household runs the risk of violence in that other area;

they may notify the other authority and the duty to secure accommodation may then transfer to that other authority.
Under the Act, local authorities are to determine questions of responsibility by agreement. Failing that agreement, outstanding questions are to be determined by"appropriate arrangements"prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State. These arrangements are regarded as a useful fall-back by Parliament, but I would hope that their use would be the exception rather than the rule. Local authorities should strive to settle by agreement, whenever possible.
The Act came into force in Scotland on 1st April 1978 and this order establishes the arrangements for cases where both the authorities in dispute are Scottish and also for cross-Border cases—that is, cases in which one of the authorities is English or Welsh and the other is Scottish. The Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) Order which was made on 20th January 1978 and which is on similar lines to this order established the arrangements in respect of cases where both authorities were English or Welsh. The Act came into force South of the Border on 1st December 1977.
What the draft order does is to require the appointment of a "referee" to determine any issue under Section 5. It is open to the authorities to agree a suitable person but if they cannot they would report this to the chairman or president of the appropriate association. This means in effect that where one of the authorities in dispute is Scottish that authority would report the failure to agree a referee to the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The President would then appoint a referee who would be drawn from a panel appointed by the associations.
Where the authorities are both members of the same association, as will be inevitable in all but cross-Border cases, then the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities will make the appointment. If, however, they are mem
546
bers of different associations, as will certainly happen in cross-Border cases, then it will be for the chairman of the appropriate English association and the President of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to agree who should be the referee.
In the unlikely event that they cannot agree, each will nominate a candidate and the selection will be settled by lot. This is unusual, but I think it unlikely that the need to resort to lot will arise. I have no doubt that the associations' chairmen will be able to agree a referee, but it is necessary to make some provision to cover a possible disagreement of this kind. The referee's decision, whether he is appointed by the authorities, by agreement or by the chairmen, is to be binding on both authorities. The procedure has been kept flexible and the referee will himself determine how he is to proceed. The order, however, contains provision to enable the referee to receive representations from any person he thinks can help him and to require him to take account of the representations of the authorities concerned and invite the household concerned to submit information.
The draft therefore takes account of the concern expressed by local authorities and embodies arrangements which have been developed by the associations themselves and which envisage that disputes will be settled as quickly as possible and avoid protracted discussion. The Act provides that a homeless household are to he secured accommodation while the issues are being settled.
I hope that the machinery which the order contains will require to be used only rarely, but it is clearly necessary as a final resort for resolving disputes which could have further distressing effects for people who have suffered the personal disaster of becoming homeless. My Lords, I therefore commend the No. 2 Order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft Housing (Homeless Persons) (Appropriate Arrangements) (No. 2) Order 1978, laid before the House on 8th March, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining this order in

547
considerable detail. It is a fact that this order arises from the Bill which, during its passage through your Lordships' House, underwent a particular Amendment. We are glad that the Government have implemented this machinery and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for explaining to your Lordships that the system of arbitration will be binding on both authorities; that is, the notifying and the notified authority. As the noble Lord so rightly said, in the vast majority of cases agreement should be reached on a situation where no arbitration may be necessary, but in rare exceptional cases this system appears to us on this side of the House to be a reasonable one. It very much hangs upon the successful appointment of the panel of persons who are to act as arbitrators. We can safely rely on the local authorities concerned to appoint suitable persons and we wish this method every success.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[Sitting suspended from 7.22 p.m. until 8.15 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
House again in Committee.
Clause I, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule I [Assembly constituencies]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 40, leave out lines 3 and 4.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 231, which appears with a star, but it was, of course, handed in some days ago. It is the result of the printing troubles which makes it look as if it has only recently appeared among the Amendments. The question raised here is the task to be carried out by the Scottish Boundary Commission in forming new
548
constituencies for the Assembly if and when it is established. This does not deal with the first election, but it comes up at this stage in the Bill because we are taking Schedule 1 in its natural place after Clause 1.
It is clear that this will he a considerable task for the Scottish Boundary Commission and it is bound to take them some time. They are due to divide up Scotland, as the Bill stands at present, into 150 completely new constituencies. They have criteria to observe which are contained in this part of the Schedule. Some of these are straightforward, and if I may refer to the one in paragraph 8, it says:
"Regard shall be had, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of local government areas."
That, I think, is word for word the criterion required of the Scottish Boundary Commission in their review of Parliamentary constituencies for Westminster. If it is not, it is something very similar; that is, they have to take into account the boundaries of local government areas, but they do not need to be bound by them; they are not obliged to have to follow boundaries of local government.
But in lines 3 and 4, which I am seeking to take out, it is laid down that
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency."
As I understand it, that means that the Boundary Commission are obliged to make sure that every one of these new constituencies fits completely inside a Westminster constituency as it now exists, or as it may exist in the future if there are changes. The general reviews which the Scottish Boundary Commission undertake at present of all contituencies take place every so often. As I recall it, the Commission cannot undertake a general review in less than 10 years since their last one. On the other hand, they have to carry it out within 15 years. In the interim, the Boundary Commission can examine particular areas in certain circumstances.
When the Boundary Commission have this initial task, and when they have made a report, it is expected that the Assembly constituencies will be set out in a supplementary report, if I read this Schedule correctly; so that the Scottish Boundary Commission will be carrying out a general review of the Parliamentary constituencies for Westminster, and at the same time

549
they will be carrying out the division of Scotland into 150 new constituencies and their recommendations on that will be in a supplementary report. I hope that the Government spokesman will correct me if I go wrong in interpreting the Schedule, but during subsequent general reviews it will produce a supplementary report making any recommendations that it wishes to put forward concerning the Scottish Assembly constituencies at the same time as it carries out the general review of the Westminster constituencies.
I am querying whether it is necessary to inhibit the Boundary Commission in such a way that it has to fit each of these new constituencies within one of the 71 Parliamentary constituencies. There are a number of important matters that it must bear in mind when it is considering what the constituencies should be, both for Westminster and for this new Assembly. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone summarised them in a previous debate. It has to take into account population and geography as well as the criteria of local government areas which I have mentioned.
It is still possible that the numbers of the Members of the Assembly will be reduced, because it is apparent from debates that have already taken place in your Lordships House that there are a number of Members who favour fewer than 150. The Royal Commission Report —the Kilbrandon Report—recommended that there should be 100 Members. It is clear from the debates which we have had in Committee on the method of electing Members that the question of the numbers has still been left open. From the point of view of the Bill being consistent at present, there are to be 100 or thereabouts elected Members and 50 added Members. However, it may well be decided at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill that 150 is too many and that the number should be reduced to something like 100. If that were to happen, it would be even more difficult for a Boundary Commission to try to fit 100 seats within 71 and make sure that there was no overlapping and that every one of the 100 new constituencies fitted within one of the 71 Parliamentary constituencies. That would make its task even more difficult and restrict its discretion.
550
Therefore, I ask the Government: is there any particular reason why they have, in this Bill, stipulated that each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised within a Parliamentary constituency? I do not at first sight see any reason why there should be that relationship. If it is thought desirable, then could not the wording be similar to paragraph 8 —that is, not obligatory but proposing that the Boundary Commission should have regard, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of the Westminster constituencies. That would certainly give it far more latitude than paragraph 6 lines 3 and 4 as they now stand.
Therefore, the two points that I should like the Government to answer arc first, what is the reason for trying to fit each of these constituencies within a single Parliamentary constituency at all; and secondly, if there is some desirability, and we are persuaded that there is a point in it, would it not be better to put it in the words that are used in relation to local government areas and make the Boundary Commission take that into account, but not restrict it in this way?
I should like to raise the question of timing because I think that this is the moment to raise that matter. It seems that the Boundary Commission is left to carry out this operation as part of its next general review. However, again if I have misread the Bill the Government will, I hope, inform me. The last report from the Scottish Boundary Commission was produced in about 1969. One of my noble friends, in fact, produced the date June 1969 earlier today in another debate and I have no reason to dissent from that. That was certainly about the time when the last general review was completed and a report submitted. I think that that means that the Scottish Boundary Commission is able, from a date 10 years after that—if it wishes—to start its next review.
It would mean that by about the middle of 1979 the Boundary Commission could start its review of Westminster constituencies. Moreover, as soon as this Bill has been passed, and if it were then accepted by a referendum and enacted, the Boundary Commission could go ahead with the job of dividing Scotland into these new Assembly constituencies. Again, if I have interpreted the Schedule

551
correctly, it would produce a supplementary report on that matter, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether that is the position. There seems to be nothing in the Bill which indicates that there should be a special separate operation undertaken by the Scottish Boundary Commission starting immediately the Bill is enacted. I am therefore assuming that the Government are simply leaving it to be carried out at the same time as the general review which is due to start in 1979 or which can start then after the 10-year interval.
I hope that when replying to the Amendment and explaining why the Government have put lines 3 and 4 into the Bill, the Government will also either now or at a later opportunity when discussing this Schedule, inform us about the time of when they see the Scottish Boundary Commission carrying out this task which, as I have said, I quite understand may take some time—perhaps two or three years to complete.
8.28 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I have tabled the next Amendment, but perhaps I can speak to this Amendment which substantially covers the same point. We have had some discussion this evening on the subject of fair representation. It seems to me that Schedule I, Part II, is much too restricting. It is important to remember that this is the permanent system and not just the initial system which has to be hurried; this is the permanent system which will be in operation. As my noble friend has pointed out, it will operate only 10 to 15 years; that is to say, at fairly long intervals.
It is clear that it is anticipated that if the rules of Part II are observed it will he pretty rough justice, because it looks as though they are quite prepared for constituencies to he 125 per cent. above the average. At least at the beginning—not at the end of 10 years, because there may be movement of population of one kind or another—can we not start on an even basis? Should Schedule I not directly be guided towards a fair distribution at the beginning of the 10 years period?.
I think that it is worth recalling that the voting at the last Election in Scotland was extremely close. I think I am correct in
552
saying that there were only five Members out of 71 who were, in fact, elected by a majority of the voters. In other words, if I am correct in my mathematics, the remaining 66 had a majority of people voting against them rather than for them. That means that the voting is very close. Therefore, it surely becomes all the more important that at the beginning of this period the populations should fairly closely resemble each other in number.
Perhaps I may state the position. The matter of the 125 per cent. is rather odd. If we had proportional representation, I do not think that it will apply so much. Perhaps I may give some simple mathematics. If a constituency has more than 125 per cent. of the electoral quota, you divide that by three, which gives 41. On the other hand, if the figure is 120 per cent. instead of 125 per cent., you divide that by two, which gives 60 per cent. That means that there is a 50 per cent. difference between the lower and higher range.
I want to make the point that this is the beginning of the period and that during this 10 years there will he population movements both in an out. In other words, the disparity is likely to become greater. I should like to suggest that at the beginning of this period the division of numbers should be much closer than is anticipated by this Schedule. One of the quite clear reasons which causes the disparity is the tying of the Parliamentary constituencies to Scottish local constituencies. Is that necessary? I can understand that as it relates to local government because this is an administrative area and makes sense.
What is a Parliamentary constituency? It has only one point of union and that is the Member of Parliament; otherwise there is no union at all. There is no administration or association; there is nothing except the Member of Parliament. Therefore, is it necessary to include these first two lines which, according to later paragraphs of the Schedule, mean that they are totally inflexible and cannot be altered. That produces very sharp disparities which I think the Government recognise.
Perhaps I could give the facts. Taking the position of 125 per cent., we shall certainly have four constituencies—the noble Lord put it at five but it depends on the number taken—but if we drop to 120

553
per cent., we then have 10 constituencies. In other words, there are 10 constituencies which fall, by only 2,000 or 3,000 votes, below the 125 per cent. That is a disparity which, quite clearly, will reflect itself in a sharp difference in the number of representatives who will be returned. I suggest that certainly the first two lines should be omitted. Is it really asking too much that this Schedule should be written with the object of ensuring that the number of voters in each voting constituency should, as near as may be, be as even as possible? I hope that the Government will consider this matter closely because in a very closely contested constituency it shows a lack of intention to get the numbers fairly even.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The principle that the Government have followed in writing this Schedule in the terms in which it is written is that, for entirely practical reasons of administrative convenience, Parliamentary constituencies should form the basis for Assembly constituencies. I accept that this argument was accepted in a different context by the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Blake, when they spoke to the general Amendment on proportional representation which the Committee accepted last week. However, I accept that that relates to that particular context. That Amendment, accepted by this Committee, is founded on the principle of creating Assembly constituencies within the existing Parliamentary boundaries.
In my submission it is only practical to keep the two types of constituency boundary contiguous. In the Government's view, departure from this principle would have certain effects. First, it would tend to confuse the voters who are accustomed to Parliamentary constituencies, and, indeed, would tend to detract from the unity of a particular area as a Parliamentary constituency. It would also needlessly complicate such matters as the Party organisations. I want to stress that point because I think that the Committee would accept that the existence of Party organisations is extremely important for the healthy functioning of our democracy.
The Party organisations are built round the Parliamentary constituency in local areas and it would be a great pity if Party organisations—some of which are financially and otherwise stretched and
554
very thin on the ground—were required to regroup and form entirely different organisations for Assembly constituencies, particularly when one remembers that other elections have to be fought, whether regional or perhaps for the European Assembly. Therefore, I cannot overemphasise the importance of not making matters impossibly difficult for the Party organisations which serve democracy in this country.
Perhaps I could revert for a moment to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, last Tuesday. As I read the system—and I hope that I now understand it—which is described in that and subsequent Amendments, that does not diminish the role of Parties. Indeed, in a sense the role of Parties is perhaps even more important because of the approved Party list and matters of that kind. I think that I can derive some support—although I recognise the different context —for my view and submission in relation to the importance of Party organisations and not unduly complicating matters for them. Therefore, that is the answer. It is an entirely practical one.
I accept, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said, that because one goes from a constituency with two Members to a constituency with three, at the border-line one will necessarily get some quite material difference between the number of electors required to elect one Member in each of these constituencies. But, of course, if one goes in what must be described as fairly crude steps from a two-Member constituency to a three-Member constituency, that is inevitable. I submit that that is the price that one has to pay in order to preserve the Party organisations and not to make life impossibly difficult for them in conducting that essential part of our democracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that the numbers in the Assembly have been left open. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, made clear, and as I accepted, the Government's position is that we have not prejudiced ourselves over that; the matter is being looked at. It is only in that sense that the matter is left open. Of course, so far as the Bill is concerned, in effect the Amendments write in the Amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

555
As to the matter of timing, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked me a question. I think that he is right in his reading of it. I cannot be absolutely certain because unfortunately the 1949 Act, which 1 had this afternoon, has disappeared. I should like to consult it before I give him an answer. Therefore, I shall take advantage of his kind offer and return to the matter later and try to answer him. However, I urge the Committee to accept my proposition, that for practical reasons and accepting that the price must be paid, it is a price that is worth paying.
Viscount THURSO: We should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for bringing this matter to our notice and also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for the very clear way in which he has explained the Government's point of view and reasoning. I think that there is a slight problem here. I agree with the Government that as far as possible the object of the exercise should be to make any of these confusing constituencies as co-terminus as possible: the Parliamentary, the Assembly, the European and the local Government constituencies—as far as possible every possible constituency should retain various local identities.
I was very impressed with the noble and learned Lord's argument about the identity of Party because, after all, by our PR Amendment, which your Lordships' Committee has accepted, we are introducing the element of Party into the election area in a wider sense. We shall come to that in a later Amendment. Therefore, I am impressed by the Government's arguments on this. However, I take the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there may be moments when Boundary Commissions are reporting and elections are taking place at different times, when it may be difficult to maintain boundaries exactly as laid down in the initial stages after the passing of the Bill, if it is passed. I am slightly inclined to believe that the phrase,"so far as practicable" would be good to include if the Government could find it acceptable, because there may be moments when it is not practicable. One does not want to make the law unduly difficult.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think that any lawyer looking at the words "so far as practicable" would appreciate that what is practicable may not be reasonably practicable. Perhaps I should put it the other way round. It may be that it is perfectly practicable to divide Scotland into 100 different constituencies, but one would depart very much indeed from the existing boundaries of the 71 constituencies.
Viscount THURSO: I agree that we do not want to depart unreasonably from existing boundaries. I am only asking whether the noble and learned Lord will look at this problem and consider, between now and Report stage, whether there is indeed a problem that could be covered by a form of words.
May I refer to what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. If we are to accept a percentage of a constituency vote, as indeed we have done already in various Amendments accepted by your Lordships' Committee, then obviously we have to work with like-shaped constituencies, otherwise the meaning of the Amendments we have already accepted is not clear. Therefore, from these Benches we support the Government in what they have said but we would ask them to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said to see what force there is in the arguments he has adduced.
8.42 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I make a point which the noble and learned Lord may be able to answer now, or perhaps on the next occasion. It seems quite remarkable that we have in quite a short period of time reached such an enormous spread in the size of constituencies as to have 21,000 in Glasgow Central and 97,000 in Midlothian. That is quite extraordinary. Is it contemplated that this will be put right by the next Boundary Commission? Obviously, it will get out of phase a bit in time, but one cannot help feeling that on the last occasion the Commission may have taken a rather limited view of what was practicable in order to get such an astonishing result as this. One of these constituencies is in the centre of a town, where one would have thought it could quite easily have been added to another constituency or divided between several. The other is

557
an amalgam of what one might call suburban areas. It is a quite extraordinary difference.
One can understand the smallness of some electorates such as Orkney and Shetland, with 28,000, and the Western Isles, with 23,000, but to have enormous constituencies such as I have mentioned side by side with these seems to be quite extraordinary. I hope that it will be possible to even them out. Even constituencies in the 70,000-bracket cannot easily he evened out by the method that is proposed in the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. This gives a 110 per cent. level of a constituency of average size, and two Members over and above 110 per cent; nor would it have been changed very much—certainly in many cases not for the better—by the original suggestion put down by the Government, which would, as I understand it, have given two Members for all the constituencies, including Glasgow Central, and three for the larger constituencies.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I do not think that I can answer for the Boundary Commission. I have a difficult enough task getting through from 3 o'clock to II answering for the Government. The noble Lord will appreciate that the ground rules for the operation of the Boundary Commission are laid down by the statute that I referred to. We must await their report. I share his surprise that one gets these disparities, but no doubt this kind of thing can happen over a period of time when one considers the different economic and other circumstances prevailing in areas such as these.
The Earl of PERTH: I am puzzled by the situation we have got to in Schedule 1, Part II. I well understand the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. However, it seems to me that either you remove paragraph 6 and let 7, 8 and 9 stand, or you leave in paragraph 6 and leave out 7 and 8, because it appears to me that there is a contradiction here. Quite simply, paragraph 6 says:
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency.".
Then that is qualified in some sort of form in 7 and 8 by using the words"so far as practicable ". Then we learn that that means nothing. It seems to me that the Government should consider
558
whether they want to leave in paragraph 6 and then go to paragraph 9, or whether they should take out 6, as has been suggested in the Amendment, and leave the rest. It seems to me, reading it at this moment, that the two things are contradictory, but maybe I am wrong.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether the noble Earl is giving full weight to lines 6 and 7? They contain the words,
"comprised in the same parliamentary constituency.".
The Earl of PERTH: I think I am because you have laid down an absolute rule in 6 which states that:.
"Each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one parliamentary constituency".
And that is that. If that is what you have laid down, then surely 7 and 8 are completely unnecessary, and you should go to No. 9.
Lord McCLUSKEY: As I was reading this—and I hope I shall be corrected at least from the Box if I am wrong—what is envisaged under paragraph 7 is that, if you have a three-Member constituency and there are 90,000 electors, then each Assembly constituency shall, so far as is practicable, have 30,000 electors. But that may be qualified because of paragraph 8, because you have regard, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of local government areas.
Viscount THURSO: Have we not agreed that there will not be three-Member constituencies? Have we not agreed in Amendments already passed that there are only to be two-Member constituencies?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Yes indeed: I was only using the example for the purposes of an arithmetical demonstration.
8.47 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to those who have taken part in this brief debate, and also to the Minister for his explanation, because otherwise there was no way in which we could tell why this was in the Bill. May I summarise. He has said that it is for administrative convenience, and also to make it as easy as possible for the electorate to understand the areas which are covered for Parliamentary elections,

559
for the Assembly elections, and also for local government elections. I certainly accept those as reasons which have some weight.
The noble and learned Lord was particularly frank in saying that the question of Party organisations was also very much in the Government's mind. Again, from the practical point of view, I accept that Party organisations are at present in Scotland on a constituency basis, and that, with voluntary organisations operating in this field, it is going to make life difficult if there are other constituencies which cut across the boundaries. But I am again glad that the noble and learned Lord told us that because otherwise we had no reason to understand why it was there.
I should like again to put this point to the noble and learned Lord: we are giving the Scottish Boundary Commission a difficult jigsaw puzzle to do, because, with all these restricting factors, it is going to be exceedingly hard for them to try to produce an answer. In the first place, they have the problem of trying to balance population with geography. That is to say, some constituencies cover enormous areas and do not have much in the way of population, while others have very densely populated areas. Then, we have the local government boundaries, to which I have referred.
I should like to draw attention to the fact that paragraph 8 says only,"Regard should be had so far as practicable", so it gives the Boundary Commission plenty of latitude. In paragraphs 10 and 11 even more latitude is given. It is spelled out that the Boundary Commission does not need to pay as much attention at it otherwise would, even to paragraph 8, in certain circumstances, in order to avoid excessive disparities. It is being given a certain amount of latitude on local government boundaries. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, paragraph 7 requires it, so far as possible, where a constituency is being divided into two, to cut it in half, so that the population is divided into two, still taking local government boundaries into consideration.
On top of that I would inform all those South of the Border who do not necessarily know this, that at present in Scotland
560
Parliamentary constituencies and local government boundaries do not coincide in large areas of Scotland. I have not done any research. I know, only from my own knowledge of various areas, that as a result of the reform of local government there are many cases in Scotland where the Parliamentary constituency boundaries now do not coincide with local government boundaries. They did not do so in the past before the reform of local government because the Boundary Commission had this discretion to take this into account, but it was not obliged to follow the local government boundary.
We are asking the Scottish Boundary Commission to do an almost impossible task if it is to try to meet all these requirements and is not given some more latitude, because on top of that it now has this completely new, not discretion but obligation, to place each of these new Assembly constituencies within one of the existing 1971 Parliamentary constituencies. I agree that it is possible—no doubt it has been gone into with the representative of the Scottish Boundary Commission—to fit 150 into 71, even with all these restrictions. However, if we were to move to 100 I think it would be virtually impossible to place that obligation upon it.
I hope very much that the Government at a later stage will agree to relax the wording of lines 3 and 4, paragraph 6, so that they follow the wording of paragraph 8, and that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, also suggested, they give the Boundary Commission discretion rather than place it under an obligation. I accept that the arguments he gave earlier do have some weight. I refer to his arguments about simplicity, so far as any of these things can be simple; secondly, administrative convenience; and thirdly, the Party organisations. I accept that there is weight in the reasons he gave. However, I think that it would be better to give the Scottish Boundary Commission discretion to have regard to this, so far as is reasonable and practicable, whichever wording is thought best, rather than place this upon it as an absolute obligation. Certainly, if the number of seats is reduced, this would have to be done, otherwise I can see the Scottish Boundary Commission coming to the Government's door and saying, "You are telling us to do something that is impossible."
Lord McCLUSKEY: Does the noble Lord not think that if we were to confer upon the Boundary Commission the kind of discretion that these words would confer upon it, we shall make its task much more difficult? At the moment it starts off with a map with 71 constituencies, and with 71 difficult tasks inside each constituency, so the difficulty arises 71 times, perhaps. But if the Boundary Commission is given a discretion to divide Scotland into 71 constituencies, or whatever the number may be, and can depart from the existing structure, does that not require it to redraw the whole map of Scotland for the purposes of Assembly constituencies, and does that not make its task much more difficult?.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO rose—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I shall give way later. It is rather difficult if one has two interventions. No; because I think that it would still be regarded by the Boundary Commission as its primary duty to try to fit these new constituencies inside the 71. As far as possible it would do so. But where it found that it could not do that without running counter to all the other criteria here, including trying to get the electorate fairly even, in those cases it should have some discretion.
For example, let us take the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. 1 cannot remember the exact figure, but the figure for Central Glasgow is about 20,000. It is very small. If that is not changed in the coming review the one thing that the Boundary Commission would be landed with is the fact that there is a very small constituency which would probably have to be one or two of the new Assembly constituencies, because there is very little it can do with that 20,000. It must either be one or two. That is paragraph 6. One hopes that in the next review the Boundary Commission will suggest radical changes of the kind that my noble friend said were necessary, so that we should not have constituencies as small as that. That is an example of restrictions. With such a small number of electors the Commission would be stuck with having to make exactly one or two.
However, I do agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is desirable for the reasons that he gave for the Commission to try as far as possible to fit
562
them within the 71. But I do not think that it would make it more difficult if this wording were relaxed, because it would not apply to all the constituencies. The Commission would not have to redraw the whole lot. It would redraw where it thought it was necessary for the 71, and then, as far as possible, it would try and fit the new Assembly constituencies within that. When the Commission found that it could not observe all the criteria, and it was going to produce a nonsense, it would have discretion not to have to follow this precisely.
That is what I suggest. I think that if the numbers were reduced from 150 it would have a problem.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN rose—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I was trying to be courteous in giving way to the noble Viscount first, because I said I would.
Viscount THURSO: While agreeing and being persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on his reasons for wanting to lay things down in this way, I ask him again to look at the wording of this, because my mind casts itself back to the discussion earlier this evening when we were talking about the possibility of 56 Members of Parliament for Westminster or 60 Members of Parliament for Westminster, and so forth. It may very well be that in the future a Boundary Commission may have to redraw constituencies from the 71 to some other figure. I do not choose any figure, but it would be some figure other than 71 or 72, or whatever it may be at the moment. If it had to do that, it might well do it in such a way that it coincided with an Election date for Members of Parliament to come to Westminster. It would then be necessary immediately to redraw the constituencies within the Assembly area, and this might be extremely difficult.
There should be an element of flexibility left so that the Boundary Commission is able to take this kind of problem into account if it should arise. It seems to me that with the present wording there is a lack of such flexibility. I accept the general arguments of the noble and learned Lord and of the Government, but

563
I ask them to look at the possibility of wording this particular part of the Schedule slightly more flexibly.
9 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I gave way to the noble Viscount because I understood he wished to raise a point on which I was touching at that moment. But he has brought in this additional matter, the fact that the figure of 71 is not sacrosanct, as we know from a previous debate, and it might change in the future. That is certainly another consideration which should be borne in mind, but I believe that trying to put, for example, 100 new Assembly constituencies, so that each of them fits exactly inside 71, would be a difficult operation to give the Boundary Commission; 150 will be easier, but it will still be difficult with all the other matters that they have to take into account.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether my noble friend perhaps feels that this might not be quite so difficult as it may appear at first sight. He will see from the opening provision of the Schedule that the Boundary Commission has to report"at the same time ". To my mind, that would inevitably mean that they would be looking at the two problems at the same time and together, and therefore it is a question of a double adjustment of the jigsaw, so to speak. I am not certain that I altogether agree with my noble friend that there should be latitude in going outside the single boundaries of the Parliamentary constituencies. I think it would be possible for them to adjust the Parliamentary constituencies with a view subsequently to dividing them as necessary —or sub-dividing them, if one prefers to put it that way—into the Assembly constitutencies. I should have thought it could all be taken as one operation.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I took that into account in my opening remarks, and when moving the Amendment I said that my interpretation of the Bill—the noble and learned Lord confirmed this—was that when the periodical reviews were carried out of the whole of Scotland by the Boundary Commission (in not fewer than every 10 years and not more than every 15) they would be providing a supplementary report which would cover the Assembly
564
constituencies, and therefore I understood that they would be doing both jobs at the same time.
The Scottish Boundary Commission are governed at present in making recommendations about the Westminster constituencies by certain criteria which are clearly laid down. They give them discretion where local government boundaries are concerned, but they must take many other things into account. But one of the things which they are not expected to take into account at present is these new constituency boundaries, so there is something of a problem. They would obviously use their good sense, but they are not required to take this into account. If they were, in their next review, to be making recommendations about changes in the 1971 Parliamentary constituencies, I very much hope there would be a recommendation to remove the anomaly of the 21,000, but if they were making recommendations which were influenced simply by the new Assembly constituencies, I feel they would be going outwith their terms of reference because that is not written into their remit.
However, it could be in the future and I agree with my noble friend that for obvious practical reasons one hopes that the Boundary Commission in doing this job will have both sets of constituencies in mind when they are recommending where a boundary should in future come. I would only say to Lord Drumalbyn that if he were a member of the Boundary Commission and the number of constituencies under the Bill was 100 instead of 150, he might find he had quite a problem trying to fit them into 71 in the way it would be necessary if this were obligatory.
I am glad we have aired this question. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving us a first indication, as he has in this debate, as to the reasons which have caused the Government to make this obligatory in the Bill. I cannot say I agree, but I recognise the reasons; I would give the Boundary Commission discretion so that in certain circumstances they did not have to follow the Parliamentary constituency boundary, and I hope the Government will look at that.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can now confirm that his understanding in the question the noble Lord asked me—the second point he raised—is correct.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for confirming that and for having obtained the necessary Statute, which apparently disappeared during the dinner adjournment. He confirms the timing; that is, that the Government are expecting, if the Bill is passed and is then endorsed by the referendum, the Scottish Boundary Commission to carry out this task as part of its normal periodical review, which they can start on in 1979.
Returning to the Amendment point about removing paragraph (6), my view is that it will make life unnecessarily difficult for the Scottish Boundary Commission with 150 members of the Assembly and that, if there were to be 100 Members of the Assembly, it would make life almost impossible for them. I hope the Government will take that into account and I reserve my position, perhaps to table an Amendment which would be in the terms of "having regard to" this desirability "so far as practicable" on the lines of paragraph (8). From the debate so far, that would be my preference, unless the Government can persuade me otherwise. In the meantime, I shall return with an Amendment on those lines on Report.
Lord BROWN: I do not want to prolong the argument or seek a reply to this suggestion, but I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there is a time-honoured way to resolve disputes about whether or not to give discretion. The usual form which this takes, which must be familiar to all noble Lords, is to say, "You shall observe these rules, but you may obtain dispensation by seeking permission from a higher body", in this case Parliament. That would be one way out of it; the discretion is not given but there is a loophole for the seeking of permission to disregard the rule by taking the matter to Parliament, either to the Assembly or Westminster, I do not know which.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTES (Lord Alport): In calling Amendment No. 27, 1 have to advise your Lordships that if it is approved, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I do not propose to move Amendment No. 27.
9.8 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 28:.
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("125") and insert ("110").
The noble Earl said The noble Earl said: Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 are consequential upon Amendment No. 8 which we accepted last week. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: May I make one remark about this only because The Times newspaper misreported on the front page last Wednesday what happened in this House in relation to this matter. The Government position here is that these Amendments are accepted entirely without prejudice to the whole reconsideration of the proper numbers. That was made plain on the Parliamentary page of The Times, but on the front page it was wrong. For that reason only I emphasise the Government's position.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord is entirely justified in making that point clear. Of course it was made absolutely clear and at the time this was accepted subject to the Government's reconsideration of the whole problem.
on Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 40, line 12, leave out ("three ") and insert ("two ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 40, line 14, leave out ("two Assembly constituencies ") and insert ("one Assembly constituency ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I am advised that, instead of calling Amendment No. 33, I should now call Manuscript Amendment No. 294.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Manuscript Amendment No. 294:
Page 41, line 25, at end insert—
("PART V
ELECTION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
15.—(1) No person shall be eligible to be elected as an additional member unless his name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the ordinary election concerned.
(2) No party shall be an eligible party so as to be eligible for allocation of additional member seats to its adopted list candidates under this Schedule unless it secured 5 per cent. or more of the total of all party votes validly cast at the ordinary election concerned.
16. The process of election of additional members shall be as follows:

(1) The number of additional members to be returned at the ordinary election concerned shall be ascertained in accordance with section 1 of this Act.

(2) The constituencies at the first ordinary election shall be grouped into eight Electoral Regions in accordance with Part VI of this Schedule and the initial additional members prescribed by section 1(5) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions as shown in Part VI of this Schedule.

(3) The number, group and allocation of additional members at ordinary elections other than at the first ordinary election shall be those prescribed by this Schedule subject to amendments under section 1(7) of this Act.

(4) In the event of any change in the number of constituencies after the first ordinary election the automatic increases or decreases in the number of additional members provided for by section 1(6) of this Act shall be allocated between the Electoral Regions so that as a result the aggregate of the additional members and the constituency members for each Electoral Region shall as between the Electoral Regions be proportional to the respective electorates of each Electoral Region at the ordinary election concerned.

(5) Priority lists showing the priority as between adopted list candidates shall be democratically drawn up by each party for each Electoral Region and shall not contain more names than there are additional member seats to be allocated at the ordinary election concerned to the Electoral Region concerned. A person standing for election as a constituency member may be eligible for inclusion on one or more of his party's priority lists.

(6) The valid party votes cast at the ordinary election concerned for each eligible party in each Electoral Region shall be added and the total in each case divided by the sum (called the denominator sum) of the number of candidates of each eligible party returned as constituency members at that election for each Electoral Region plus one.

(7) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall
568
be compared and the first person to be elected an additional member in each Electoral Region shall be the first candidate on the relevant priority list of the eligible party obtaining the highest number as a result of those calculations who is not already a member.

(8) The calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall be repeated after adding the additional member elected in each Electoral Region in accordance with sub-paragraph (7) of this paragraph to the relevant denominator sum of the eligible party of which he was an adopted candidate.

(9) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (8) of this paragraph shall be compared and the next persons respectively to be elected additional members for each Electoral Region shall be the first candidates.

on the respective priority lists of the respective eligible parties obtaining the highest numbers respectively as a result of those calculations who are not already members.

(10) The remaining additional members shall be elected one by one by application of the same system of calculation and election to each Electoral Region as is prescribed in the preceding sub-paragraphs of this paragraph.

(11) In this paragraph 'party' means a political party whose principal objects include the adoption of candidates for election to the Scottish Assembly.

(12) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make regulations for the drawing up and publication of priority lists by parties and the form of the ballot paper to be used for ordinary elections to the Assembly under this part of this Act but no recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make such an Order until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

PART VI
ELECTORAL REGIONS AND ALLOCATION OF ADDITIONAL MEMBERS
17.—(1) The constituencies at the first ordinary elections shall be grouped into Electoral Regions as follows—
Central Scotland—Dunfermline, Fife Central; Fife East; Kirkaldy; Stirling; Falkirk and Grangemouth; Stirlingshire East and Clackmannan; West Lothian.
Clydeside North—Glasgow Central; Garscadden; Hillhead; Kelvingrove; Maryhill; Provan; Queens Park; Shettleston; Springburn; East Dumbartonshire.
Clydeside South—Glasgow Cathcart; Craigton; Govan; Pollock; Rutherglen; East Kilbride; Hamilton; Renfrewshire East; Renfrewshire West.
Highlands and Islands—Argyll; Banffshire; Caithness and Sutherland; Inverness; Kinross and West Perthshire; Moray and Nairn; Perth and East Perthshire; Orkney and Shetland; Ross and Cromarty; Western Isles.
North East Scotland—Aberdeen North; Aberdeen South; Aberdeenshire East; Aberdeenshire West; Dundee East; Dundee West; North Angus and Mearns; South Angus.
South East Scotland—Edinburgh Central; East, North, South, West; Leith; Midlothian; Pentlands; Berwick and East Lothian.
South West Scotland and Borders—Ayr; North Ayrshire and Bute; Central Ayrshire; South Ayrshire; Dumfries; Galloway; Kilmarnock; Lanark; Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles.
Clyde—Bothwell; Coatbridge and Airdrie; Dunbartonshire Central; Dunbartonshire West; Greenock and Port Glasgow; Motherwell; North Lanarkshire; Paisley.
(2) The additional members allocated to the respective Electoral Regions shall be as follows—

Electoral Region

Constituency Seats

Additional Seats

Total

Central Scotland

14

+

6

20

Clyde

12

+

6

18

Clydeside North

11

+

7

18

Clydeside South

13

+

7

20

Highlands and Islands

13

+

4

17

North East Scotland

12

+

6

18

South East Scotland

12

+

8

20

South West Scotland and Borders

13

+

6

19

100

50

150")

The noble Lord said: I should like to start with an apology that I was not able to get this Amendment down in time to appear in the Marshalled List. The main change as between what is called a Manuscript Amendment and the original text in the Marshalled List is the inclusion of paragraph 17(1) which shows the way in which the constituencies in the electoral region are grouped together. This was done in response to requests I have received, so I hope this meets the requirements of the House. There were one or two other minor changes and the opportunity was taken to make them, and I daresay that there may be some deficiency still. I really do know how to spell Kirkcaldy which does not appear correctly in the manuscript.
I hope your Lordships will permit me to spend a little time on this, as it is very difficult to compress an explanation as to how this system will work; if your Lordships are interested perhaps I may be allowed to go through it. The Amendment sets out the proposed arrangement for the election of the additional Member;
570
that is, the Party Member. Noble Lords will recall that initially there would be 50 additional Members—that is, half the number of constituency Members—and that in subsequent elections the number of additional Members would continue to be half the number of constituency Members, whatever that might be, rounded up to the nearest whole number.
Paragraph 16 deals with the election of Party candidates. Sub-paragraph (1) provides that to be eligible for election an additional Party candidate's name must appear on a Party list. Sub-paragraph (2) provides that no additional candidate is eligible unless the Party on whose list his name appears obtains 5 per cent. of the total of all valid votes cast for that Party. The first stage after the count is to determine the total number of Party votes in Scotland as a whole. The 5 per cent. is known as the threshold. It applies in West Germany and has had the effect of excluding the smaller Parties, for example, the neo-Nazi Party, which at one time in 1969 polled as many as 4·3 per cent.
Paragraph 16 deals with the allocation of Party seats as between eligible Party candidates. Party candidates are to he allocated on a regional basis, and it is proposed that there should be eight regions. The advantage of apportioning additional candidates on a regional basis, rather than on a national basis, as proposed in the Commons, is that those elected will have a regional base, with all that that implies in regard to representation of regional interests.
It may be thought that if there are to be regions for the purpose of Assembly elections, the existing local authority regions should be used, but the disadvantage of using the local authority regions lies in the vast disparity in the size of the regions, even apart from the island areas. The system of allocating seats for additional members would be the same if the allocation was done on the basis of local authority legions, but the outcome would be less equitable and less satisfactory for the purpose in hand; that is to say, to secure representation of Parties in the Assembly as nearly as possible in proportion to votes cast in the election.
The grouping has been done in such a way as to secure that the electorates in each of the regions is roughly equal. All except one would contain between

571
450,000 and 500,000 electors, the exception being of course the Highlands and Island region, which would have about 375,000 electors. The number of additional Members for each region is determined in such a way as to result in the combined total of constituency Members and Party Members in each region representing approximately 25,000 electors. It would be very close to that in all the regions, except again in the Highland region, where each elected Member and Party Member would represent 22,000.
These calculations of course take into account the Amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, giving two Members to constituencies with more than 110 per cent. of the norm. These figures show how very much closer we would come to achieving the ideal of one vote, one value—and here I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in his place—on the additional Member system; far closer than on the first-past-the-post system, where the size of the electorates varies, as I said earlier, from 21,000 in Glasgow Central, to over 97,000 in Midlothian. So the value of a vote in Glasgow Central is nearly five times greater, at the present time, than it is in Midlothian. Even under the Bill as introduced the value of a vote in Central Glasgow would be more than three times the value of a vote in Midlothian. Even if the Government insist on retaining the first-past-the-post system, they could surely devise a more equitable scheme than the one that is proposed in the original Bill.
Sub-paragraph (5) indicates the way in which Parties are to draw up the lists of candidates for each electoral region. Each list must not contain more names than there are seats to be filled in the region. In order to prevent the Party caucuses at national level from dictating the lists for each region, it is provided that the lists should be drawn up democratically. That implies some means of selection, or election by democractic processes. But it is not intended that there should be rules laid down prescribing a single process—although that is done in West Germany—any more than at the present time there are common rules for the election of officers and executives of trade unions. They simply have to comply with equitable principles. In this country that is a matter that is thought proper for the Parties themselves to settle, though no doubt an
572
opportunity should be given to all paid-up members of a Party to play some part in the selection.
Sub-paragraphs (6) to (10) provide for the allocation of additional Member seats between the candidates. This is nothing like as complicated as, for example, football pools. Very briefly, they provide that the number of Party votes for the region should be added up and divided by the number of constituency seats won by each Party in the region, plus one. The first seat then goes to the Party with the highest average votes per successful constituency candidate, plus one—the one being added of course to cover the case of a Party which has in fact won no seats in that region. But, of course, each qualifying Party is credited with an extra seat for the purposes of the calculations. The Party which wins the first seat then has that seat added to its number of constituency seats; and the process is repeated with all the additional seats until all the additional seats are allocated. It really is remarkably simple. The process favours the Party with the most votes, but only to a small extent. Broadly speaking, the outcome is that the numbers of seats, constituency and Party combined, are allocated in proportion to the votes cast, with this slight advantage to the Party which gets most votes.
Sub-paragraph (11) gives a very broad definition of a political Party, so that, as in France, any group can form itself into a Party for the purposes of an election. An example is what I think is called the Green Party—the environmentalists—in France. That is not to say that it will necessarily win any Party seats. Sub-paragraph (12) provides for Her Majesty in Council to make regulations for the drawing up of regional Party lists and for the form of the ballot paper, which, as I explained at Second Reading, would contain two parts on the same sheet of paper, one containing the names of the constituency candidates and the other the Parties and the Party candidates. Where there was only one constituency Member to be elected, the elector would put one cross against the name of the constituency candidate of his choice and one cross against the Party of his choice. Where there were two or more constituency candidates, he could of course put two or more crosses against the names of his two preferred candidates as well as against his preferred Party.

573
Turning to Part VI, that defines the composition of the electoral regions and sets out the number of additional seats to be allocated to each region. It does not much matter what the names of the electoral regions are: it is sufficient that they should make geographical sense, and I hope that they will not offend any susceptibilities. If they do, the names can readily he altered to meet the wishes of the Committee. It would be more difficult to change the composition of the electoral regions by transferring constituencies from one electoral region to another, for that would be likely to affect the numerical balance between the electoral regions and, in consequence, the fairness of the system. It would have been possible to leave the demarcation of electoral regions to the Boundary Commission, but I believe that would have required amendment of the Act of 1949.
I see no reason to provide at this stage for local inquiries into the grouping of constituencies into electoral regions, although, of course, any alteration of Parliamentary constituency boundaries after the first election might involve marginal adjustments in the composition of the electoral regions. In any case, it seemed reasonable to show your Lordships how the system would work out on the ground, so to speak; and, indeed, I have, as I have already said, been pressed to spell out the composition of the electoral regions. Hence this revised Amendment.
The Committee will observe that some of the names originally proposed for the electoral regions have been changed. Clearly, "Highlands" was an inadequate description of an electoral region including the Western Isles constituency and the Orkney and Shetland constituency. Similarly, one could hardly describe an electoral region as "Lothian" when it did not contain all the Lothians, but included Berwickshire. Then, "South West Scotland" did not quite meet the case of an electoral region which included Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk. That is why it is called "South West Scotland and Borders"; and if it is objected that Berwickshire is part of the Borders, then perhaps the best description of the South West Scotland and Borders electoral region would be "South Scotland".
Anomalies are hound to exist in any choice of name, but since it is not sensible
574
to base electoral regions on local authority regions there is a good deal to be said for giving the electoral regions distinctive names which are quite different from the local authority names, so that there will be no confusion between the two systems. The alternative would be to call them all electoral areas if that was thought proper and so distinguish them further. I am afraid that that is a lengthy explanation but I think it would have been a little difficult to have given a shorter one that would have meant very much to your Lordships. I only hope that what I have said meant something. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I wonder whether it would be helpful to the Committee if I were to indicate briefly the Government's attitude. First, the Amendment is regarded as consequential on the Amendment made following the voting last Tuesday. Secondly, we have looked carefully at the manuscript Amendment and we have one or two points of detail but I would not think it worth while taking up the time of the Committee to look at those points because I propose to write to Lord Drumalbyn suggesting to him that the way he has done it might possibly be improved. I say this with the greatest of respect. Otherwise, I have nothing to say. I hope that, if other noble Lords feel that they can follow that example, we can make progress with a lot of detail tonight, so that when we return afresh with a full Committee tomorrow we can launch on to more important matters, perhaps, than some of the detail we have to cover this evening.
9.26 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: Nobody could understand the problems of proportional representation better than my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. I tried to follow him, but I got lost after a while with the problem. I was not one who supported PR and I was glad to have had the explanation, even if it was difficult to follow. Of course, it is mostly due to the mathematical niceties which, in a way, is the drawback of the system. I am slightly concerned because I moved some Amendments the other day the object of which was to reduce the size of the Assembly from 150 to 100. One had the acceptance and concurrence of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, and many others to reduce the Assembly to this figure of 100. Now, to use Lord

575
Wigg's phrase, "Pussy's woken up" and the size of the Assembly has gone back from 100 to 150 if we take into account the additional Members which are going to be included.
I wonder whether my noble friend, on reflection, might consider reducing the size of the Assembly at Report stage to what we had originally intended which is that it should be 100. We find ourselves in the curious situation that, for better or worse, I had moved some Amendments which I thought suitable to bring down the size of the Assembly to 100 because it was too big. My noble friend supported it not, because he thought it was too big but because he wanted proportional representation. The Government supported it, not because they wanted it or wanted proportional representation but because of the axiomatic situation whereby your Lordships had decided to put PR into the Bill—which was something they did not want. The result is that the size of the Assembly has now jumped back to that which everyone agreed apparently it should not be.
The noble and learned Lord shakes his head. I accept the fact that he agreed to that Amendment subject to the Government's own reservations. One or two matters puzzle me slightly and perhaps my noble friend could explain them. I am sure he is clear about them, but I am not. If one is standing as a candidate for a seat in a marginal constituency, the chances are that one will not get elected.
Of course, if one stands on the Party list—and some people might describe that as being a Party hack—one would get elected. This seems to be a disadvantage of the system. If one is on the Party list one gets in, but if one stands as a representative of the people one might not get in. One wonders to whom these Party Members will be responsible. Do they have constituents or do they share them? Do they have any involvement with the electorate or not? If my noble friend will explain that, I would find it helpful. It seems to me that there are some people who could get into the Assembly simply by virtue of being on the Party list with no connection with the electorate at all.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I answer my noble friend's question without going
576
into the disappointment of his having had my support on an Amendment and finding that the result was not what he expected. As to the man who stands in a marginal constituency, Part IV of the Bill allows a person who contests the constituency also to appear on the Party list. There is little danger that there would be any confusion over this. The man who stood for a constituency might well do so in a case where he was very unlikely to win that constituency, and then, when the adjustment came back on the basis of the regional system, he would perhaps be top of the list for election under the regional priority.
This leads into the second point: whether or not there is any involvement with electors. One of the reasons why a person who was unlikely to get elected but nevertheless wanted to get in and asked his Party to put him high on the list, would be precisely in order to get the maximum involvement with the electors. But apart from that, one has to remember that in order to get on to the Party list he has to be well known to the electors in that region or get himself known. This is one of the advantages of the regional system over the national system. Then I have no doubt he would help candidates in the regional area and appear on a great many electoral platforms.
I do not think that there is danger that the Party candidates will not be know n to the regions that they represent. It is true that one argument in favour of having Party lists is that they might include people who would be unlikely on their own to get elected as constituency Members but might nevertheless make a very valuable contribution as Members of the Assembly. These arguments cut across each other to some extent. The fact remains that there are these possibilities open.
I hope that I have corrected my noble friend's idea that it is only Party hacks who will get elected on to the Party lists. I am quite certain that it will be very difficult to get on to those lists, and that the Parties themselves will make sure that the people who are put on those lists are thoroughly well known in the region, otherwise they will not get so many Party votes.
The Earl of CROMARTIE: May I ask my noble friend something about this? 1 am obviously more knowledgeable about

577
the Highlands region, and he probably realises that very often people who are put forward are not desperately attached to any particular Party. They happen to be very well known and probably very useful people. It would be a great pity, so far as we are concerned in the Highlands region, if those people had to be tied to one particular Party. I gather from what he says that that does not necessarily happen.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord is asking whether they have to be tied to a Party, they must be tied to a Party in order to appear on the Party list. That means they have to assign themselves to a Party or form a Party. Any group of people could fight. Let us say there were six electoral Party seats in the electoral region: you could quite easily get six people together who were birds of a leather in some way or other and who were prepared to stand under some particular label. For the purposes of this scheme, that would come under the definition of "Party", as defined in the Amendment. But by and large, to be elected as an independent one would have to stand as an independent.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave a very comprehensive answer to the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, but I should like to add just one further point because it seemed to me that the noble Earl was suggesting that if you stood in a marginal constituency that was very chancy and you might not get in; but if you got on the list you would get in. That does not follow at all, because it might well be that your own Party, in the other seats in your region, had got its proportionate number of seats and therefore you might not be elected at all although you were top of the list. So that is chancy as well, but the result is proportionate.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I wonder whether I might just go on from the point raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie. I was going to put two points to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn which I think require clarification at this stage. First of all, there are two votes for each elector and there is an ordinary constituency election for 100 of the proposed Members. It is there, presumably, that an independent would have to stand. That is important, because there is this 5 per cent, threshold
578
It is not just a question of forming a Party, which could consist of only three or four people, for the purpose of the additional Member system list; but there is this 5 per cent. threshold which means that the Party which gets less than 5 per cent. of the whole vote is not going to get an additional Member—one of the 50—at all.
I just want to ask my noble friend to confirm that there is no difficulty about an independent, or somebody from a very small Party which could not possibly get 5 per cent. of the total vote, standing in the constituency election and being elected in his own name. But he would not have much chance, if he is a man on his own or in a very small Party, of getting anywhere among the "additional Member"50. So if I may take up the point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie, there is nothing to stop an independent from standing in the normal way for a straightforward election in one of the 100 constituencies but he has not really got much hope, on his own, of getting anywhere on the list of the 50. I am sure that my noble friend will tell me if I have got it wrong, but I do think that it is the threshold of 5 per cent. which is the important point here and the limiting one.
The other point I wanted to raise, arising from the debate we have just heard about the Scottish Boundary Commission and the application of Part II of the Schedule, is this. After the first election has taken place under this system there will be simply 100 constituencies where the elections take place. Therefore there will be the problem of having to fit 100 constituencies, under the system which the noble Lord has put forward, into exactly 71 Parliamentary constituencies. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has given it as his opinion that another place will probably reject this system anyway and send it back to us. But if they were not to do so, and if this system were to go into the Bill, I hope that my noble friend recognises that the Boundary Commission would then have the problem, under this Schedule, not of 150 constituencies but of 100 constituencies. If, as I am assuming, this Schedule is to apply in the case of this system, then after the first election the Scottish Boundary Commission will be expected to delineate 100 new constituencies for the Assembly, as opposed to 150.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am much obliged to my noble friend. I am glad that he emphasised the business of the two votes, because although the explanation of the calculations is extremely complicated, the voting is extremely simple. You just have a list on the right-hand side of the paper and another list on the left-hand side, and in a one-seat constituency you cast one vote for the candidate on one side of the sheet, and one for the Party on the other side of the sheet, which includes the Party lists. Of course, the threshold applies to the votes for the Party candidates and not to the votes for the constituency candidates. Certainly, an independent can stand in a constituency election, and he may do better under this system than he has been doing in recent years under the present Parliamentary election system. It is a long time since we had an Independent Member. He generally has to call himself something and join a Party in order to get elected, even though he may be very independent after that.
The question of the 100 constituencies enables me to reply at the same time to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. My noble friend Lord Campbell will realise that, at the present time, the number of constituency candidates is 100 in the 71 constituencies, and the figure is brought up from 71 to 100 by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It happens to work out in that way. In other words, by putting the threshold at 110 you bring up the numbers. I think that this depends a little on whether or not you bring in the under-18s at the last electoral count. But this is a detail on which I hope to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, because it is a subject which it is difficult for me to determine.
I do not see that there would be any difficulty about this. It would require a greater number of constituencies—say, 100—to appear in the groups of regional electorates. There would then be 100, instead of the present 71. But my noble friend will have seen against some of those constituencies in the lists the number 2, which means that at the present time they supply two candidates. It would not make any difference to the number of candidates. If your Lordships were to decide to reduce the number—perhaps to one Member—to be elected for each existing constituency, this would be something
580
which I should rather deplore, because of the enormous difference in the value of the vote. If we could reduce the difference between the 21,000-electors constituency and the 98,000-electors constituency, that would be a good thing. Therefore, if you were going to do that, you would need to have your 100 constituency base and not your 71 constituency base. But under Parts V, VI and VII of the Amendment you would have 36 additional members instead of 50—that is, those drawn from Party lists— because under the Amendment it will always be one half of the number of constituency Members. If, therefore, my noble friend were to make such a change, that would bring one back again to approximately 100, or a little more, instead of 150. In other words, instead of 100 plus 50, it would be 71 plus 36. Does that answer my noble friend's question?
Earl FERRERS: I think that it goes some way towards answering the question which I asked. My noble friend said that the number of seats went up to 100 because of my Amendment. This is perfectly true. However, the purpose of my original Amendment was to curtail the size of the Assembly. What I am not absolutely certain about is whether my noble friend's adherence to this system requires an Assembly of 150 Members, or whether he would be quite happy if the membership of the whole of the Assembly amounted to 100 and also whether an Amendment made at the Report stage to bring down the Assembly to 100 would meet with his approval, even if it did not meet with the approval of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.
Lord DRUMALBYN: As I have indicated, the great disadvantage of doing this would be that one would have not only some very large constituencies with only one Member but also some very small constituencies. Unless and until the Boundary Commission changes the constituency areas, I should find it difficult to agree that the numbers ought to be brought down to 71—at this first election, at any rate. It might be difficult to have a smaller number of Assembly Members after the second election than it would be after the first. I should find it difficult to support an Amendment moved by my noble friend to retain the present system of one Member per constituency so long

581
as the constituencies remain as they are at present.
Lord MONSON: Before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, sits down, may 1 say to him that I do not believe he has yet answered one of the questions put to him earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers; namely, what precisely will be the duties of the additional Members? Is there not a danger that the additional Member system will effectively, if unwittingly, lead to the formation of first and second class Assembly Members, the second-class ones being the ordinary constituency members who will have all of the normal constituency duties to shoulder—which are frequently burdensome and time consuming—the first-class Members being the additional Members who, while being paid exactly the same salaries as the constituency members, will have vastly more time on their hands in which to earn a profitable living—to write, to speak, to appear on radio, television and so on? Is not this system likely to lead to a great deal of tension within the Assembly and thereby hinder its effective working?
Lord BROWN: Could I comment on this matter? I have been listening to this view emerging gradually from one or two noble Lords who have spoken tonight. It seems to me that what is being overlooked is that the interests and activities of a constituency Member of Parliament, whether he be at Westminster or at the Assembly, are one thing while the activities of somebody who is looking after a whole region are quite another. Would it not be extremely advantageous for this country to have not only constituency MPs but regional MPs? They would introduce a wider view into Parliament or into the Assembly. I believe that they would have a pronounced effect, just as Members of Parliament in Germany have had an effect upon reducing the polarisation that exists between the political Parties, a factor which I deplore in this country.
Baroness SEEAR: May I remind your Lordships' Committee that a slightly modified version of this system, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, has been operating for a long time in Germany and that Professor Ralf Dahrendorf, who was a Member of Parliament on a Party list, has assured me that he never felt that he was second class.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: May I thank my noble friend for replying to the points which I raised. Since this is the last debate that we shall have on this set of Amendments, because this is the last Amendment in which my noble friend has explained the system, for the others are simply consequential Amendments, I think we must establish that as we are leaving the Bill with this system written into it there will be 150 Members but only 100 constituencies. So that we are back to the 100 constituencies that I mentioned and therefore the problems for the Scottish Boundary Commission after the first election, and so on. But, as it has now been accepted, with the combination of these Amendments and the Government's acquiescence, we shall be continuing with this Bill with the concept of 159 Members but only 100 constituencies—
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think it would be a little more accurate to say that it would be only 100 constituency Members because there are still 71 constituencies, some of which will have two Members.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: After the next Election.
Lord DRUMALBYN: That is right, after the next Election. With regard to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, it is very difficult to say, and I think here one can only rely on the experience of Germany where the two kinds of Members, the additional Members and the constituency Members, have worked very well together. It is particularly valuable there because they are all in Lands and I think the basis of the allocation is on the Lands system although for the purposes of numbers it is actually calculated on the whole country. An allocation is made between Lands and that is how the additional Members are allotted.
I agree very much that there is a real place for added Members of this kind. I do not know whether one would call thcmfirst class or second class. Traditionally in this country and speaking as a former Member of Parliament, the most valuable basis that you had was your constituency correspondence. I believe that in this country, at any rate for a long time to

583
come, the constituency Member will remain the first-class Member. Curiously enough, I have always heard the criticism made from the other side and I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Secar, automatically assumed that it would be the added Members who would be the second-class Members. I am quite certain that there will be no lack of work for either of them and I agree entirely that this will help to bring the whole Assembly together. If this Assembly is created, there is a real chance that it will be a far more intimate body and will work much more closely together than it is possible to do in an assembly of the size of our present House of Commons.
Lord TORPHICHEN: I think my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has been a little too quick in saying how carefully the Parties will select their candidates for the additional Members. I should like to remind him of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, and I intend absolutely no slur on him in referring to this. He lost his seat in 1964 and was rather foisted on the people of Leytonstone and they rejected him at a by-election specially prepared for him. That was an expensive mistake for a Government with a very small majority, and I think the disciplining of losing that seat would not have occurred under this system.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether my noble friend is not confusing the two kinds of Members. It would, of course, still be possible for somebody to lose a seat as the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, did. I see no reason why that should be impossible, although I believe he was previously the sitting Member and he lost the seat. That would always be possible in any direct elections of any kind. If by any chance my noble friend is thinking in terms of a sitting constituency Member also being on the Party list, that is another question. That would be a matter for the Party to decide, and I am sure it would be very careful indeed in what order it made up the Party list for the purposes of the elections.
Lord TORPHICHEN: In fact, I was referring to the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, subsequently losing the by-election which was specially prepared for him.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Again, I really do not think one can make any comparisons of that sort. This could perfectly easily apply at a by-election at any time to a constituency seat. It could perfectly easily happen that a Member of the Executive lost his seat in an election his Party was nevertheless returned to power and he then stood at the next by-election and lost that. That could happen to any Member of Parliament at any time and to any Member of the Assembly.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: Arising out of that point, can the noble Lord explain to us what does happen with regard to by-elections, because, reading this pamphlet about the German system, I understand that they do not have by-elections. Whether it be a constituency member or a list member who dies or disappears for any reason, I believe his place is filled automatically from the list. Under the system proposed in this Amendment, would the noble Lord envisage by-elections or would he envisage the German system operating?
Lord DRUMALBYN: The intention is that the first person on the regional list who stood at the previous election but was not elected would be offered the place of someone who had been an additional Member in the course of the election, was elected and then subsequently retired, or died, or whatever. The man at the top of the list of those not elected would then be invited to take his place, and if he declined to do so the next man would be asked and so on. In most of the regions there should be quite a scope to refuse and to leave it for the next man on the list. Where there are very few added Members on a list, as for example on the Highlands and Islands list, it might be difficult, and we may have to consider an Amendment to enable this to be done.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Is this not covered by Amendment No. 64 to Clause 5, so that, if we want to discuss that, we may do so when we reach that Amendment?
Lord DRUMALBYN: In that case, I have explained it now.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time of election and term of office of members of Assembly]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.].
10.2 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("fourth") and insert ("fifth").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend suggested that I might move this Amendment on his behalf. This is a point which crops up in a number of guises in the next few Amendments and it concerns the relationship between the electoral terms of the Assembly and the Westminster Parliament and, indeed, the term of office of the Assembly itself. My noble friend's Amendment is really simply an excuse to ask the Government why it was that they chose a four-year fixed election as the norm.
I do not think there is any need at this juncture for us to raise the question of the right of dissolution, which will crop up in a few minutes under subsequent Amendments. The worry being suggested here is the matter of getting out of phase with Westminster. For example, if one had a Conservative Westminster Government—which some of us hope will happen before too long—which was devoted to the cause of cutting back public expenditure, and a Labour-dominated Assembly, one would clearly be producing a formula for disagreement and strife. The question therefore arises whether it is the wish to keep the two Assemblies in phase. If it is, clearly, neither of these Amendments is right. However, we should like to know what was the Government's motivation in choosing a four-year fixed term and whether they still think, on reflection, that that is the right thing for the Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, who has moved the Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and to explain that the Government consider that a fixed term is entirely appropriate for a subordinate Assembly with delimited and defined, although important, responsibilities.
586
I agree that the actual length of the fixed term is a matter of judgment—it can be no more than that. When the Bill was discussed in the other place, both three years and five years were mentioned. However, in the Government's view, three years could be too short a term in which to develop adequately particular policies on which an Administration was elected, and five years could be too long an interval before the Scottish electorate was given a fresh opportunity to make its judgment upon the Assembly Members.
As the noble Lord said himself, it is true that the Bill provides for premature dissolution of the Assembly. We shall perhaps talk about that later. However, this clause is designed to meet a crisis of the kind in which the First Secretary's Administration is unable to continue and no alternative Administration can be found within the existing Assembly. Of course, in those circumstances, the new Administration would have a life for only the remainder of the fixed term. That breaks the absolute inflexibility of the fixed term to meet difficult circumstances, and I quite agree with that.
However, the Government are firmly of the view that, for normal circumstances, a fixed term of four years seems to be appropriate and is, perhaps, least open to the kind of objections that I touched upon just now. Those are the reasons behind the Government's view.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that brief explanation. As I have said, there are a number of other issues which can easily be involved, but I suggest that we leave them until we have discussed them under the various other Amendments which are coming up. I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I must advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 38 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Would it be convenient to my noble friend Lord Gray if we discuss Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together with his Amendment?
Lord GRAY: I am happy to fall in with whatever may be the wishes of the Committee, and I am certainly quite ready to agree to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 2, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: There have been many references in our debates to provisions in the Bill that may lead to discord between Westminster and Edinburgh. I believe that Clause 2(2), to which my Amendment is directed, is just such a provision. Clause 2 fixes the normal life of an Assembly, as we have just heard, at four years with termly elections on the third Thursday in March every fifth year. Those elections are to be called by the Secretary of State for Scotland who is required, in calling them, to lay a draft order for approval before both Houses of Parliament. The clause is not concerned with premature dissolution—that is dealt with in Clause 3. So far so good.
However, Clause 2(2), which is the subsection that my Amendment touches, gives the Secretary of State power to advance or postpone an ordinary Assembly election by two months. However, it does not require him to obtain Parliamentary approval for doing so. Thus a Secretary of State could avoid carrying out a duty which is specifically laid on him by this clause, or he could overrule a decision of Parliament. Amendment No. 44, standing in the name of my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, if accepted, will make the implementation of the power in subsection (2), about which I am talking, subject to Parliamentary approval. I think that that would be a minimum condition for the survival of the subsection, but that is not the only point that I wish to make.
I hope that the Government, through the Minister who will reply, will tell the Committee about the thinking—and we have heard about the careful thinking behind every provision in the Bill—behind subsection (2), and when and why they envisage that it will be used or needed. I shall not jump to any nasty conclusions, and there is perhaps little reason to be concerned that political use would be
588
made of the powers, although we must of course never forget that future Governments are not bound by the opinions of this Committee or the intentions of the present Government.
Superficially, there may not appear to be much political mileage in the subsection (2) power, but later on I want to focus attention on the exact nature and extent of that power. I believe that we may reasonably suppose that subsection (2) is in the clause in order to cater for emergency situations or administrative considerations. Be that so, perhaps we should consider whether, provided that the power is made subject to Parliamentary approval, the provisions are appropriate or even adequate. I take note of the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn just now and I do not wish to anticipate what my noble friend may say. But I can perhaps see a case for the proposal in one of his Amendments to extend the power to postpone an ordinary election of the Assembly by another month, although I cannot see why any case could be made for bringing forward an election by three months.
Having referred to emergency situations, I would ask the Committee to look at them with me. I assume that in the event of a United Kingdom or Great Britain emergency, existing emergency powers legislation would provide the means of catering for a necessary postponement of an Assembly election. But would that be so in the case of a purely Scottish emergency? I wonder whether the Minister who will reply can tell me about this. Would it be dealt with under this provision or, if not, under the existing emergency powers legislation?.
I want also to look at what I referred to as administrative considerations that could perhaps call in aid the power in subsection (2). Obviously these could vary from anything such as extreme weather conditions to probably the trickiest situation of all, a possible clash between a Parliamentary election and an Assembly election. It would obviously be highly undesirable to have not just a direct clash but even a near miss. I do not have to speculate about what Parliament considers as the proper course in such an instance, whether it arose through Prime Ministerial choice or the fall of a Government.

589
I look upon the prospect that in the event of a clash subsection (2) would be used to shorten the life of an Assembly not just as undesirable but as slightly ridiculous, but it could be done since there is nothing that I can see in the Bill which says what time has to elapse between the order made by the Secretary of State advancing the election and the date on which that election should take place. There would not merely be no time for a campaign by Assembly candidates but what there was of such a campaign could be used—quite inappropriately—as a dummy run for a General Election. In the event of an electoral clash, I can envisage the Assembly election being postponed, but I wonder whether a two-month postponement would be enough. In some circumstances I think it would not. Perhaps the Minister who is to reply for the Government can tell us what the Government thinking is on this.
I have said that I can see a case for a power for postponement subject to the reservations I have mentioned, but I have not been able to find in my thinking about the subsection any case for having a power to advance the date of the election, since the emergency situation of an Assembly dissolving itself prematurely is already dealt with in the Bill in Clauses 2 and 3.
Finally, I wish to return to a question which I mentioned earlier. What is the exact extent and nature of the power in subsection (2)? I do not think it is what it appears to be. If noble Lords will look at subsection (2), they will see at line 21 that it says:.
"The Secretary of State may … appoint as a day for the holding of the election a day not more than two months earlier nor more than two months later than the day on which the election would he held apart from the order.".
Superficially, that looks like a power limited to two months either way; but is it? I am very unsure on this.
The words at the end of line 23 and the beginning of line 24 are as follows:
"… the day on which the election would be held apart from the order."
It is not "the day on which the election would normally have been held". Is it the Government's intention that there should be a power to postpone an election,
590
and postpone it again, and postpone it again? I think that that is in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will either deny this, so that we may agree to put it right, or perhaps explain to me why I am wrong. I beg to move.
10.16 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I agree with my noble friend that one must have some kind of provision to give elasticity here. One can never foretell what is going to happen. To that extent I am sure we require something in the Bill to deal with that matter. So far as I can see, the only reason for holding an election earlier than the due date would be that the Executive no longer had the support of the Assembly. If so, the sooner it was held the better. It certainly could not have anything to do with the holding of a Parliamentary General Election because it would hardly be possible for the Secretary of State to say in December, "I am expecting a Parliamentary Election in March or April so we had better have the ordinary election a couple of months earlier". This would, so to speak, be "blowing the gaff" in a big way. If there is the power to hold the election earlier, I am not certain what the procedure is. Is my noble friend right in saying that an order cannot even be opposed by Negative Resolution under the Bill?.
I see the difficulties, because a Negative Resolution would have to be opposed within 28 days, and by that time the election would probably be over. I do not know what the Government have in mind here. I quite appreciate that in an emergency we might want to have it two months earlier, and it could be carried through Parliament in one day with the greatest of ease. But I find it difficult to see why we should want to have it two months earlier in any circumstances. Perhaps my noble friend can make that clear. The only circumstance I can see is a breakdown in the running of the Assembly.
As to the question of holding the election later, I think that there is more to be said for a rather longer time, for these reasons. If an ordinary election was due in mid-March and needed to be postponed—because, for example, the General Election was to be called in February or because of national mourning, a national

591
emergency, or a breakdown in law and order—it would surely be desirable to postpone it for more than two months until after the local elections in May. It would then be difficult to hold it. That is perhaps the limiting case, or the extreme case, but we must consider the extreme case. It would be difficult to hold it in April, and it would be difficult to postpone it for only one month.
I see more reason, therefore, for a postponement of up to three months than I do for bringing in an election earlier, and making provision for an earlier election. Two months might suffice for an earlier election. However, on the other hand, if we made the period three months, we should be making it a little easier to deal with the case where a dissolution was pending. We would know the time of the dissolution, and then we could bring forward the election two weeks, two months, three months, even four months, in order to fill the gap between the time when the breakdown in the Assembly took place—or if the Government resigned, or whatever it was, if there was a dissolution—and the normal date in March.
For my part I should be quite willing to give a little more elasticity there, although I fully realise the difficulty in that the Government would be accused of manipulation if they did it too obviously. However, as I say, if there had already been a Resolution for a dissolution it might well be that there would be some justification for holding the election more than two months before the due date.
Lord KIRKHILL: I listened with considerable interest to the very pertinent points put by both noble Lords. From past experience I deem it prudent to consider in some detail the points that they have made. Indeed, I am willing to give consideration to the very effective points just made. However, I enter a caveat. At this stage the Government do not accept that there is more than one option under Clause 2(2). We are prepared to look at this matter further.
10.20 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: When they are giving consideration to this matter, will the Government bear in mind the fact that
592
the third Thursday in March is very close to the arrival of Summer Time and that Summer Time in Scotland is almost invariably associated with snow storms? Furthermore, if the Government agree to postponement, will they please make that postponement such that it cannot be as far as the time when the General Assembly will be sitting?
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord to answer the question about the order? Is it or is it not subject to the Negative Resolution procedure?
Lord KIRKHILL: I apologise for not replying to that question; it is not subject to Negative Resolution. I forbore to answer in detail—although I could because I have a note before me—the points which the noble Lord, Lord Gray, made because I said that we would be having a look at them.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will be looking at them, but may I ask him to take us a little into his confidence and say what are the sort of emergencies which would induce the Government to alter the date forward or backwards?—because this question was asked and it interests me to see what the Government are really thinking on this issue.
Lord KIRKHILL: Yes, I can certainly do that if the Committee would like me to expand somewhat on this. The Government believe it is sensible initially to provide some elbow room. It seems prudent, the Assembly being a new body, not to rule out almost anything at all in advance. The Government's position is that they have sought to achieve some flexibility by the power in subsection (2). It will enable the Secretary of State to deal with certain circumstances as and when they arise. However, the power to vary should, in the view of the Government, be strictly limited and should be fairly short, otherwise the Secretary of State might be put in a position where his motives for delaying or bringing forward an Assembly election might be questioned. The reason why the Secretary of State might act might be, for example, the question of a European election, the possibility of a General

593
Election, and so on. These are the possible difficulties which may perhaps face a Secretary of State.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation, but I should have thought, at least so far as a General Election was concerned, that the Prime Minister of the day decided that, except on the very rare occasions when the Government are defeated and must go to the country. I should have thought that it would be up to the Prime Minister to decide that it was not suitable to have a General Election at the same time. If a General Election takes place because the Government are defeated, I find it difficult to believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland will know about that in sufficient time to take the appropriate action, and therefore I do not see that this is a sensible operation. My view and I make it clear that it is my personal view—is that, if one is to have a four-year period, one will do better to accept that it is a four-year period and not let anybody change it for his or for anybody else's convenience.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord's brief must have been prepared before it was announced that the European elections would be in June because they are also for a fixed term and presumably they will go on being in June, so it is hardly likely to affect fixed-term elections for the Assembly in March.
I was going to suggest that, in considering this matter, if I am right about the absence of need for advancing the elections—and it is difficult to see one except in the case of dissolution—the best course would perhaps be to amend the dissolution clause to provide that, if there is less than a certain amount of time between the ending of the two months within which the Minister must make an order and the regular time for an ordinary election, he can extend the time. If no other reason can be foreseen, perhaps he could consider the acceptance unnecessary to give power to advance the election.
The Duke of ATHOLL: Can the Minister say whether it is two lunar months or two calendar months? If it is calendar months he might find the elections not taking place on a Thursday.
594
This would not worry me personally, but I know the Minister is aware that elections in Scotland, except for General Elections and Parliamentary by-elections, have traditionally always taken place on a Tuesday. It seems to me that if we think a Thursday is the right day for elections we ought to put in 56 days rather than two months.
Lord KIRKHILL: I must confess that I have never addressed my mind to that point, but I shall do so and let the noble Duke know.
Lord GRAY: My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and to all those who have spoken, but I am a little disappointed. I cannot hear tonight about my final point as to whether the power in the Bill is what it appears to be or whether it is not.
Lord KIRKHILL: It was merely that I took account of the fact that it was after 10 o'clock and I thought that some of your Lordships might want to talk about one or two Amendments which are still before us. Because I had said that we are going to give some consideration to the point raised I thought I might shorten the debate at this point. In thinking that I miscalculated the mood of the Committee. I shall tell the noble Lord that an order under Clause 2(2) relates specifically to ordinary elections which are called regularly on a four-year cycle. The Members of the Assembly will know the date of the next election. It is unlikely that they will wish to have a dissolution and election in the run-up to an ordinary election. The Assembly election after a dissolution serves only for the remainder of the period of the Assembly which they replace. If the Assembly resolved to dissolve, for example, three months before an ordinary election it would be open to the Secretary of State to use an order under Clause 2(2) to bring forward the next ordinary election so that it becomes in effect the post-dissolution election. It is really at that point that we on this side of the Committee are in some initial disagreement with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. But we agree that perhaps the point he had made is worth looking at afresh. No doubt the Secretary of

595
State would consult the Scottish administration about a use of an order in this way and only provide it if it is acceptable to them.
Lord GRAY: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having given me the extra answer and I am reluctant to detain the Committee any further. Therefore I accept his offer to look at it again and shall expect perhaps to hear from him. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 43 not moved.]
10.29 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (4) and insert —.
("(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft thereof shall have been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: We are really back on the same subject that we have just left at the last Amendment, because as we have seen the Secretary of State can alter by two months the date of an election, and all he has to do is to make an order to that effect. Of course, it does not have to have any Parliamentary approval. My concern is that I am sure all Secretaries of State have been people of unparalleled integrity, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, did admit that if you gave too much of a gap people could question the reason why, if the length of dissolution was too long.
I was not at all clear on what the conditions would have to be before the Secretary of State were to change the date by two months. Indeed—and I say this with the greatest respect—I do not think that we are that much wiser after the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has tried to explain it to us. Could there be some reasons other than those which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested? There could indeed he a political advantage in calling an election at another time. The Bill gives the Secretary of State four months leeway, and the choice is his—and his alone—to decide when
596
to call for the election of the Assembly. The point of the Amendment is to ensure perfect rectitude, that the Secretary of State should retain this right, but that it should he subject to Parliamentary approval. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
10.31 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has quite properly drawn the attention of your Lordships to the different treatment in Clause 2 of the once-and-for-all order to be made under subsection (1) there, which is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and any orders which will be made under subsection (2), which require no Parliamentary involvement—a point about which he complains.
There is a very practical reason for the Affirmative Resolution procedure for the subsection (1) order. It was pointed out in discussion on the Scotland and Wales Bill, which provided only Negative Resolution procedure for the order fixing the first election, that if that procedure were used, the Instrument, after it had been made and laid, would be at risk of being annulled for the next 40 Sitting days. So unless a gap of 40 Sitting days, which in practice can span three calendar months—I notice here the reference to calendar months; this brings my thoughts back to a previous Amendment—is allowed between the laying date and the date fixed for the election, in theory the order could be annulled after the election, with, presumably, incalculable results. The Government, therefore, decided that the Affirmative Resolution was desirable, bearing in mind that it would be used once only, and that Parliament could fairly claim an interest in the date of such a special election.
Quite different considerations apply to orders under Clause 2(2). This provision gives the Secretary of State a very limited discretion to move the date for a particular election, and in the Government's view raises no issue of principle in relation to subsequent election dates sufficient to justify any degree of Parliamentary involvement. The ministerial power confirmed by subsection (2) is a simple executive power, and despite the importance of the subject matter, it does not seem to justify, in

597
the Government's view, any Parliamentary procedure. The need for an Affirmative Resolution procedure would seem, therefore, to be unnecessary, and perhaps an unreasonable use of Parliamentary time. The arguments against Negative Resolution are those which have been referred to in relation to the order under subsection (1). I think that that is as fair an explanation of the Government's position at this time as I can give to the Committee.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. I think that what be is saying is that if it is subject to a Negative Resolution it will take 40 days, and therefore the election might have taken place. I do not think that that applies if it is subject to an Affirmative Resolution. I think the noble Lord really said that this is merely an executive matter and it should not need Parliamentary approval. My only point is that I should have thought there could be circumstances—I am not saying that there would be—where the leeway of four months (and this is a four months' discretion which the Secretary of State has) could he used for political purposes. It is unlikely that it would be used, but it could be used, and I should have thought that in order to have avoided that it may have been worth while making the matter subject to Parliamentary approval. If the noble Lord is to look at the question raised by my noble friend Lord Gray, then he might as well cast his mind over this problem too. I will not trouble the Committee any further at the moment,and I beg leave to—
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, I should like to make the point that, so far as the postponement of the order is concerned, I do not think that the consideration which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, mentioned would necessarily apply. Quite clearly, the postponement would have to be made before the election campaign was due to start, so there ought to be plenty of time for the debating of an order for postponement. I would think that this is necessary for many reasons. For example, there is always this problem of business falling, of Bills being lost, at the end of a period of Parliament, and this is a serious matter. If you then proceed to postpone in order
598
to get Bills—and this is an Executive act—it really ought to be subject to Parliamentary approval. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: When the noble Lord is considering this, I wonder whether he would not also consider, perhaps, that what we seem to be doing today is making a whole lot of arrangements for unforeseen and rather unexplained purposes. I feel very strongly myself at this stage, having listened to what has been said, that the real answer is to have a fixed date, and I cannot myself see any reasonable excuse for changing it. Obviously, the death of a Monarch, or something of that kind, might have an effect; but whether I was Secretary of State or an ordinary man in the street, I would much rather know that the election came at a certain time, and that was that. I think this would really save a great deal of trouble and worry, and I would strongly recommend the Government to look at it before the next stage.
Lord KIRKHILL: I would not in any sense wish to leave a wrong impression in your Lordships' Committee. I have agreed specifically to give further consideration to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray. Of course, I am sensitive to points which are raised in debate, but I am not able at this stage to say that I am going to consider each and every further point which has been made to me. I would say, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas—and it is such a magnificent valley—that, of course, the political constraints upon the Secretary of State in this situation will be enormous, and I think without doubt this must surely be a constraining factor. I merely put that point to him for his own consideration.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: If I may say this to the noble Lord, the obvious comparison is the American Presidential elections. They are fixed every four years, and there is nothing anybody can do about it.
Earl FERRERS: In the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, I think he inferred that he would not be looking at this again. I think that is a pity, because we were getting along famously. He was going to look again at the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Gray, and I thought

599
he might look at this at the same time. I hope that, even if he does not give a commitment to do so, he will nevertheless consider it, because I think there is quite a lot in it, and particularly in what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn said. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of SELKIRK: Perhaps I might draw attention to one point, to which I will not expect an answer now. Clause 2(3) says that a Member of the Assembly will cease to be a Member on dissolution. If he ceases to be a Member, then under Clause 20(8) he also ceases to be a Secretary. It is true that under Clause 3(2) the dissolution takes place the day before the election, but it might well happen that there was difficulty in forming another Government. I understand that the practice in this country normally is that you hold office until your successor is appointed. I just wondered whether there might not be a situation in which there would be no officers at all in the Scottish Executive.
Lord McCLUSKEY: In relation to that, may I say that I think this point arises under an Amendment we are coming to fairly shortly—at least, I hope we are coming to it fairly shortly.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord another question on Clause 2(3). There has been, it seemed to me—and this was a purely personal view—a considerable injustice done to the honourable Member for Argyll, because it so happened that, owing to the time it took to get the boxes from Tiree to Dunoon to be counted, lie was not deemed by the Fees Office to be elected until the Saturday. Therefore, after each election he lost two days' pay. I think this is unfair, because you are obviously elected the day the people put their votes in the box; but this was not the view of the Fees Office. I think that this subsection should read:.
"The term of office of any member of the Assembly, whether elected at an ordinary election or otherwise, shall begin on the day of the election".
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of Assembly]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.].
10.40 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("on the eve of") and insert ("fourteen days before").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is put down in order to gain some information from the Government. The Assembly, as written in the Bill, stands dissolved "on the eve of any ordinary election". I have suggested in the Amendment that it should stand dissolved 14 days before the election. To "stand dissolved on the eve of any ordinary election" seems a curious Parliamentary expression. I want to know what it means. It seems to have more of a religious, Biblical connotation than a Parliamentary one. I am asking these two questions. First, if the noble and learned Lord is to reply, I should be grateful if he will give a definition of "eve". By that, I hasten to say that I do not mean the opposite of "Adam". Is it the night before or the day before or 24 hours before the election?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I can answer that at once. It is midnight.
Earl FERRERS: That is a very telling point. I was coming to that. If the noble and learned Lord says that it is midnight, then, if the election is to be on a Thursday, in order for the Assembly to "stand dissolved" on the Wednesday, it cannot be dissolved on the Wednesday. It must, therefore, be dissolved at midnight between the Tuesday and the Wednesday in order that it should "stand dissolved" on the Wednesday. If I am right, that means the Assembly has to be dissolved on the Tuesday. If it has to be dissolved on the Tuesday, why does not the Bill say so?—instead of using this curious Biblical expression, "eve", which, I think, is somewhat misleading.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I am afraid that I am not a theologian.
Earl FERRERS: By the time I get to the end of my speech, if the noble and learned Lord will permit, he will be so.

601
The second question which I pose by this Amendment is this. Is it not undesirable to have the Assembly sitting in power, in Session, right up to the day of the election? In Westminster—and one wonders why the Westminster style has not been used—Parliament stands dissolved before the election, but Ministers hold their offices until the election, until the replacement. I wonder whether this would not be a better system to use in the Assembly, whereby the Assembly would stand dissolved 14 days before; but those who hold office would hold office, as under the Westminster system, until the election has taken place and they are either renewed or replaced in office. beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I support this Amendment? I have taken part in a great many General Elections. I cannot imagine how Parliament can go on until the eve of the election when candidates have been out (or should have been out) electioneering in whatever area they are representing. In the regions, one would have to travel a great distance to different places. If in town, it is more confined. In any case, I think it is a great mistake not to follow the long-established custom of the United Kingdom Parliament and let Parliament come to an end and have then at least a fortnight—and I believe it is nearly three weeks—before actually going to the polls and electing another Parliament.
10.45 p.m.
Lord GRAY: Arising out of one of the last remarks that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made about the continuance in office of Members of the Executive, and the point which was made slightly earlier by my noble friend the Lord Selkirk, I think that I have discovered the answer for myself. I wonder whether the Government will tell me if I am right. Because the Bill requires a Member of the Executive to be a Member of the Assembly, and they do not want to have to reappoint Members of the Executive following an election, with a break of only 24, 36 or 72 hours, depending on what view we are taking this evening, the strange provision in Clause 20(8), to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred, is there. The only trouble we have had in understanding it
602
is that perhaps it is wrongly worded. It says at the moment:
"…a member of the Assembly shall not be treated as ceasing to be such a member …"
Surely it should say: "… shall be treated as not having ceased to be such a member …"?
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the substantial point here is that a choice has to be made between having an interregnum between dissolution and the election on the one hand, and ensuring continuity between the incoming and outgoing Assemblies on the other hand. At Westminster, as has been said, there is an interregnum but Ministers retain their seals of office and their capacity to act so far as they can act without resort specifically to Parliament. In local government there is continuity. The Government prefer continuity, as the Bill provides, for both the Scottish and Welsh Assemblies. We have not yet examined the Wales Bill; but it will be appreciated that, because the Assembly is the Executive, continuity is essential. It would be slightly bizarre if we had a Welsh Assembly that stood dissolved on the eve of the election and a Scottish Assembly which was dissolved 14 days beforehand. That is one reason.
I do not know whether the noble Earl took account of Clause 20(8) when he made his remarks. Clause 20(8) makes provision for the continuation in office of the Scottish Secretary. I wonder whether he thinks that Clause 20(8) would stand along with the Amendment which he proposes. I think that there might be difficulties. It would be unfortunate if there was some gap between the dissolution of one Assembly and the election of the next, because one can envisage that there might be emergency situations. The standing orders of the Assembly, for example, might provide that a certain power may be exercised only if there is approval of the Assembly to the exercise of the power or the making of an order, whatever it may be.
If the Assembly was dissolved at a particular time and there was no Assembly elected to take its place, then one might find that in an emergency Ministers could not act, so one wants to have the Assembly there.

603
I am not sure whether the noble Earl had in mind any point about the payment of Members of the Assembly during this 14-day period. He did not make that point in opening on this Amendment and I do not want to reply if it is not a point that is in his mind. But I would suggest that, because of the analogy with the Welsh Assembly, because of the need to have a provision that is consistent with Clause 20(8), and because of the need to have an Assembly there to deal with emergencies, continuity is desirable. For these reasons, I would defend the provision as it stands.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble and learned Lord has not answered the point I made; he has not attempted to answer it. This sentence ends:
"…if he is again elected at the election following the dissolution."
But supposing he is not elected? That means that there is no officer to perform the duties. If the noble and learned Lord takes out the last words and simply says:
"… but for this purpose a member of the Assembly shall not be treated as ceasing to be such a member on the dissolution of the Assembly if he is again elected",
that does not really meet the question of the Secretary. I do not have pay in mind, but that someone has to be there to take decisions until the new Administration is appointed. It may well be, as has happened in some countries, that it is found difficult to find a First Secretary. It may be found difficult to set up a new Government. In those circumstances, the interregnum will go on for some time, and I think it would be a great pity.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I was not dealing with that point at this time, as I hope the noble Earl will recognise. As I understand it, the period of time I was supposed to be talking about in relation to this Amendment was the period of time before the election. The difficulty in the noble Earl's mind is one which he envisages as arising after the election. No doubt that is a point, and it is one I shall be happy to consider when we reach Clause 20(8); but it does not arise directly out of this Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: How does the noble and learned Lord
604
think that anybody can conduct an election—it may be for the first time or it may be just continuing—if he has no time to take part in a contested election? Will he have to go to the Assembly every day when it is sitting, when he is supposed to be out in his constituency trying to get himself elected? This is not a dictatorship; people who stand for this Assembly will have to fight for their seats, just as in any other election, whether it is local government or anything else. If they do not allow time off for that, I cannot think how anybody could conduct it, and I do not think you would get a democratic Assembly. I think this is a great mistake.
Lord McCLUSKEY: If I might reply to the noble Baroness on that point, I am quite certain that the Assembly would not normally sit in the immediate run-up to the election; but if some emergency situation required the Assembly to sit, surely the Members would come back from fighting the campaign and participate in the necessary work of the Assembly. After all, this is not a matter which we have to determine in the course of this Bill. We merely give the Assembly this kind of option, and if the situation requires it they will deal with it in that way.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: I should be much more worried on this point. If you had a system of this kind, in which the Assembly would meet if there was some problem, it would entirely consist of a few people with, perhaps, seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh, while the people with seats in the Borders and the North and so on would in no way be able to be there. I honestly cannot believe that something which Parliament has managed for several hundred years, without having Parliament sitting until the eve of the election, cannot be done quite simply by the Assembly.
10.57 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: I think we seem to be in a bit of a fix, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said it would be a trifle bizarre if Wales had continuity in their Assembly and Scotland did not have continuity in theirs. But we have not yet had the Wales Bill, and there is no reason why Wales should have continuity if the Scots do not. I think that in some respects it would be slightly bizarre to have a system whereby Westminster dissolved itself some weeks before

605
an election and the Assembly did not. I see no reason why the Assembly should
not dissolve itself and the Executive continue to hold their seals of office.
The noble and learned Lord said that the Assembly might have standing orders which would make it difficult for them to operate if there was a dissolution; but of course the Assembly makes its own standing orders under the provisions later in the Bill; and the standing orders they would make would presumably take account of the fact that there would be a dissolution some 14 days before, if that was written into the Bill. So, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, I do not think that argument is very convincing.
May I add two points: first, I think it is desirable to have a break before the election. Secondly, I think there ought to be some procedure for dissolution. I cannot see that under the Bill there is any procedure, but I have no doubt that in due course the noble and learned Lord will he able to tell us what the procedure is. Is it a fact—he did not answer the point I raised—that the Assembly automatically comes to an end at midnight of the Tuesday/Wednesday? What happens if it is in the full flow of business? Does the business suddenly stop, and is there to be no dissolution procedure and no formal movement of a Motion? Otherwise, it gives us the impression that it will be like Cinderella and suddenly, when the bell rings, it turns into a pumpkin and is no longer there. And who would decide the timing of the dissolution of the Assembly? Would it be Big Ben? It is a funny state of affairs when, in order to dissolve the Assembly, they have to take the time from Westminster. I think that the noble and learned Lord's answer was not wholly convincing. I wonder, therefore, if he would be kind enough to consider whether there should be some more detailed provision as to how the Assembly is to be dissolved.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I shall not give undertakings to consider matters. But, of course, I shall have to reply on clause stand part, and perhaps I could then, in the light of another day, seek to convince the noble Earl more fully than I have succeeded in doing tonight.
Earl FERRERS: That is all very fine, but I should have liked a little more
606
convincing now. I ask this very genuine question. Am I right in believing that, whatever business is going on in the Assembly up till 12 o'clock when the gong goes or the bell strikes, suddenly everything will come to an end and there is to be no procedure for bringing it to an end? Is that correct?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Earl is not looking at tins realistically, if I may respectfully say so. If he looks at Clause 3, he will see that we are talking about dissolution on the eve of an ordinary election. They will have known for months or years when the ordinary election is to take place, and, if the Assembly is so conducting its business that all its coaches turn into pumpkins at midnight, I shall be very surprised. Surely, they will make provision for the fact that the third Thursday in March is creeping on inexorably, and they will have known about it for a long time. So that the scenario—to use the common word—which the noble Earl has in mind is not one that makes any sense to ine.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: Has not the noble and learned Lord forgotten that, a few moments ago, we decided that the Secretary of State may, on a whim, change the date of the election? Therefore, how will they know whether he is advancing the date by two months, when they will turn into a pumpkin as the magic 12 o'clock arrives?
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is it customary for the House of Commons to go on in being, right up to the eve of the election? What is the exact position? Your Lordships' House continues regardless, of course, but the Parliament is brought to an end, and yet it must vest somewhere or another. Can the noble and learned Lord consider where the Assembly vests during the intervening period, however short that may be? If I am right in thinking that it vests somewhere, what is the need for continuity? Why not dissolve like any other assembly, at the time you have the election, and not on the eve of the election?
Lord McCLUSKEY: The noble Lord talks about any other assembly. But I mentioned that local authorities go on. There is continuity there. That is on one side of the coin; and on the other side

607
you have the Westminster Parliament which stands dissolved, but Ministers remain in office, the prerogative may be exercised and other powers may be exercised. I have also mentioned the Welsh Assembly. It is merely a question of judgment, in the light of various precedents.
The Earl of PERTH: I have listened to this debate with the greatest interest, and I am very puzzled by the Government's position. It seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has a very good point, and I do not see why the Government should not accept that the Assembly is dissolved a fortnight before; but—and we inevitably get a "but"—the Ministers continue to operate until the new Assembly is chosen, and new Ministers are appointed. That is broadly what happens in Westminster, and I do not see any reason why there is not a very good point here.
Earl FERRERS: The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has been kind enough to say that he will answer this point when clause stand part comes. I do not know how he knew that there would be a debate on clause stand part. But, anyhow, we are assured that there will be such a debate. If the noble and learned Lord cares to return to the point again in order to explain it in more detail, I shall be grateful, although I know that he does not like being asked to think again on these matters and that he would not do so if he had to make a commitment. However, it seems to me that there is a small point here, although I quite agree that it is not an overwhelming one. If the Assembly has to die at some juncture, it is nicer for it not just to slide into death but for it to know when its death is to take place. If the noble and learned Lord would be kind enough to think about it, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.1 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 2, line 35, at end insert ("after a motion of no confidence in the Scottish Executive has been passed").
The noble Earl said: The Assembly can dissolve itself if two-thirds of the members decide that they wish so to do. The Amendment which I move seeks to reduce the possibility of the Assembly dissolving itself either to challenge Westminster or to advantage one Party or to disadvantage another.
One of the drawbacks of this Bill is that as time goes on there will, certainly in my estimation and in the estimation of a number of people, be the possibility of a reduction of harmony and an increase of friction between the Assembly and Westminster. We all know that that is not intended. We all know that that is not wanted. Some of us believe, however, that, whether or not it is intended, that is likely to be the outcome. This must be curtailed, if it is at all possible for us to do so.
It is perfectly possible to envisage considerable hostility in the Assembly—for instance, at the inadequate provision of funds by Whitehall. There is to be negotiation about the block grant, but in the end it is Westminster which determines exactly how much money Scotland gets. Scotland may well think that this amount is inadequate. All Parties in the Assembly may be united at the meanness and parsimony, as they see it, of Whitehall. They might consider that the United Kingdom Parliament is making gross underprovision for Scotland. Indeed, they almost certainly will think that. In that case, it would be perfectly possible for the Assembly to dissolve itself and call an election to show Westminster how united Scotland is against Westminster.
One of the arguments for proportional representation was that if you did not get it the Scottish Nationalists could, on a minority vote, have a governing role in the Assembly. And that would be a Party dedicated to the destruction of the United Kingdom. Although I did not vote for proportional representation, I found that to be a devastating argument.
Let us suppose that another place does not accept our Amendment and that the first-past-the-post system is put back into the Bill, and let us further suppose that the Scottish Nationalists thereby form a Government and that they are dissatisfied with the amount of money which Westminster provides—and they will be dissatisfied with the amount of money that

609
Westminster provides. Can your Lordships not see the temptation for them to have a two-thirds majority for the dissolution of the Assembly and then to dissolve the Assembly and go to the hustings to campaign for more support for their Party to work for independence because, as they would say, Whitehall is preventing Scotland from doing what Scotland wants to do? "Give us a big majority", they will say, "and we will show Westminster exactly what the people of Scotland really feel". I believe that this could he disastrous.
All that this Amendment does is to ensure that before the Secretary of State lays an order dissolving the Assembly, the Assembly must first pass a vote of no confidence in the Executive. If that is done, this then relates any dissolution of the Assembly to the internal affairs of the Assembly and at least lessens a little the possibility of a dissolution whereby the Assembly will be pitted against Westminster and the votes of the people of Scotland will be used to substantiate that rift. It would also prevent the opportunity of the governing Party seeking a dissolution for its own electoral benefit. Governments at Westminster choose the date of the election. That privilege is specifically denied in this Bill, other than with the agreement of two-thirds of the Assembly. I believe that it would lessen the temptation of the Party in power to seek electoral advantage by dissolution if they first had to have a vote of no confidence passed upon them. That is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: The Government believe that it is right that the Assembly should serve a fixed four-year term, and I do not believe that the noble Earl is disputing that. But the Government acknowledge that circumstances may arise in which by-elections or political realignments might prevent the Scottish Executive from continuing to command a sufficient measure of support in the Assembly to ensure the continuance of essential business. It might not prove possible for an alternative Executive to fare any better, and accordingly there has to he provision for premature dissolution.
The Government see premature dissolution as a crisis provision. They do not think it would be in the interests of
610
good government if it were to become the norm rather than very much the exception; accordingly, two limitations have been written into Clause 3 to ensure that it is used as a crisis provision only. The first is the limitation that Members representing two-thirds of all Assembly seats—not just those Members present but two-thirds of all the Assembly seats—should vote in favour of the dissolution; secondly, and equally important, is that the new Assembly will only serve out the remainder of the then current four-year term. So they cannot dissolve the Assembly and then get another four years. If there is only a year to run, they just get that year.
To take the point of political advantage, it has been argued by the noble Earl that the Bill allows the administration to gain advantage by securing a dissolution in this way. But why on earth should a First Secretary who can command a majority of two-thirds in the Assembly seek to dissolve the Assembly, and run the risk of an election, when all he can do is to come back for the remainder of the four-year term? With respect, that seems to be a slightly unreal possibility. Even if he seemed to be enjoying enormous political popularity in Scotland, he would be taking a substantial political risk by having another election campaign with little to gain except the possibility of winning a few more seats, when he already commands apparently a two-thirds majority. One would have thought that there would be a serious political constraint upon him from adopting such a course, and one would have thought that it would be politically unwise to do any such thing.
The other point which I had not expected from the noble Earl, but I am obliged to him for making it clear, was the point that if there has to be a Motion of no confidence that would somehow relate to the internal affairs of the Assembly. But if the noble Earl thinks that through, he will appreciate that, if the situation were as he described, the First Secretary, and the Administration who could command the two-thirds majority, would have no difficulty at all in moving a vote of no confidence in themselves, and saying loudly and clearly to the electorate, "We are having to do this because of this silly provision in the Bill, but you will understand very clearly that we are dissolving the Assembly"—

611
for the reasons given by the noble Earl. In other words, they could get across to the electorate that this was a technicality which they had to go through and they would avoid all the problems by the First Secretary moving the vote of no confidence in his own Executive, supported by the other Members of it. ft would be seen as a political device and it would save votes. It would not create any great difficulty if there was a determination to dissolve the Assembly as a kind of demonstration against Westminster. In those circumstances, I should have thought that the safeguards built into the clause are quite sufficient, and it is unnecessary and not helpful to have this Amendment written into the Bill.
11.10 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: It is understood that we shall certainly have three Parties and there may be four—the Labour Party, the Liberal Party, the Scottish National Party and the Conservatives. Suppose there is a switch round. The Lib-Lab pact that we hear so much about today might operate there, and there might be a Liberal-Nationlist pact which would then vote against the Assembly as it was elected, and the First Secretary would then find himself in a minority. Is he then going to carry on despite the fact that he has been voted out? I understood this was going to be a democratic Assembly, and under the system of proportional representation a fair number of people would be elected. Under proportional representation, there is nothing to say they are all going to stay in the same Lobby; they may want to change.
If there is no opportunity for change, are you going to have a minority continuing for four years in order to complete the period of four years which is in the Bill? From what the noble Lord says, it seems to me you are running the risk of having a minority Government and people not being able to change the Assembly. Surely, you must allow for the fact that the Assembly may want to change itself. You may have a change in Edinburgh which is not the same in the United Kingdom Parliament, and you have the possibility of a Party being in power in one part of the United Kingdom although not in power in Westminster. I
612
find it very difficult to understand what the noble and learned Lord has just said. It seems to me most undemocratic.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think there are two points; there is one to which the Amendment relates, which is the question of dissolving the Assembly. The other one, which the noble Baroness has in mind, is the question of whether within the context of a continuing Assembly the Members may change the Administration. That point is covered by Clause 20(6) which reads:.
"A Scottish Secretary shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure"
Subsection (5) envisages that:
"If the Assembly has nominated one of its members for appointment as First Secretary that member shall be so appointed.".
So it is within the context of Clause 20 that one deals with the question the noble Baroness is speaking about; and that is slightly different from the point which is raised by the noble Earl.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: We always cast the Scottish Nationalists as the villains of the piece; everyone envisages disaster if they get a large majority. I would say from these Benches that we would envisage just as great a disaster if the Conservative Party or even the Labour Party got a large majority, as they have now, with a minority of the votes. The whole reason for PR is to prevent any Party from wreaking havoc with the democratic wishes of the electorate because of the bad method of election. I can see quite clearly that the Labour Party might well want to precipitate an election against the Conservative Party in Great Britain as a whole and would wish to dissolve the Assembly in Scotland in order to demonstrate how greedy the Conservative Government is being. I think the whole of the arguments reinforce the need for PR. I cannot see that two-thirds of the Assembly agreeing is sufficient to safeguard against most of the dangers pointed out.
Earl FERRERS: Trust the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to cast a whole bucket of muddy water over the problem. I thought at least half the point of PR was to ensure that the Liberal Party got at least some votes, even if they would not have the slightest possibility of being as disastrous as either the Conservatives or

613
the Scottish Nationalists because they would not get into that position if it were not for PR; and even with PR they are not likely to get into that position because they will not get enough people to vote for them.
However, apart from that, it was really a complete red herring to the subject under discussion which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was trying to help me about. Quite understandably, he said that this is a crisis provision and I accept that entirely. However, he did say that the point which I was worried about—the Assembly and Westminster finding themselves on a head-on collision course—would not really come about because, if there was that likelihood, and even if my Amendment were passed, the Assembly would first of all pass a vote of no confidence in the Government or in the Executive, and the Executive would be party to it. That is rather like an animal eating itself.
I cannot see—and perhaps the noble Lord would address his simile to Westminster—how any Government would ever be prepared to dissolve themselves on, first of all, having a Motion of no confidence passed in themselves to which they were a party. It is very unlikely to happen in Westminster and very unlikely to happen in Scotland. My main reason for tabling this Amendment was to try to avoid the possibility, which I can see is a real possibility, of the Assembly becoming so worked up about what it might consider to be the meanness of the Westminster provision or some other such case, and saying, "Right, we shall now dissolve ourselves and go to the country in Scotland and show Westminster how the Scottish people feel". If it goes to the country on a subject like lack of funds, that is a wonderful cause to go on, and it would be a wonderful cause for the public to support. The public will say, "Of course we shall support these people; they want more money from Westminster".
So we gradually get the Assembly pitted against Westminster, and that would be a great shame. However, if the noble and learned Lord thinks that this Amendment is unsuitable to include in the Bill, I should not wish to press it at this stage. But it is worth consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed

COMMONS REGISTRATION (CARDIGANSHIRE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read la, and referred to the Examiners.
KENDAL MARKET BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee on Unopposed Bills.