Lords Sitting of 20 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Boston—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

AIRLINES OVERBOOKING COMPENSATION
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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, following the meeting of IATA (International Air Transport Association) in Montreal on 30th June and 1st July last and the subsequent issue of recommendations to member countries, they are now in a position to make a statement concerning the application of the overbooking compensation scheme to return flights resulting from an original booking made on airlines operating in the United Kingdom so that a passenger may be covered for the whole of his ticket and not as at present for half of it.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as my noble friend told the noble Baroness on 15th June, Her Majesty's Government remain of the view that more widely based arrangements for overbooking compensation should be implemented. The likeliest way of arriving at such arrangements would be for the industry itself to make them, and the Government hope that the recommendation of the European Civil Aviation Conference will help bring this about. I am informed that the meeting of IATA held in Montreal on 30th June and 1st July was held to discuss the future constitution and internal processes of IATA, not specific items such as overbooking.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, having followed the discussions at the IATA Conference in Montreal and
420
having taken note of what was said to me on 15th June by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman (col. 502, Official Report), I should like to ask my noble friend whether, in view of the very large-scale structure changes now taking place in IATA, it is not true that it will be possible for airlines in different countries to make bilateral or other agreements between themselves without having to secure the agreement of IATA countries? If that is so, can there any longer by any reason for delaying the implementation of the compensation on the whole of a ticket because some airlines do not agree?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend is so much better informed than I am on this subject that I can hardly answer. I have a small note on this point somewhere. It would be for the Civil Aviation Authority to impose such conditions upon British carriers, if it thought fit. The Civil Aviation Authority takes the view, which the Government share, that a mandatory scheme applying to British carriers alone would be even less satisfactory than present arrangements and would give rise to considerable difficulties of implementation.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, my noble friend's note is completely out of date and quite ineffective. Is he aware that he is very lucky to have only a small note?—I have a very large file. However, in all seriousness is he further aware that it is rather difficult—and I am sure that the Leader of the House will agree with me—for those of us who take a deep interest in these matters to receive continually ineffective Answers because noble Lords on the Front Bench are not sufficiently well briefed? Leaving that particular matter—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, order, please ! Will the noble Baroness ask a question?
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, it was a question. Leaving that particular matter, may I ask my noble friend whether he is not aware that, following these discussions in Montreal, it is not for the Civil Aviation Authority or any other organisation to decide these matters? Is he further aware that IATA has now two main groupings

421
and the matters are to be left to individual airlines if they so wish? Therefore, will he look at the matter again, now that I have given him the correct information?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am filled with gratitude to my noble friend. Would not a subject of this complexity be better settled by an Unstarred Question or a minor debate?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not the case, however, that these matters can well be settled by means of bilateral negotiations between Governments? Is it not the case that all air services, although of course they have to have a licence from the Civil Aviation Authority, also have to have the approval of Her Majesty's Government and the other Government concerned? Therefore why cannot the Government bring pressure to bear where it is needed?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, the Government can bring pressure to bear, but unfortunately other organisations do not respond with the alacrity which some people would wish.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are those of us who think that he has a profound knowledge, maybe on other subjects? Is he further aware that some of us do not feel that this noble House should be foisted off with half-baked Answers to Ministers at the Dispatch Box, who cannot be expected to be fully informed on these matters? Consequently, to say the the least, I take a dim view of some Answers that are given to a Minister who may not be expected to be fully informed. That is the Question and the bad feeling I have on it.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords. I wonder whether—
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will ask a question this time.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I never ask anything but questions. I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that he is completely wrong? Is he aware that,
422
in view of the discussions at IATA in Montreal, it is not now for Governments to decide these matters; it has been agreed, in view of the changes, that they shall be decided by individual airlines without the agreement of the Governments concerned? Next time I put down a Question could I have a proper, authentic and correct Answer?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, assuming that I am to make the Answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will receive such an Answer, but I should like to have sufficient advance notice of what it is all about.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, aware that we have the greatest affection for him and we know very well that he is doing his best in a difficult situation?
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, as a practising airline operator, may I say that it is quite wrong for airlines to be bullied into doing things that they automatically wish to do for themselves, which is to give the best possible service they can to their customers and so to attract more business.

EXPORTS TO THE THIRD WORLD
3.13 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any specific plans to increase British exports to countries in the Third World.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government's plans to help and encourage our exporters are not specifically confined to countries in the Third World. We need to help our exporters increase their share of export markets wherever they may be. The Government have however paid particular attention to the question of trade with the non-oil developing countries, and the conclusions of an Interdepartmental Working Party were published as an Annex to the Government's reply to the First Report

423
from the Select Committee on Overseas Development (Cmnd. 7213).
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Will he not agree that it is a very tragic commentary on our human planning that there should be 1·5 million unemployed in this country while people are starving for lack of what could be produced by our workers? Is he further aware that the United Kingdom's increase in trade to the Third World is but 75 per cent. of our principal competitors'? Together with his colleagues, will he consider the viability of setting up a special working party from the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Departments of Trade and Industry or the National Enterprise Board continually to seek out markets in the Third World which we can supply from this country?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, ever since I have been in politics the great dilemma has been that in one area of the world there is want and in the other area of the world there is an unsatisfied source of supply. Unfortunately, that is a dilemma which continues. However, we are not in a position to give unlimited charity. The solution to this matter is for this country to have a strong economy. That is the objective of Her Majesty' Government.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the plans would include the enforcement of the handling of completed orders which legally now belong to the persons who ordered them? I have in mind the situation as regards the Chilean aircraft. Will the Government support the court which has declared in favour of the dispatch of these planes? They no longer belong to us and we are still holding on to them.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a very sensitive and important point, but I was asked a Question on a wider subject.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that one of the ways in which we could assist Third World countries is by increasing the value of their exports to us? Am I right in what I hear; that is, that there is a bias in this
424
country against semi-finished products as distinct from raw materials coming in from Third World countries?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this country's economy is not so strong that it determines the world price of raw materials. That is a world matter; not a purely British matter. In fact, I thought that this country was a major importer of semi-finished products, and I thought that we had a better record than many on this matter.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, if I may revert to the Question, is the noble Lord aware that Governments export nothing but words? Is he further aware that those who do export find themselves hampered by Government interference, high taxation and unnecessary interventions by Government? Can he do something about this with his right honourable friend?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a subject in which I am involved and I thought that the exact opposite was the case.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend consider asking his right honourable friend to make a survey in depth as to the nature and extent of the selling effort from this country into the countries concerned?—because the prevailing impression in Europe is that the sales effort from this country leaves something to be desired.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not one who knocks his country. All things considered, I think that we do pretty well. I cannot remember the figures, but per capita we are one of the major exporters in the world. Perhaps we could do better, but unfortunately exporting is a matter for commercial decision by individual firms and they can do no more than their own financial position permits.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government agree that the real duty is to create the conditions in which free enterprise can prosper and exports are made more worthwhile? It is high Government taxation and unnecessary disincentive to sell, even to the Third World—and I speak as one

425
who actually does this rather than one who simply talks about it—that make it extremely difficult for decisions to be made that are viable and in the best interests of both the country and the company.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct about private enterprise; but do not let us forget the very substantial contribution of public enterprise in this field as well.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising from the Minister's replies and exchanges about the necessity of exports and imports, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are acting in co-operation with the new arm of the United Nations which was established for this purpose, and particularly the proposals of the Group of 77, for a new international economic order?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that one valuable method of promoting our exports, particularly to the Third World, is through contributions to international trade fairs? Will he pass on to his right honourable friend the regret which we feel at the way the budget for promoting British stands abroad has, in recent months, been cut back?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a very technical problem which I cannot answer. This matter is under very careful supervision by people who have wide experience of the value of trade fairs.

DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION: RESOURCES
3.19 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to increase substantially the resources for education about
426
overseas development ("development education") in this country.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Advisory Committee on Development Education, of which my noble friend is a distinguished member, has submitted a report with recommendations to my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development. Full and detailed consideration is being given to the report and my right honourable friend hopes to be able to make an announcement before the Summer Recess.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I again thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that while Sweden spends 15p per capita on development education, Norway and the Netherlands 10p per capita, this country spends 0·3 per cent. per capita? Would she agree with me that development education, education for greater knowledge of the cultures of the peoples overseas, is essential in view of my previous Question and the responses which came to it, and for the education of our younger generation for their place in the New World Village, and also to assist in improving race relations within this country?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, I was aware of the figures my noble friend gave me because I read them in his own report. I quite agree with some of his comments on them. There is no question but that every Government needs an informed public opinion, and that is why Her Majesty's Government have started with the pilot scheme on development education and have every intention of continuing with it in the future.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, are the Government aware of the aspect of development education to which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, did not refer, which is that the economic interdependence of the developed and developing worlds is also of principal importance? Are the Government further aware that a great deal of this work can be, and indeed is being, done by voluntary agencies such as the World Development Movement, and that money given to them in programmes such as their development education programme to start this autumn

427
will be extremely well spent? Will they consider very carefully and favourably any application they have from them for aid?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAV1ES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree about the interdependence of the world, indeed its growing interdependence. The noble Lord will be glad to know that we have already made an offer of £600,479 running up to March 1982 for precisely some of those organisations which he mentioned. Historically they have always taken the initiative. The Government are now giving them financial aid to help them to carry on and expand.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree with me regarding the contribution of higher education in this country, to use the phrase of the noble Lord who asked the original Question, that knowledge of countries overseas is not a contribution of which we need be at all ashamed?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, indeed, my Lords.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that every penny spent in supporting organisations such as the college at Farnham Castle is money well spent in the direction of reaching the end which the noble Lord seeks to attain?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have no detailed knowledge of it, but I am sure that that is true.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend agree, in view of the exchanges that have ensued from this Question, first that the Committee to which she refers has been supporting over the last 18 months the voluntary organisations already mentioned, but that if we in this country were to spend the same proportionate amount of money as the Swedes are now spending, that figure that she gave of £600,000 would become something like £6 million to £8 million a year?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Well my Lords; the noble Lord's arithmetic is rather subtler than mine, but I hope he is right.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that the Swedes did not have to fight and pay for two World Wars?

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUND
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 progress has been made on how the proceeds of the Licensing Compensation Fund should be distributed, in view of the Answer given on 1st December last year.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I regret that the consultations within Government to which my noble friend referred last December have taken longer than expected. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I are aware of the concern which the noble Earl and other noble Lords feel about this matter, and we hope that it will be possible to reach a decision on it in the fairly near future.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that rather unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that this Question has been going on for nearly as long as Lady Burton's Question about airline overbookings? It started in September 1975 when the Government said, "In the near future". They then said, "As soon as possible". Then that they were "taking thoughts about it". Could the noble Lord say since December 1975 what the £4·2 million has now accrued to? Secondly, can he tell your Lordships' House why this matter has taken so long when this has been going on for two and a half years and the Brewers' Society has agreed that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of this sum should go to charity?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can well understand how the noble Earl feels. I am not going to attempt to deny that this has taken a long time, and I can understand his impatience on

429
this matter. Having said that, I think I am right in saying that the amount of money is £3·8 million and not £4·2 million, but that is perhaps only a detail. As I understand it, the situation is that when this amount of money became available the suggestion was that it should be paid to those who contributed over the years to that sum. It was found impossible to do so because many of them had gone out of business, and subsequently there was an agreement between the Brewers' Society and the licensed trade that perhaps it could be split 50 per cent. to those holding pre-1904 licences with the other 50 per cent. being put on trust to be spent in some agreed way.
The Erroll Committee suggested that expenditure of the money should be upon licensed trade charities and dealing with alcohol abuse, and so on; and then the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in April of last year felt that it ought to go to help education purposes. The real difficulty, as I understand the situation—and I am sorry to be so long over this—is that if this money is divided in the way that has been agreed upon by the two trade associations it will be necessary for a Government Department to be responsible for administering the 50 per cent. which will be put on trust. All sorts of problems are raised when a Government Department does this, as to whether it is going to be done with the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security, and there are Treasury interests. At the present moment consideration is being given to who should administer the money, which is a healthy stage, and we are awaiting the outcome of the decision of the two Departments concerned and the Treasury. This is the up-to-date situation, and I cannot take it any further than that.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that very thorough and complete answer. I hope that he will be able to continue pushing as hard as possible.
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that it is almost exactly 100 years, if my memory serves, since a similar decision was made on the so-called whisky money, which was derived
430
in a very similar way to that which is now under discussion? It was ultimately decided to devote this to technical education, and this was the very beginning of the first decent attempt to produce technical education in this country. So let us hope that that precedent will be followed on this occasion.

DINNERS
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that dinners will be available this evening.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
HOUSE OF COMMONS (ADMINISTRATION) BILL
Read 3a and passed.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.30 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND A COMMONS CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE BILL
[References are to Bill (82) as first printed for the Lords: the Commons Reasons and Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 8, at end insert ("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act.")
2 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency")
3 Clause 1, page 1,line 13, after ("initial") insert ("constituency")
4 Clause 1, page 1, page 2, line 3, after first ("The") insert ("constituency")
5 Clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert ("constituency")
6 Clause 1, page 1, 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 1 to this Act based upon the entitlement which each elector shall have at such election and all subsequent 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 election concerned (rounded up to the nearest whole number).")
7 Clause 1, page 1, line 9, after ("initial") insert ("constituency")
8 Clause 5, page 3, line 43, after ("a") insert ("constituency")
9 Clause 5, page 4, line 10, after ("this") insert ("and the next following")
10 After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
Filling of vacancies among additional members
(".—(1) Where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V of Schedule 1 to this Act, such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy in such manner as may be required by the standing orders of the Assembly.
(2) A vacancy occurring under this section shall be deemed to have been filled on the day on which the presiding officer certifies that the standing order relating to the filling of such vacancies has been complied with and the member shall be deemed to have been elected on that day.")
11 Clause 77, page 35, line 42, at end insert ("'election' includes any election other than a by-election and "ordinary election" means any election held in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of this Act;")
12 Schedule 1, 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
432
name was listed as an adopted list candidate at the 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 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 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 elections other than at the first ordinary election shall be those prescribed by this Schedule subject to amendments under section 1(6) of this Act.

(4) In the event of any alteration in constituency boundaries being made whether in consequence of an increase or a reduction in the number of electors or for any other reasons any automatic increase or decrease 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 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 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 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 member at that election for each Electoral Region plus one.

(7) The results of the calculations made in sub-paragraph (6) of this paragraph shall 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

433
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 member 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 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—Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire; Central Fife; Dunfermline; East Fife; Kirkcaldy; Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth; West Stirlingshire; West Lothian.
Clydeside North—Glasgow Central, Garscadden; Hillhead; Kelvingrove; Maryhill; Provan; Queens Park; Shettleston; Springburn; East Dunbartonshire.
Clydeside South—Glasgow Cathcart; Craigton; Govan; Pollok; Rutherglen; East Kilbride; Hamilton; Renfrewshire East; Renfrewshire West.
Highlands and Inlands—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

+

7

21

Clyde

12

+

6

18

Clydeside North

11

+

6

17

Clydeslde South

13

+

7

20

Highlands and Islands

13

+

4

17

North East Scotland

13

+

6

19

South East Scotland

12

+

8

20

South West Scotland and Borders

13

+

6

19

101

+

50

151")

The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
13 Because the method of voting applying to Parliamentary and local elections is appropriate also for elections to the Assembly.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 13. These Amendments concern the additional member system of proportional representation, for which your Lordships voted with differing degrees of enthusiasm at the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill, there being 155 Contents and 64 Not-Contents, a majority of 91. As noble Lords are well aware, the other place debated this issue once more on consideration of your Lordships' Amendments and came down against the proposal and in favour of the first-past-the-post system for Assembly elections, and that by an overwhelming majority. The voting—I should emphasise that it was a free vote in the other place, certainly free on the Government and Conservative sides—was 363 votes to 155, a majority in the elected House of 208.

435
As noble Lords will certainly know, it was not the first time the other place debated and voted on this issue in this context. They did so in relation to the Scotland and Wales Bill in the last Session of Parliament, at the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill and at the Committee stage of the Wales Bill in this Session. On each occasion, after full debate, the additional Member system of proportional representation was decisively rejected. Again, I think it right that I should remind the House of the voting in the other place. On the Scotland and Wales Bill in January 1977, there being a free vote on the official Opposition, the Conservative, side, the majority against was 182. In the debate on the Scotland Bill in this Session, on 23rd November 1977, when there were free votes on both the Government and the Conservative sides, the majority against was 183. On the Wales Bill in March 1978 in Committee, the proposition was defeated by 377 to 114, there being a free vote again on both sides on that occasion, so the majority was 263. And your Lordships will know from what happened yesterday that on consideration of the same issue in the context of the Wales Bill, the other place again rejected the additional Member system, this time by a vote of 389 to 162, a majority of 227, after a substantial debate.
There have been considerable debates on this issue and I feel that there is nothing much more for me to say, certainly not on the merits of the matter. The issues involved have been fully ventilated and explored in debate, both here and in the other place, and I do not believe there are any new factors to be brought into the argument. The views of the other place, taken after a succession of free votes, are quite clear, and in those circumstances I suggest that this House has taken the matter as far as it properly and reasonably can in the context of this Bill and should now desist with good grace. There may be some who would wish to argue that this is a question of such a character that your Lordships should ask the other place to think again, despite their clear expression of view. I suggest that that would be an untenable position for this House, having regard to its character, to take in the face of the clear, unambiguous and oft-repeated votes of the other place after lengthy and full debate.
436
The number of debates in the context of the two devolution Bills has been six before today; this is the seventh debate in the context of these two Bills. The matter has been given all the publicity that it properly deserves, one might feel, in the context of one Session of Parliament, and I ask your Lordships to consider the problems that would arise if, in relation to these Amendments, it were not proposed that they he varied in any way or that some other Amendment be put to take their place. The proposal, if my submission is not accepted, is that the Commons should be asked to consider exactly these same Amendments once again, and that could indeed have serious consequences for devolution. I think I need say no more, but I invite your Lordships not to insist on these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13.—(Lord McCluskey.)
3.37 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is a subject on which this House has expressed its views very clearly, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, gave the figures for the Division which produced on overwhelming majority in favour of proportional representation as appropriate to a brand new Scottish Assembly which did not have a previous system of elections. However, the Commons have twice considered proportional representation on a free vote in the context of the Scotland Bill and have rejected it by massive majorities. Only yesterday a similar proposal on the Wales Bill was also rejected by another place with a similar, very large, majority, and I therefore do not think there can be any serious question of a Division succeeding in the other place on this matter.
For that reason I do not believe anything useful could be gained from our returning these Amendments in the same form to the other place. I very much regret this, because, as your Lordships know, I was one of those who supported the proposal for proportional representation. But if this is pressed to a Division now, I and my colleagues on this Bench intend to abstain, and I would not advise noble Lords to support any move that may be made yet again to send these

437
Amendments to the other place and thereby to force yet another debate and get another Division. That would not only be wasting time but would do this cause no good.
It would be appropriate, nevertheless, for the proposed Assembly, being elected for the first time, to have proportional representation; I made that clear at the earlier stages. It would not prejudice the position at Westminster, and I must remind your Lordships that there were two particular reasons why we supported it at the earlier stage. First, we thought it would be wrong to produce a situation in which a Party pledged to secession might gain a majority in the Assembly though having obtained only a minority of the votes cast. That has happened in Quebec.
Secondly, in an Assembly which is not forming a Government but a Scottish Executive, indeed including people not necessarily in the Assembly but outside it, we believed that it would operate more effectively by consensus. Those were the reasons why we supported. While I have not changed my views on this I do consider, for the reasons I have given, that it would be a mistake to send this to the Commons to consider yet again. They did have time for discussion of this subject. There are going to be other matters which we shall come to later today in which the Commons had either no time or very little time because of the guillotine to discuss subjects, but this matter cannot be described as one of those.
Moreover, we would be sending back to the other place precisely the same Amendments. We did, when we gave them the opportunity to have their second debate and discussion, provide them with a variant from the system which they had discussed on the first occasion. We provided—and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn in particular worked very hard to produce all the fitting Amendments, together with noble Lords in different parts of this House—the system of additional Members with a regional list. That was the variant which gave the other place a chance to consider another system. But if this were to go now it would be sending them back exactly the same system with nothing changed what
438
ever. So I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will not support any move to return these Amendments to another place.
3.42 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, unlike the two noble Lords who have just spoken, I want to urge the House to insist on these Amendments. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that there is no need today to repeat the arguments for proportional representation for the Scottish Assembly, but I thoroughly agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said about that. This matter has been very thoroughly debated in this House and the outcome, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, reminded us, was a vote of 155 in favour to 64 against on 4th April, when we considered the Amendments that are before us now. Again, on the Wales Bill the voting was 151 in favour to 66 against on similar Amendments. There was overwhelming support on both occasions for the additional Member system of proportional representation. Incidentally, I think it is worthy of note, particularly in view of something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, that support for proportional representation in the other place appears to increase every time they have a vote on the subject. Yesterday's vote was the highest so far recorded there.
Returning to the vote in this House, it was a vote composed of noble Lords from all parts of the House. It was made up of 27 Cross-Bench Peers, 82 Conservative Peers, 23 Labour Peers and 23 Liberal Peers. All parts of the House were represented in that vote and it is because of that overwhelming vote from all quarters that I ask noble Lords to insist on the Amendments today. Secondly, I ask that because it is not a question of an in-built majority for one Party deciding the issue. That is often the criticism made of decisions of this House. But if none of the Conservative Peers had voted on 4th April there would still have been a majority for proportional representation for Scotland, so it is not a question of an in-built majority for one Party determining the issue.
Again, it is not a question, as we are sometimes criticised, of the House of

439
Lords blocking reform. On this particular issue it is this House which is in favour of reform and it is the other House which has been in favour of maintaining the status quo. Again, this is a constitutional issue and it can be argued that the House of Lords has special responsibilities where constitutional issues are concerned. For example, I understand that the Parliament Act does not apply to a Bill to prolong the life of a Parliament. The House of Commons would be seen to have a vested interest in such an attempt to prolong its life and to avoid meeting the electorate. I would submit that the House of Commons has a vested interest in this Amendment. We are all aware of the "thin end of the wedge" argument, the argument which says that we cannot have proportional representation for Scotland because if we did it would mean in time proportional representation for Westminster and that must be ruled out.
I imagine that the majority of those of your Lordships who voted for proportional representation for Scotland on 4th April would reject that view and would say that it by no means follows that if you have proportional representation for Scotland you must have it for Westminster. But others have seen it differently, particularly in another place, and the "thin end of the wedge" argument has been powerful. It is understandable that it should be powerful because it is true that if the House of Commons last time on the votes then cast had been elected on a strictly proportionate basis there are 119 Members at the present time who would not be there. Therefore, the House of Commons clearly has a vested interest in the question of maintaining the status quo so far as the electoral system is concerned. Finally, public opinion is in favour of reform. Public opinion, so far as we are able to judge it from all the opinion polls that have been held on the subject, has been in favour of the principle of proportional representation which is the principle behind these Amendments.
To sum up: if we were to insist on our Amendments we should be standing by the expressed view of the overwhelming majority of this House; we would be completely free of the charge that we were upholding the exclusive views of a Party with an in-built majority; we should be completely free of the charge that we were blocking reform; we should be playing an
440
important and I believe legitimate role on a constitutional issue where the House of Commons can be said to have a vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo; and we would be upholding a view which all the opinion polls indicate has the backing of the public. In view of all these arguments which appear to my noble friend and myself to be compelling arguments, I urge your Lordships to insist on these Amendents by accompanying us into the "Not Content" lobby and opposing the Motion before the House.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, on the Second Reading of the Bill I expressed myself as strongly in favour of proportional representation for the election of the Scottish Assembly and I still hold to that point of view. The reasons for it have been given—I shall not repeat them—by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has just repeated some of the reasons why a large majority in this House felt that this should be done. Bit that is not the question at this moment. The question is whether we should repeat the Divisions which we had before and whether we should send this matter back to the other place which has decisively rejected it several times, and on a free vote. When that happens I think we must consider the relationship between the two Houses, the procedural proprieties and the sensible procedures between the two Houses. We know exactly what the result would be if we sent this matter back again. It would simply be a repetition of what happened before and I see no point in that. Therefore I hope that we shall resist the temptation and accept the advice given by the Minister and my noble friend.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I say a word from the Back-Benches. I believe that there is a very strong desire in the country for electoral reform, and I am quite sure there is a very strong desire in this House for electoral reform. I am in favour of proportional representation. I have said so, and I have not changed my mind. I greatly regret that the two major Parties in another place are both against it. I hope that eventually they will change their minds, and that we shall get somewhere.
Having said that, it seems to me that, as the other place has considered our

441
proposals this time and as it voted against them, the wishes of the elected House should go through, even though I disagree with them. That being the case, I would have hoped to abstain, but as has been said by previous speakers—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Banks—it was a free vote in another place, and it was a free vote that decided the matter by a very large majority; and because of that, regretfully I do not feel able to abstain, and I shall certainly support the Government in the Lobby if there is a Division.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, in view of the fact that this is the first Amendment, is there any chance that the noble and learned Lord, who no doubt will be replying to the points that have been made, will let us know the general pattern regarding the Amendments with which we are to deal? The noble and learned Lord's argument was that on this particular point the other place had debated the question at length on several occasions and had come to a decision by an overwhelming majority after a free vote. That argument is that because the other place has shown its position so clearly after proper debate, this House should not set itself up in conflict with it, and the matter should be accepted in order to save time and to face up to the sense of the situation.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has accepted that argument. He has said that the decision of another place, reached by an overwhelming majority and after detailed argument, should be accepted by your Lordships. Are we to have consistency here? Will the noble and learned Lord advise his noble friends as to the position when we reach those Amendments in respect of which there was not lengthy debate, nor an overwhelming majority, and where the voting was equal—which showed that the other place came to a very tentative decision? Are we to have the consistency that we ought to have, based on the strength of the noble and learned Lord's own argument? Where the noble and learned Lord cannot show that there were overwhelming majorities, or that the matters in question were debated in detail, will he advise his noble friends to abstain, as my noble friend has advised us, in order to give the other place a proper chance
442
of arriving at a real decision on matters which will be of fundamental importance?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I support the Government in the view that they have put forward, and I support. too, the view of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I believe that this House might do a useful service in this short debate in taking up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. We should try to get across to many people in this country our view—which I believe may be shared by many Members of the House—that the other place really has a vested interest in this matter. It must be aware of the big swing of opinion which is taking place in the country and of the democratic unfairness of continuing with the present system of election of Members of the Legislature. If we could emphasise the fact that on this occasion the other place is failing to take cognisance of the views of the country on this very important matter, and if this message could go forth from this House to the public in this country, then it might be found that we had done something very useful. Having said that, I agree with others that it would be most unwise to return the Amendment to the other place.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it is natural that the Members of the Liberal Party who are wedded to the proposal for proportional representation should express their views. No one has any right to object to that. However, do they realise that if they propose to press this matter to a Division they will be placing those of us who support proportional representation in some difficulty? I say that because if we are asked to vote—and here I support my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry—we are hound to vote with the Government, and it would be assumed that in doing so we were casting a vote against proportional representation. Is that what the Liberal Party wants? Will that help it to advance its claims that there should be electoral reform?
The Members of the Liberal Party have a right to express their views; I say that not in a condescending fashion. However, when it comes to the question of a Division, it seems to me that we are placed in some difficulty. I do not want it to be assumed that, having expressed

443
my views about proportional representation for some time, and having supported the Liberal Party in its demand for change, I am now being forced either to abstain or to vote with the Liberal Party. I do not want to abstain, because abstention is wrong in a matter of this kind; we would not be facing up to the situation. I prefer to face up to the situation and to vote as another place has directed. The other place possesses the authority; I regret that we do not. In those circumstances I would beg of the Liberal Party that, having expressed its views—and probably other Members of the Liberal Party will continue to press their views—it should not take the matter as far as a Division.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may a Cross-Bencher humbly express an opinion on this matter? I personally believe wholeheartedly in PR. I believe that it is applicable to this particular constitutional problem. But I also believe that if this House were to send the Amendment back unaltered to the other place, it would be doing damage to the cause of PR, and it would put further back the eventual arrival of that system. Therefore, if the matter is pressed to a Division I shall vote with the Government.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words to the Liberal Party with the very best of good humour. I have opted out of debates since the Committee stage of the Bill for reasons which may be obvious to noble Lords; I feel that I am quite unfitted for political controversy at the present time. But I voted for the Amendment on the first occasion at the Committee stage. I did so with, I hope, a good conscience. I have not altered my opinion on the merits.
I wonder whether the Liberal Party can think again about its desire to bring this question to a Division. I believe it to be unwise to do so. Of course I recognise the reasons which led a free vote in the other place to come to the conclusions which are different from a majority of our own. But in the end the options are either to have a constitutional deadlock, or to stop the Bill from going onto the Statute Book. In the end we have to give way. We would do so with a good grace if we cave way now. I believe it to be in complete conformity with the traditions of the Liberal
444
Party that it should defer to the repeated view of an elected Chamber in matters of this kind. I should feel much happier if the Liberal Party did not vote on this.
Quite frankly, if I followed my inclinations and not the decision made by my Party, I should have voted with the Government had there been a Division. But on the whole the best course which can be adopted is that this House, having expressed its opinion absolutely unequivocally, and not having departed from it, should recognise that the only dignified option on this occasion is to allow the view which the Government spokesman has given to have its way, simply because on a free vote, twice expressed, the other place has decided the matter with absolutely unequivocal majorities. I hope that the Liberal Party will at least consider what I have said, which I trust is wholly without offence to anyone.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I have always been very strongly in favour of proportional representation, and I am very disappointed, as most of your Lordships are, that another place has refused to agree with our proposal; but I wholly agree with those of your Lordships who think that it would be a complete waste of time if we were to continue to press the matter. The only other observation which ought to be made is that one of the strongest reasons why your Lordships accepted the Amendment was your desire to protect the people of Scotland from having a local government formed from a Party which had a substantial minority of the votes in the country, but which, without proportional representation, could very easily get a majority of the seats. I believe this danger is widely recognised in Scotland. The only other observation I am going to make on this subject is that I think the insistence of the other place on this matter will make it much more probable that this Bill will be rejected by the people of Sotland on the referendum when it comes.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulties which supporters of proportional representation have in supporting the Liberal view in this discussion. Nevertheless, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and those who feel and think like him should ask themselves: How on earth are we really going

445
to get the country to believe that we mind about proportional representation if we are not now to make this gesture of asking the other place to think again? If we are to draw this matter to the attention of the voters of this country in what is now widely canvassed as being an Election year, I think the only way in which your Lordships can do it, and can do it effectively, is to divide and for as many Members as possible who can satisfy their consciences that they believe in proportional representation to go through the Not-Content Lobby with the Liberal Party. I feel that this is an immensely important subject, and it is an immensely important Part of the Bill. The Bill is imperfect, and without this particular set of clauses would be even more imperfect in many respects. I urge those of your Lordships who really believe in proportional representation to join the Liberal Party today.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, before your Lordships decide on how to vote, if there is a vote, may I put a point to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso? If the Liberals press this point to a Division—and, as many of your Lordships know, I am a strong supporter of proportional representation—having heard many speakers, what will be found is that the vote goes against the Liberal Party, against proportional representation, by a very large majority. This will be misunderstood in the country, which today believes that we are for proportional representation. How will it be represented? There will be headlines saying, "The House of Lords throws out proportional representation" by, let us say, 50 to 150 or 200. That will not do the cause any good. People will not understand it. I think we are much better, given the circumstances, to stay as we have been, with a quite clear understanding in the country of what we want, and to do the dignified thing of not pressing it to a Division now, bearing in mind that there will be other opportunities and that if we do press it to a Division and it goes wrong then what a great number of us want—namely, for the Scotland Bill to go through—will not happen.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I have listened with interest to this debate. I was one of your Lordships who supported
446
proportional representation because I thought that this was perhaps the best opportunity to test it out, in the context of the Scottish Assembly. I do not regret in the least having so voted; but I would say this to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, without wanting to repeat what so many of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite have said. He referred to the imminence of a General Election. I think it is precisely for this reason that it is tactless in the extreme for your Lordships' House to send this matter back again to the other place. I believe they will move, but I am quite certain they will not move with the imminence of a General Election in front of them. If it does come to a Division, I shall vote with the Government on this matter.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as one who took some part in the earlier debates on this Amendment, I feel I am bound to state my position here, and I think it is one which is shared by a great many of those who supported the Amendment at the earlier stages. It always comes hard not to continue to work side by side with those who have voted with one and supported one at earlier stages, and I perfectly understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in wanting to push this further on this occasion. But, my Lords, I think they underestimate the intelligence of the public in this matter. After all, everybody knows that there are votes on principle and that there are tactical votes. We expressed the principles that we hold and what we wanted to see at the earlier stages. We are now faced with a situation in which, because of the consequences of our expressing our principles once again on this occasion, many of us, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, feel placed in a difficult position. For my part, I feel bound to say that we have to have regard to the consequences of our actions in this situation.
My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that we are genuinely grateful to him for the help that he gave us at the earlier stages to make our Amendments viable, so that we were able to place before the Commons a set of Amendments which would, I believe,

447
have worked, and worked well. I still feel that what we were offering to the Commons was a fairer system, in the sense that, in an Election, at the end of the day each Party would receive the number of seats proportionate to the total number of votes cast, provided only that each of those Parties obtained the minimum threshold of 5 per cent. This seems to me a fair system.
Equally, I do not agree with the proposition—and I do not think many in this House do—that when you set up an entirely new institution, such as the Scottish Assembly, with a limited range of matters to deal with and a limited range of powers, it should necessarily have the same system of voting for it as that which prevails in the sovereign Parliament here, for another place. I do not think this is necessary, because the system is so similar to one which has been fully tried out and has proved successful in West Germany that we can be quite certain that, while it can be improved later, no doubt, as the Germans have improved theirs, this is a system which will work.
So on these two grounds I should very much like to he in a position to vote with the noble Lords on the Liberal Benches; but I would join with all who have counselled them not to press this Motion to a Division. They do not feel any more strongly that they would not be carrying out their principles if they did not vote on this occasion to insist on our Amendments than many of the rest of us in this House. They must realise, if I may say so in all frankness, that they are putting many of the rest of us in a difficult position if they press this matter to a Division; and I do not see how they alone can feel that they are keeping the flag of the additional Member system flying by voting on this occasion.
I am quite certain that if we were again to go into the Lobby now, without the consequences which we know would flow from doing so, the voting would be very much the same as it was before. This is the position, and it should be made known to the country as a whole. We have an option: we could insist, either with a good grace or a bad grace—I do not think it matters very much which—or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, we can desist with a good grace. That, my Lords, is what I hope your
448
Lordships, including those in the Liberal Party, will agree to do on this occasion.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I should like to intervene, following the noble Lord who has just spoken. I, too, am in a very invidious position. As far as I am concerned, I am still Chairman of "Fair Voting for Scotland". There is no question in my mind that what we proposed was sound and sensible, and I reinforce what the noble Lord has said: that, in fact, this was an opportunity not for just a try-out of proportional representation but to give the Scottish Assembly an identity of its own, so that we should not be tempted to regard the representatives there as merely surrogates of Westminster. Having said that, I think that I agree with everybody who said that the Bill is more important in this case than the points we are making. We shall get less than gratitude in Scotland if we lose the devolution Bill, with all its faults and all its frailties, simply by forcing this issue. I would appeal to noble Lords not to press this matter to a Division, because some of us are in a pretty perplexed and difficult situation, with no slacking in our commitment to what we are talking about; but we feel that the issues are bigger than we are.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, it would be an impertinence for me, in reply, to echo the arguments that have been used. May I say one or two things? First, I will endeavour to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, when I come to issues of a different kind. Secondly, my noble friends Lady Burton of Coventry and Lord Brown spoke of supporting the Government. I speak for the Government; but the Government supporters have a free vote today, if there is a vote.
Thirdly, the country knows what the House of Lords thinks about proportional representation. If there is a vote today—and the mood of the House suggests that it will certainly go the other way—what will the country think? The logic of the situation is that if a vote is forced today it will have to be forced again next week in consideration of the Wales Bill; so that in two consecutive weeks the House of Lords will have apparently reversed its position on proportional representation expressed in two

449
successive months just a little while ago. It seems a kind of nonsense. In the course of this debate, the unanimous advice of the House has been that this matter should not be pressed to a Division. I am certain that the country will understand that the course of dignity, not just for the House but for the Liberal Party,
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
14 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out ("three") and insert ("two")
15 Clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out ("125") and insert ("110")
16 Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out ("two initial members") and insert ("one initial member ")
17 Schedule 1, page 40, line 12, leave out ("125") and insert ("110")
is to recognise the overwhelming weight of and the reasons for the advice given and not to press this matter to a vote.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 33.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peart, L. [L. Privy Seal.)

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Plant, L.

Arran, E,

Hood, V.

Raglan, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hughes, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Balogh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Robbins, L.

Birk, B.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowden, L.

Kennet, L.

Samuel, V.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Brown, L.

Leatherland, L.

Segal, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Leonard, L.

Shinwell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Linlithgow, M.

Soper, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Listowel, E.

Spens, L.

Castle, L.

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

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Loudoun, C.

Torphichen, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tryon, L.

Dowding, L.

McCarthy, L.

Tweeddale, M.

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

Macclesfield, E.

Vaizey, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wall, L.

Gainford, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mishcon. L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Morris, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

White, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morrison, L.

Willis, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Greenway, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell. L.

Hanworth, V.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L.

Amherst, E.

Hampton, L.

St. Davies, V.

Amulree, L.

Hylton, L.

Seear, B.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

Jacobson, L.

Simon, V.

Barrington, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Swaythling, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L. [Teller.]

Tanlaw, L.

Bourne, L.

McNair, L.

Thurso, V.

Chitnis, L.

Meston, L.

Wade, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh. L.

Ogmore, L.

Wigoder, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Rea, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Winchelsea and Nottingham, E

18 leave out("three") and insert ("two")
19 Schedule 1, line 14, leave out ("two Assembly constituencies") and insert ("one Assembly constituency")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
20 Because the number of Members proposed for the Assembly would be too small.
4.20 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 14 to 19 to which the Commons had disagreed but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("(aa) one initial member for each of those areas of which the electorate is less than 75 per cent, of the electoral quota; and").
Page 40, line 13, after ("constituencies") insert ("a parliamentary constituency the electorate of which is less than 75 per cent, of the electoral quota shall comprise one Assembly constituency").
My Lords, in moving the Motion I shall try to follow the good example that was set on the last debate by not redeploying the arguments which we have already been over in the previous debates. Unlike the last issue, this particular question of the size of the Assembly was not debated by the Commons in discussing our Amendments. A good deal of the debate on the question of the numbers of Assemblymen was subsumed in the arguments about proportional representation. I must briefly try to summarise the argument. We on this side of the House have felt that the numbers in the Assembly should be of the order of one hundred. In support of that argument, we have studied what goes on in various other somewhat equivalent assemblies, such as Provincial Legislatures in Canada, Germany and other countries.
The Government, in return, have said that they have suggested a number, about 150, but they have always said that they were not dogmatic about it. I have no doubt that they used one of their favourite words and said that they were "flexible", but I do not recall exactly whether they did so. At any rate, they have not said that they were going to the stake on the number of 150. Our arithmetic indicates that the effect of this Motion is to give an Assembly of about 136, so I suggest that there is no enormous difference of substance in the effect of our Amendment.
I want to suggest that there are one or two quite important issues of principle involved here. Your Lordships will recall that in the White Paper of November 1975 it was suggested that the way of electing Assemblymen would be in principle that there should be two Assemblymen for each existing Scottish con
452
stituency as the standard, and that where the number of electors in a constituency exceeded 125 per cent. of the average, then there would be three Assemblymen; but where the size of the electorate dropped to 75 per cent. or below, then the number of Assemblymen would be one.
I do not think that the Government have ever satisfactorily explained why it was that they went away from their own proposals in their White Paper of 1975 and came forward with the proposal that even the substandard constituencies should have two Assemblymen. It seems to me beyond argument that this is bound to create great anomalies. In the past, the excuse for creating such anomalies—and indeed I come from a constituency in Scotland which is one of these anomalies, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, used to represent this constituency—is that these were very large geographical constituencies and therefore, because of difficulty of covering this constituency, it would need to have a smaller number in it. But the point is that in the constituencies we are now discussing they are already covered by one MP. Does this not suggest that it is perfectly possible for an MP to get around the existing constituency reasonably? It is difficult to argue therefore that it is necessary to have two Assemblymen for a constituency currently covered by one MP when most people will agree—although there was some argument in another place—that the work load on an Assemblyman is unlikely to exceed that of an ordinary MP. I do not find the geographical argument in this context all that compelling. I believe that I am right in saying that there are about 14 seats which would be concerned in this discussion. Of those seats, eight are basically town constituencies where the geographical argument does not apply in any case.
We have put an Amendment down; what we have done now is to produce the most conciliatory readjustment of our original Amendment that we can manage. We accept that the Boundary Commission may want to change their constituencies. This is why the word "initial" appears in our Motion. One of the reasons why it seems sensible, if possible, to start at a low level, is because in this matter of numbers of Assemblymen, there is an understandable reluctance on the part of any Parliamentarian to vote himself out of

453
a job. This gives a kind of rachet effect. It is easy to vote new constituencies; it is rather more difficult to vote out Assembly men or Parliamentary representatives. It seems to us that since we are also here setting a precedent which is going to establish a pattern for the Scottish Assembly, it is important to start without building a whole lot of anomalies for the beginning.
One final point: I hope that the Government will accept that these Amendments are designed to be as unprovocative as possible, that they leave the Assembly all the proper freedom of action for its subsequent actions. But I warn them that, if they resist the Amendments, they arc going to be assailed with a gerrymandering argument. The fact is that of the 14 seats involved here, currently eight send Labour Members of Parliament and the other two Parties have two each—two Conservatives, two Scottish Nationalists and two Liberals—in many cases by very narrow majorities. So I do suggest that this Amendment would free the Government from the accusation which they will otherwise have, of having taken a Party view on this Bill. I say this very reluctantly to the noble and learned Lord, because this is not the way we would wish to behave in this House, but I think it should be said that this is the situation. Not only that, my Lords, but they would be creating an anomaly, and so I seriously hope that the Government will feel able to accept the Amendments which I now beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 14 to 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 20, but propose the said Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what my noble friend has said. I need hardly remind your Lordships that I have been very much concerned throughout the proceedings on. this Bill with the question of fairness of representation. Under the Bill as it now stands, except for those constituencies with 125 per cent, of the average of electors, the rest of the constituencies will have two Members each. That means that with an average of approximately 56,500 electors per con
454
stituency, the average for those with not less than 125,000 voters will be about 28,000. There are some constituencies with as few as 20,412 voters—that is for Glasgow Central. The Western Isles have 22,709, which is already below the average electorate for the new divided constituencies. That being so, it seems as though the Government are allowing an anomaly which they could quite easily avoid, simply by making a special provision that below a certain level—75 per cent. of the average Parliamentary constituency—there would be only one Member for the Scottish Assembly.
This seems a sensible Amendment. I think if one can take the opportunity to equate the numbers of electors in constituencies as nearly as possible, it obviously tends to the greatest fairness in representation. I think that is quite incontestable. There is not a great deal in it from the point of view of advantage for one side or the other. It is true that of the fourteen, eight are held by Labour—but that could change—and two each by the other three Parties: that is the Scottish Nationals, the Conservatives and the Liberals. So there is not a great deal in this from the point of view of advantage. But it seems to me that one should equate the sizes of constituencies as far as possible, as indeed the Government are attempting to do at the top end. Why, then, should they not also do that at the bottom end, so as to get something normally of the order of between 25,000 and 35,000?
This is the purpose of the Amendment. It seems a reasonable proposition: 75 per cent. may not be exactly right, but that is the proportion that was put into the Scotland and Wales Bills. If the other place would agree to this principle, then certainly we would not object if they changed the 75 per cent. The main thing is not to leave obvious anomalies in the sizes of the constituencies in the new arrangements that are being made for this new institution of the Scottish Assembly.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to make one remark on this, because it is the principle that is so important. There are many Members of your Lordships' House who have also been Members of another place, and they will know that over a long period

455
of years the populations in various constituencies change enormously. Then they have to wait for five years, or sometimes more, before there can be a reorganisation in order that one constituency, say, did not have 90,000 as against another constituency, such as the one which I remember my husband represented in Glasgow, which was reduced from 58,000 to about 30,000 and which was finally eliminated at 20,000.
It seems silly, if you are going to start something quite new, as we are doing now, not to take advantage of the experience of the past, and to start with an equitable number of voters in each constituency, rather than to start off on the wrong foot, so to speak, because you are then very soon going to be overtaken by changes in population in the constituencies, and so on. You will not be able to alter them, and so I would beg the Government not to look on this as a matter of different principles between us but simply as a matter of practical and wise beginnings on the creation of new constituencies.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, your House has just listened to a matter of principle being explained and I should like to put a practical point now, very quickly. I think that although you may be starting on the wrong foot, and although some constituencies may have two Members for a small number of voters, it does happen that in the end the Boundary Commission will put that right. What I am really concerned about is the very large country constituency, such as the ones that the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, and I represented. In Caithness and Sutherland you could certainly have done with two Members, although there were not a lot of voters, because, in the first place, there was always fighting between them. Caithness hated Sutherland and Sutherland did not care much for Caithness ! So there was a need for constant reconciliation between the two counties, and I think that people in Scotland appreciate the geographical difficulties involved in having enormous constituencies. I am certain that there were times when the noble Lord, Lord Glenkinglas, regretted that he did not represent a small constituency in the heart of Glasgow. Taken on the whole, therefore, I would oppose the Amendment. I think the matter will put itself right.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, if I may just enter this competition, I should like to say that I often regretted I did not represent a small constituency like Caithness and Sutherland ! Be that as it may, there is only one point I should like to put to my noble friend, with whose argument I broadly agree; that is, if one tries to get too close to absolute parity in questions of this sort it seems to me that one gets a situation where, after a number of years, one finds, as has been happening not only in Britain but all over the world, that people are moving from the country into the towns, and so one gets the towns (perhaps I am a biased representative) with really too great a say in the affairs of a country and you leave the countrymen out. Therefore, while I am all for reasonable fairness, I think that in almost all the democratic countries in Europe, as well as in America, the countryside has a slight preponderance of value in its votes, perhaps partly because of the size of the area, and, on the whole, this tends to be a stabilising influence in politics.
4.40 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, first, let me make it clear that I accept entirely that the Amendment is not provocative. Indeed it is quite plain that in effect the Amendments which are put forward in lieu by the noble Lord Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal take us back to the Government's proposition contained in the White Paper published in November 1975. So I cannot describe them in too stringent terms. But that proposal like many others contained in the White Paper, was the subject of many representations received by the Government following upon the publication in November 1975.
The proposal that constituencies with relatively small populations, with less than 75 per cent. on the quota basis, should get only one Assembly Member was severely criticised by, among others, NALGO, COSLA, the Crofters' Commission, the NFU of Scutland, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and several local authorities. The Government responded to that kind of criticism in the way they did to other criticisms. They accepted the points that were made, similar to points that have been made

457
today, and decided that these constituencies should, for reasons that are well understood, receive two Members.
Having accepted that the proposals of the noble Lord are not provocative, I would ask him, however, to reconsider what he said about gerrymandering. In that, I think he fell into error; and if he agrees with me, perhaps he will acknowledge the error and withdraw the observation. The position is that in Scotland, as a whole, the Labour Party holds 41 seats out of 71; that is, about 60 per cent. of the seats. In the 14 constituencies which fall below 75 per cent., seven are held by Labour, four by the Conservatives, two by the SNP and one by the Liberals. So that they hold only 50 per cent. of these seats. Far from the matter being one of gerrymandering, the position is really the other way. So I think that the noble Lord could perhaps acknowledge that. There is no question of gerrymandering here; it is just a question of responding to the criticisms that were made.
Again, on the figures—I am looking at the 1978 register; not the 1977 register—the effect would be to reduce the Assembly's size from 148, on the 1978 figures, to 134. The difference of 14 is still the same. The Government do not believe that this relatively marginal reduction in the figures is justifiable, at the expense of giving such large areas, particularly Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty and the Western Isles only one Member each.
There is another point that the noble Lord may not have taken into account; that is, that in the initial election Orkney and Shetland, as the Bill would stand after this Amendment, would receive one Assembly Member each. But thereafter, as a result of the Amendments, they would have to share one Assembly Member, which would be an odd result. The other matter which I should bring to the attention of the House is this—
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? Surely, if the principle is accepted, that would be a consequential matter that could be quite easily corrected in another place, because it obviously was not intended. There is the special provision in the Bill which says that Orkney shall have one Member and Shetland shall have one Member.
Lord McCLUSK EY: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I do not know what is intended. The special provision in the Bill is, I think, Clause 1 (3) and it relates only to initial Members, so I can only construe the intention of the noble Lord opposite from what the Amendment contains. The effect of the Amendment is that after the initial election Orkney and Shetland will share one Assembly Member. If the intention of the noble Lord is that that should not be so, then it is rather odd, in a way, that he should say that we do not give the constituencies of Western Isles, Caithness and Sutherland or Ross and Cromarty more than one Member, but we give one Member to Orkney and one to Shetland, although they are among the smallest electorates of all.
My last point is that the other place considered this matter in relation to the proposed reduction to 101 Members. That is, of course, a slightly different point. But I think your Lordships should know that on that matter they voted in favour of the number contained in the Bill as it originally came to us, which would be 148, by 275 votes to 243, which again is a quite decisive majority having regard to the state of the Parties in this Parliament in another place. So I ask the noble Lord opposite to consider, in the light of these arguments, whether this is a matter which he wants to send back.
May I put to him the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made in the previous debate. It is plain, given the state of the calendar and the general pressure upon Parliament, that there will be a limited time to discuss all the matters which your Lordships send back after today. It would be a pity if that limited time were to be taken up discussing matters which are not of vital importance; and this, I submit, is one of those, having regard to the quite small numbers involved.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may ask him one question. The problem arises in one or two constituencies in the Central Belt, where the population has moved out, and they are now possibly over-represented not only for an Assembly but also for Parliament. Would it not be possible to alter the

459
boundaries of those constituencies, rather than try to alter the representation?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord will acknowledge, that is not a matter for the Government. That is a matter for the Boundary Commission. This matter was fully explained at an earlier stage, and I think it is well-known to Members of the House.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has not been able to find himself more in agreement with this Amendment. I should like to make one point, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn was making. The matter of Orkney and Shetland can be taken care of by Amendment to this Amendment in another place.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I accept that it is a finely balanced argument, and I am very glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord the reason why the Government changed their mind. I continue to think that their first thoughts were best, but I should be the last person to suggest that Governments should never change their minds, since we spend most of our time here trying to persuade them to do just that. It is sometimes a pity that, when they do change their mind, they change it in a way which we should not have wished.
Perhaps I am at fault in using the word "gerrymandering"; in which case I certainly apologise to the noble and learned Lord. Certainly, I would never suggest that he would indulge in such an activity. I suggested that it was not necessarily my own view, and that it was a view which might very readily be taken by anybody who studied the figures. We had a slight difference about the figures and, unfortunately, I did not write them down while the noble and learned Lord was giving them to us. But I think he will find that, instead of calling it "gerrymandering", it is a rather happy coincidence that there will still be quite a high proportion of these seats held by his Party. Let me put it no stronger than that. I think I said that eight of the seats would be Labour, against six held by others, and I think he said that seven would be held by Labour.
460
But the fact remains that Labour would still have by far the largest number of any individual Party, so let us call it a happy coincidence, seen from his point of view, and leave it at that. I fully accept that.
I did not quite understand his argument about Orkney and Shetland, because our Amendment uses the word "initial", and I thought he was saying that after the initial election it would bring about certain results. As I pointed out, we have written in the word "initial", so that presumably this would not take effect after the initial election. Anyway, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out, if they wanted to get over that point there would be no great difficulty about it. As I understand the situation, however, I would suggest that in fact this would not happen.
I do not believe that at this stage this is the kind of issue upon which it would be proper for the House to dig its toes in in any way. I have to say, however, that I am disappointed. The noble and learned Lord agreed that the practical difference is small. Again we agreed on the number of reductions, even if we did not agree on the two figures that we started from and ended up with.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, he mentioned that his Amendment contains the word "initial". That is his first Amendment. The one that I had in mind was his second Amendment, to line 13 on page 40, because that relates not to the initial election but to subsequent elections.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I take the noble and learned Lord's point. I am sure that he is much more likely to be right on this issue than I am. Shall we say that, as the noble and learned Lord rightly divined, this was certainly not what we intended to bring about. I do not believe that this is the kind of issue upon which the House would wish to go to the stake. We have learned a little more about the Government's thinking, and we regret their decision. They will have to live with it as, indeed, we shall. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments to the Motion.
Amendments to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
21 Clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("(6) Notwithstanding any provision of this Act the Assembly may at any time after the 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 Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
22 Because elections to the Assembly should remain entirely a matter for Parliament.
4.52 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I hope that somebody is familiar with these procedures, because I am slightly confused. However, I think that the position now is that we come to Amendment No. 21, and the Motion that I make is this: I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 21, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22.
In an earlier debate, I argued that this Amendment cuts across the important principle which, as I pointed out, was endorsed by the Kilbrandon Commission, that responsibility for maintaining and, if necessary, considering changes to the representational framework of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements is entirely a matter for Parliament, which should remain the sole custodian of such constitutional matters. I also suggested in that debate that the "take it or leave it" basis of the Amendment could not make for a satisfactory relationship between the Assembly and Parliament. By using that shorthand, I am referring to the fact that Parliament would not be able to alter the scheme but would simply have to say, Yes or No, and I know that Parliament does not like to be faced with that kind of choice.
In the light of what happened in the other place, I do not believe that your Lordships wish me again to set out all the arguments. What happened in the
462
other place was this. The Amendment was not discussed, but it was put to the vote and it was defeated in a Division by 467 votes to 39. In the circumstances, I trust that the House will not insist upon the Amendment, and I so move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 22.—(Lord McCluskey.)
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I believe that I was the mover of this Amendment on a previous occasion. I did so because it seemed to me that if the proportional representation Amendment was not accepted, this might represent an acceptable fall-back position for the Assembly. It would have the chance to decide for itself what form of election it would like; namely, whether it wished to have proportional representation. We have debated proportional representation, and I do not wish to go over the ground again. We have also heard what is the opinion of the Commons about it. They do not want proportional representation, and we have their Reason. In the circumstances—I am sorry about this—but even the fall-back position which your Lordships backed is one which I do not wish to press.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I do not want to delay the House again. However, it is a pity that the Commons did not amend the Amendment instead of rejecting it. It is entirely consistent with the Government's attitude throughout the Bill that the Assembly, as a responsible body, should be able to put propositions to Parliament for a change in the electoral system if Scottish conditions, with which it is more familiar, warrant it.
It is a great pity that the Government did not look at this point more closely in order to satisfy the requirement that Parliament could alter and negotiate instead of having to reject, which I agree is an unfortunate circumstance with which to be faced. I am certain that the Assembly, when it has gained experience, will want to express its experience with regard to the electoral system. However, taking into account the progress being made regarding the desire for a fair and proper form of representation, it may well

463
be that matters in Parliament will overtake matters in the Assembly before that time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
23 Clause 15, page 7, line 18, leave out from ("statement") to ("in")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
24 Because it would create uncertainty.
4.57 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24. This Amendment was the subject of a substantial debate in the other place. Indeed, it relates to matters which were discussed here more than once. The problem and the different views upon the problem are all familiar to your Lordships, and I do not think I need to repeat arguments that we have already heard. Having attended part of and read all of the debate in the other place, I believe that the objection to one particular solution was perhaps emphasised and clarified in another place. This solution was to equip the Assembly with privilege on the Parliamentary model. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, at one time advanced that idea. However, the objection is that the Assembly is not to be a sovereign, independent Legislature and therefore should not be treated as if it were a sovereign, independent Legislature. It should not be treated as if it were Parliament. This is one of the reasons why I would ask the House to accept direct statutory provision.
The debate in the other place also served to establish, even more clearly than before, what was the area of common ground across the Floor of the House. I believe that it was accepted in the other place that written statements should be capable of attracting absolute privilege. The point of objection was that the provision in the Bill could be construed as going further than the doctrine of privilege went, notably because it did not specify that publication should be limited to what was absolutely necessary. To this the Government's answer was, and remains, that if publication is excessive, the person who makes the statement could be hard put to it to establish that it was made in proceedings of the Assembly. The courts have never
464
hesitated to lean against excessive publication. But the Amendment does not deal with the extent of publication or with the ambit of "proceedings of the Assembly", which I have always suggested was the important part of the clause. The Amendment would merely leave out the words declaring that a protected statement can be oral or written, and the Government are content to defend these words as necessary to avoid an avoidable doubt, an ambiguity.
I do not think that there is anything further that I can usefully say, except to draw attention to the fact that while considering the Wales Bill last night, the other place, by a majority of 34, rejected the same proposition which had been put into that Bill. For these reasons, therefore, I would invite noble Lords not to insist on their Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24.—(Lord McCluskey.)
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may for a moment look at the position in which we stand in regard to this clause. I think it is something of an achievement, on a subsection which has no conceivable political connotation—I do not believe that any political manifesto ever said there was an intention to extend the absolute privilege of Parliament, so I do not think it has ever been raised as a popular cry. Moreover, I understood from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that we were wholly agreed that there were no changes in the standard of absolute privilege from that at present current in Parliament.
There was one interesting remark made in another place to which I should like to refer. Just before the Division took place, Mr. Grimond asked the Government whether or not letters from Members to Ministers were privileged, and this is what the Minister of State for the Privy Council, a distinguished lawyer, said:
"As we read the Bill as it stands, it is that there should be privilege".
This is quite clearly directly in contradiction to the decision which was made in Parliament 20 years ago in what is called

465
the Strauss case and which I believe primarily turned round this very point. Mr. Herbert Morrison, who moved the Amendment which was carried and supported by the House, said this—and I think these are the crucial words:
"I cannot see that the doctrine of Privilege ought to extend to a written communication sent privately to a Minister"—
and he gave as his reason, because we must
"be careful not to injure the legitimate rights of the private citizen".—[Official Report, Commons 8/7/58, cols. 233 and 234.]
I am bound to say, of course, that Parliament may change its view in interpreting privilege, but this is the latest view which has been expressed quite clearly, and there is no doubt now that the law of absolute privilege will be different in Scotland from what it will be in Parliament. That is what I was afraid would be the case and is now made quite clear. I really must regret that this interpretation which has been made in the other place by the distinguished Minister of State is different from that which we were led to believe in this House. It is a pity, and I think it will lead not only to two standards but also to great difficulty in interpretation, because when the courts come—as indeed we hope they never will come because we hope the occasion will never arise in a well organised Scottish Assembly—to call in question defamation, they will have no example or authority from any case in Parliament to say what written documents are absolutely privileged. Except for those published by Parliament I think no written document has ever been held to be absolutely privileged.
I know that the interpretation can be done differently and that was affirmed by the case which came up in Parliament 20 years ago. I think it is a pity that we should have different interpretations. It is wrong and unnecessary, in my view, and it is curious that in the interpretation there should have been two Divisions, one in this House and one in the other. I do not want to accuse the Government too forcefully of taking the view of the distinguished American that: "They have made up their minds and they do not want to be confused by argument", but that is rather what it looks like.
I should like to say only one other thing: it seems to me to be almost funny
466
that at the end of the Reason which they give for wanting to change this Amendment they say, "Because it would create uncertainty". I doubt very much whether there is one single word in this subsection about which anyone would say with conviction that he knew exactly what is meant. It is a thoroughly clumsy piece of drafting and it is clumsy in the sense of representing much that is in this Bill. It could have been put in much simpler language and would have saved a great deal of trouble in the future.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I am wondering whether I am looking at the right passage when I look at col. 773 of Hansard of another place of 6th July 1978. Am I looking at the right passage there as being the one he referred to as containing the answer of my right honourable friend the Minister of State to a question asked by the right honourable gentleman representing Orkney and Shetland?
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I have not made a note of the column, but I think the noble Lord will find it in answer to a question put by Mr. Grimond, and the Minister's words were:
"As we read the Bill as it stands, it is that there should be privilege",
and that referred to letters from Members to Ministers.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, perhaps I may confine my reply to asking your Lordships to bear with me while I attempt to paraphrase what a Member of the other place said and to quote what a Minister in the other place said. Mr. Grimond certainly asked the Minister of State to tell the House whether it was the intention of the Government that communications between Members of the Assembly and the Executive should or should not he privileged, and just before the Division was called Mr. John Smith is quoted as saying:
"I wanted to have the opportunity to clear that matter up. As I understood it, the right honourable Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was saying 'Does it extend to'. Perhaps I ought to make it clear that my view is that it extends to them if they are proceedings of the Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons; 6/7/78, col. 773.]
That seems to me to put the matter accurately, with respect, and it is consistent

467
with what I have said. If they are proceedings of the Assembly, then they are protected.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Of course, my Lords; but there happens to be no case at all in Parliament where that was accepted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 24.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
25 Clause 19, page 8, line 14, after ("Assembly") insert ("or is not compatible with any enforceable Community right, power, liability, obligation or restriction (as defined in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972)")
26 Clause 19, page 8, line 15, after ("competence") insert ("or is so compatible, as the case may be,")
27 Clause 19, page 8, line 19, after ("obligations") insert ("other than an enforceable Community obligation")
28 Clause 19, page 8, line 29, at beginning insert ("A reference under this section shall be deemed to be legal proceedings and")
29 Clause 19, page 8, line 32, after ("Assembly") insert ("or is not compatible with any enforceable Community right, power, liability, obligation or restriction")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
30 Because the decisions concerned must be taken by Ministers of the Crown.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, this raises rather a different matter and it is one which we have really only satisfactorily discussed in Parliament on the Report stage of the Bill in this House. It was rather after 10 o'clock on the 7th June, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and I had a single-handed duel upon the matter. Nobody else joined in, the matter was not really discussed in that sort of fine detail in another place at all when the Bill was first before them, nor on Committee here, and the Amendments which your Lordships made on Report were simply not discussed at all when the matter went back to another place. Therefore we have a situation where I am far from satisfied that justice has been done to the arguments.
468
The basic material for discussion is this: that under the system of the European Treaties there are certain directions and regulations and other material that issues from the European institutions, of two sorts. There are those which say to the Governments of Member States, "You must enforce this legislation in your own States in whatever way you think fit and in accordance with whatever detail you think fit, and that is up to you, the Governments of the independent States, the Members of the Community".
Then there is another sort of pronouncement that issues from the institutions. It is this: "We are making laws which, without the Governments of the independent Member States doing anything further about it at all, are automatically made part of the law of each and every one of the independent States, so that in so far as they affect any individual, either by way of conferring upon him a right or an obligation or anything else, they are directly enforceable without further ado by the courts of each of the countries who are Members of the Community". These are two entirely different concepts and the Bill makes no attempt to distinguish between the two of them, and the Amendments which have come back from another place to us were my effort to try to make a logical distinction between the two of them.
The Amendments with which another place has disagreed have this effect. Where under the Bill (there is no dispute about this) an enactment by the Scottish Assembly does not confine itself to the powers which are granted to the Scottish Assembly under this Bill, then the Secretary of State—either because he is sure, or now that we have had some Amendments because from some source or another he has a doubt—may refer the issue as to whether the Scottish Assembly is within the powers of the Scotland Act to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, and they will decide and they will decide conclusively. That is, of course, because the question of whether or not a Scottish Assembly Bill is within the powers of the Bill which is now before your Lordships is a straight matter of judicial interpretation. There is no difficulty about this. Everybody accepts it; it is built into the Bill and it is so.
Now we have to consider the impact of the European dimension. The first of

469
the types of Directive or Regulation that come from the European institutions are not directly justiciable at all. I accept this; my Amendments, as I have put them down, accept this; your Lordships have all understood this and there is no dispute about it. If it is a matter that has to be dealt with by legislation in any of the Member States, including this country, of course it is for the Government to say when, how and in what way they will implement it. If there is some discrepancy between a Scottish Assembly Bill and a duty that has been laid upon the Government of this country by some emanation from the European institutions, it must be a matter of politics, political decision, how and when that should be implemented, and any discrepancy is, of course, something that politicians should deal with, as now appears in Clause 19(1)(b] of the Bill as it first arrived in this House.
However, there is the other material that comes from Europe. That is the sort that becomes automatically part of the law of this country quite regardless of anything that is done in Parliament here, either by way of primary legislation or subordinate legislation or executive action or anything else. It is just quite simply part of the law of the United Kingdom, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and nothing has to be done about it at all. I noted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when he was dealing with this on Report stage, agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that this was a matter that was purely judicial, purely justiciable, and was of the same order of material as the decision as to whether a Scottish Assembly Bill was within the powers of the Scotland Act at all.
The effect of the Amendments which have come back from another place is to say, No, that last sort of material, although it is justiciable, shall not be dealt with by the courts, it is quite unsuitable for them; the only people who can deal with it are Ministers. The only people who can decide whether a Bill which has passed through the Scottish Assembly infringes the directly-applicable parts of the European law which are without further ado applicable to all citizens of this country are Ministers; it is nothing to do with the courts; the courts are quite unsuitable to
470
do it. There is the reason, in the Message that has come from another place, that Ministers must make this decision.
I am afraid that this is an occasion when the noble and learned Lord—and it must be the only occasion on which he did it in the whole of the passage of this Bill through this House—has actually misunderstood the case. I read very carefully what he said when this matter was before the House. It is at columns 1366 to 1370 of the Official Report of 7th June. He could not possibly have understood it, nor I think could another place if they have put down the Reason that we have before us for rejecting these Amendments.
Perhaps I can deal with the three matters which the noble and learned Lord put up by way of refutation of my argument last time. The first is a matter of drafting. I hope that on this occasion I have dealt with a slightly heavy handed reference to obligations and other such matters by putting down a rather more simplified reference to matters which under the European Communities Act can be recited comprehensively under the term of "enforceable rights". Secondly, I have, in the Amendments I am proposing we should put into the Bill instead of those which have been sent back, referred to the necessary overriding power of rulings from the European Court. So I trust that the drafting matter that was drawn to our attention by the noble and learned Lord has at least been repaired for the better, even if I have not yet got it quite right.
But there were two other matters that he drew to our attention. First, he said there were practical and political reasons why, if the Secretary of State thought that there was an incompatibility between a Scottish Assembly Bill and a directly enforceable right, it should be a matter for Ministers, and he referred, in column 1368, to the question of whether or not it would be more appropriate that a particular Community obligation should be implemented by Parliament instead of the Assembly. He said:
"This could involve consideration of a variety of factors such as doubts as to the compatibility of the implementing measure proposed by the Assembly, questions whether implementing legislation is necessary at all, and the desirability of simultaneous and uniform implementation throughout the United Kingdom".

471
Of course, that is right if you are dealing with matters which have to be implemented in this country by Government or Parliamentary intervention; that is absolutely correct. But it does not have any bearing at all upon directly enforceable rights and so on which come into the law of this country without any intervention by Parliament at all. There cannot be any political or practical implication in this at all, because all that is going to happen is that the European law will be applicable anyway; it will he applicable whether or not the Scottish Assembly Act is passed; it will be applicable whether or not it is sent to the Judicial Committee for decision; it will be applicable whether or not the Judicial Committee decides that the Scottish Assembly Bill is or is not compatible with those rights. They override everything. To the extent that those European laws have been imported into this country they override all forms of legislation, and to the extent that legislation passed by any institution in this country is inconsistent with them. according to the ruling in the Simmenthal case, our own domestic law shall not be applied by the courts.
So it has got nothing to do with Parliament; it has got nothing to do with whether we implement it properly or simultaneously or consistently; it is automatically and already part of the law of this country. That is why it is a matter for the Judiciary rather than for the Ministers; it has got nothing to do with a political decision but is simply a matter of interpretation. So, my Lords, the whole basis of the reason why another place have sent this back is, I would respectfully and humbly say to them, misconceived. It is, of course, misconceived because they never had an opportunity to discuss it, and perhaps in a minor way because even the noble and learned Lord slipped momentarily in his own argument in this place.
There is one other argument he put forward; it might require time. That is quite true, because if the matter is to go to the Judicial Committee, then of course there is—under the Amendments which I successfully sought to persuade your Lordships to put into the Bill—the possibility that their Lordships sitting judicially will send it on to Luxembourg, and that could take some time.
472
However, let us consider for a moment where the balance of advantage lies. If the Secretary of State thinks that the Scottish Assembly Bill is unquestionably in conflict with a directly enforceable European Community right that has been granted to the public in this country, then he is, of course, under the Amendments that have come back from another place, entitled to submit this to the Judicial Committee. He can also do so if he is in doubt—if, for instance, Members of either House of Parliament suggest to him that that is so.
Where is the proper balance of public interest? These are not easy arguments for the courts. If the matter is taken up by the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate or the Law Officers of the Crown before a Scottish Assembly Bill is presented for Royal Assent, this will be a matter that will be discussed by the courts and the arguments in front of them will be presented by the Law Officers. There will be no citizen involved, and rightly so, because these are matters of great public importance which ought to be attended to by the Law Officers of the Crown. If we leave it to Ministers and the Ministers get it wrong, it will not make any difference in the long run. Once the Scottish Assembly Bill has been wrongly given the Royal Assent, and it contains the seeds of its own distruction in that it does, in fact, conflict with the directly applicable European right, it will not stop the citizens of Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom from taking the matter up in litigation. They will be able to do exactly the same as would have occurred before the Royal Assent under the Amendments that we inserted in this House, and, of course, this time unfortunately it will be the poor old citizen who has to pay for it. The mere fact that it is not challenged before Assent will not stop it being challenged afterwards. It will then merely be a matter for the citizen to take it up.
I think—and I believe that your Lordships when you supported the Amendments which I put down thought so too—that it would be right that, if there is either a conviction or a doubt on the part of the Secretary of State that this is so, he should see to it that this justiciable issue is dealt with by the courts. If it takes a certain length of time, it takes a

473
certain length of time. It will take exactly the same length of time whether it is discussed before the Royal Assent or after the Royal Assent. The only difference is that if it is discussed by the courts after the Royal Assent a number of people may have acted upon the Scottish Assembly Bill on the assumption that it is correct in law, whereas it will turn out, as it may be, afterwards, when the matter has been put to the court in Luxembourg, that it was not correct in law. In which case there will be all sorts of unscrambling of rights, obligations and duties which would otherwise never have occurred, and it would be done to the cost of the individual. I cannot help thinking that the question of time must be irrelevant in this connection.
If the Secretary of State has a genuine doubt or a genuine conviction he is not the person, as a politician, to make the decision as another place has suggested. It is by common accord a matter for the courts. It would be a matter for the courts sooner or later and I suggest that it should be sooner for the reasons which have suggested.
I hope that in the corrections that I have now put forward to the Amendments that we sent to another place, we have a complete and satisfactory scheme which deals not only with the facts but—on the arguments that I have put forward—the objections put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 25 to 29 for the Reason numbered 30 but doth propose in lieu thereof—
Page 8, line 14, after ("Assembly") insert ("or is not compatible with an enforceable Community right (as defined in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972)")
Page 8,line 15, after ("competence") insert ("or is so compatible, as the case may be")
Page 8,line 19, after ("obligations") insert ("other than an enforceable Community obligation")
Page 8,line 29, at beginning insert ("A reference under this section shall be deemed to be legal proceedings and")
Page 8,line 32, after ("Assembly") insert ("or, subject to any ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Communities, is not compatible with any enforceable Community right").
—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I always look round in vain to see whether someone else will join in this solitary argument that we have been conducting across the Table for so many months. I shall try to explain that the Government's intention, in terms of policy, is that all questions relating to the implementation of international obligations are to be kept firmly and unambiguously under ministerial control. As I understand it, there is no disagreement between the noble Viscount and myself as regards that. Indeed, if I point to the difference, he would not say that it is really relevant to the particular matter that he has just sought to make clear.
However, he has singled out the special case where we are talking about an obligation which is not imposed upon the Member State for fulfilment by it in whatever form it is provided for, but which is imposed directly by the Community. He has reminded us that that kind of law—directly applicable Community law—is different because it is already law within the United Kingdom, with the result that the questions of compatibility between it on the one hand, and the contents of an Assembly Bill on the other, would involve a matter of law (a justiciable issue) of the same character as the justiciable issue that arises on matters of vires, if we are considering a justiciable issue in that sense. I have acknowledged that in the past, and I acknowledge it again.
The added feature here is that if we were to accept the Amendments—which are verbally different but not in substance different from the ones that went to the other place, although I acknowledge that the drafting is improved—this type of question would or could find its way to the European Court of Justice. There are a number of reasons why we are opposed to that proposal and the contents of the Amendments. In the first place, in our view the argument put forward by the noble Viscount does not fit in with the realities of Community law. To begin with, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice does not extend to advising whether national legislation, or national legislation in the form of Bills—that is to say in draft—is or is not compatible with Community legislation. I have asked before—but I do not think I have

475
yet received an answer—for the noble Viscount or certainly someone to point out which particular article of which treaty (presumably the Treaty of Rome) gives the European Court of Justice jurisdiction to decide that kind of question—that is, the question of compatibility that I have just described.
The task of the European Court is to advise on Community law. If, therefore, the Secretary of State were to conclude, after receiving such advice as was available to him from Law Officers and, indeed, his own legal advisors, that an Assembly Bill was plainly, or even arguably, incompatible with such an obligation, there would be no Community reason for insisting on a reference to the European Court. All the Community would be concerned to say is that if there is a question of Community law to be interpreted, that should go to the Court. Therefore, to say that compatibility involves justiciability and so should be referred to the Judicial Committee and thence to the European Court is, in our view, an over-simplification.
There is another aspect. The argument which the noble Viscount has advanced today seems to me to proceed upon the assumption that the only question likely to arise is that of compatibility. But there is another question and that is whether or not the Community obligation is directly applicable. I think that he used the words "quite simply" in his argument, but the question is not always a "quite simple" question. It may be a quite difficult question and it may well have a political dimension.
The effect of this group of Amendments would be to force the Government at a very early stage, every time the Assembly introduced a Bill, to take a definite view on what could be a difficult question with political dimensions—namely, whether or not some article in a directive or in some other Community instrument created a directly applicable Community obligation. So it could convert into apparently a legal question for decision by lawyers what is, in part, a political question, certainly a question with political implications. So I believe that there will be, or could be, in these cases a mixture of political and legal factors at work. That is precisely why the Government say that
476
it could create a considerable distortion if one erected a system, such as these Amendments erect, in order to settle all these questions at a purely legal level.
As your Lordships know, at the present time when a Secretary of State, a Minister of the Crown, has to decide a question which involves both legal and political dimensions, he will seek the advice of lawyers, including—if it is the right kind of question—the advice of the Law Officers. Indeed, under the Bill as it came to us from another place, the Secretary of State would take into account the whole range of political and legal questions which seem to arise. On the legal questions one would expect that, in accordance with the normal practice, he would act upon the advice received from the Law Officers. There is no question of acting upon an arbitrary view of the law.
Then, so far as his answer to these questions allows, he will frame his political judgment, or he will decide the political dimension of it. That, I believe, is right and sensible. He is not compelled to act in what I would conceive to be an artificial way and submit this question for decision to a court. When I say "this question" I mean either the question of compatibility or the question of direct enforceability; or, indeed, the one question with both these dimensions to it.
But there is one other matter to which I want to draw attention. In 1972, when Parliament passed the European Communities Act, it did not make any such provision. In 1972 everyone was quite clear that there were two kinds of obligations: those imposed upon the Member State for implementation by the Member State, and those directly imposed, because that is quite plain from the Treaty. That matter was recognised and in 1972 no attempt was made by Parliament to refer to a court of law the kind of issue that these Amendments would refer to a court of law; namely, whether or not proposed legislation, whether of the sovereign Parliament itself or of some subordinate legislature or legislator, through making Instruments, Orders in Council or whatever, ought to be referred to the European Court if there was a possibility that it might be incompatible with what was thought to be, or might be,

477
the directly applicable European obligation.
We believe that matters should continue following devolution and we should not set this precedent in the devolution field, which we did not put into the European Communities Act in 1972. I accept that this fine point has not been debated in the way in which the noble Viscount and I have debated it in this House, simply because we have confined ourselves to it since we identified that that was precisely the point of difference. It was not debated in quite that way in another place. But the other place did debate a new clause reflecting a related purpose to these Amendments, and that clause was rejected on a Division. Indeed, on this occasion, too, when they came to consider the Amendments proposed by the noble Viscount and supported by this House, the other place rejected that approach by a majority of 45.
I accept that some issues are likely to go back from here to the other place following upon the proceedings, which I trust will end today. But should this be one of them, the matter has been fully considered; the noble Viscount knows that we have taken the best advice we can take upon it, as well as considering the matter ourselves. In political terms, by a majority of 45 the other place has rejected the Amendments of exactly the same character. I ask the noble Viscount to consider whether or not he wants to add this to the matters that go back to the other place, or whether he does not accept that this is now the time to bring the matter to an end and not to press the new Amendment.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I commiserate with the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that nobody will join in these discussions between the two of us. This has been the trouble all along. I also accept from him that it may well be, for the reasons which I have already given, that it will not make a material difference whether we put these Amendments in the Bill in this form or whether we simply leave the matter to be litigated after the Scottish Assembly Act has got on to the Statute Book. It would, in fact, have exactly the
478
same effect, whichever way it occurred, except for who has to pay the bill. That was really the message that I was trying to get over to the noble and learned Lord.
Perhaps I could answer the three points that he has made because, if I may respectfully say so, he has directed his mind much more accurately to my argument today than he did on 7th June. First, as to the jurisdiction of the European Court, the purpose of putting into the Bill that a consideration of the vires of a Scottish Assembly Bill in this context is to be litigation, which is one of the Amendments that your Lordships accepted before, would, I think, bring it straight within the provisions of the Treaty, which allows the European Court to consider, on a reference to it, and to give a ruling on a matter which is being litigated in one of the Member States.
It was exactly in order to provide the necessary foundation for such an argument that an Amendment was tabled. I should think that it would be most unlikely that the European Court would refuse to exercise its jurisdiction when the Parliament of one of the Member States had said that for these exact purposes it was treating a matter in dispute between Law Officers and the Crown of two different parts of the country as being litigation before the courts here. So I should have thought that the Amendments that I have put forward really deal with that, and it is fanciful to suppose that the European Court, which is not a blinkered body in any way, would refuse jurisdiction on those grounds.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if the noble Viscount would allow me, before he leaves this point I did ask him whether he could tell me which article of the Treaty he had in mind. What he has told me is what we all know, that all courts are greedy to extend their jurisdiction, and the European Court is no exception. But what I want to know from him is what article of the Treaty he says confers upon the European Court jurisdiction to make that kind of decision.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, from memory it is Article 177, but I do not have my copy of the Treaty with me. I see that the noble and learned Lord has loaned me his copy. I am

479
obliged to him. There are, in fact, two articles whereby the Court can deal with a complaint on an individual matter. One is Article 177 and the other I have now forgotten, but I did hear a lecture upon this in Luxembourg. I think that I would require notice of the question but I believe that in fact, the Article is 177. I do not think that this would be a practical difficulty.
I turn to the second point which the noble and learned Lord raised, the question whether or not the obligation or right is, after all, to be found to be directly applicable. That is, of course, a matter which has political implications, but it is not to be decided as a matter of politics by the European Court. There is great distinction between this. There have been a number of occasions when national legislation—and I am thinking particularly of Italian tax legislation—has been held by the European Court to be inconsistent with a directly applicable right. Of course, that carries with it political implications in Italy, and if the same thing happened here, it would carry with it political implications in this country.
But the question whether or not it is a conflict on a directly applicable measure and whether that measure is directly applicable, is a jurisprudential matter and not a political one. That is what the Court has to decide and that, in fact, is what, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is well aware, the Court does decide. It does not decide it upon political grounds. It decides it after argument on an interpretation of and implications drawn from the Treaty. Therefore, again there is no difficulty here, because the decision would not be made on political grounds even if it did, on some occasions, have unfortunate political implications which had to be dealt with. That is too had. Decisions of courts of all types have that effect.
Thirdly, the noble and learned Lord rightly said that when the European Communities Act was passed in 1972 it did not provide for prior inquiry as to conformity with this sort of European law prior to any Act we have passed since that date going on the Statute Book. That is true, but it is dependent simply upon this: so far as Westminster is concerned, we have no written Constitution, and it would not be very easy to
480
provide, in that sort of legislation or any other sort of legislation—at any rate it has never been previously provided, nor has there been occasion to provide it—for any such jurisdiction to be created.
But in the Scotland Bill we are setting up a completely new creature. We are setting up a legislative Assembly which I suppose in some respects is like the Northern Ireland institutions that have been set up, and most of that legislation preceded this particular problem. But it is a legislative Assembly which is built within a constitutional and legislative framework. It has its powers exactly prescribed; all its powers are justiciable in the courts in this country—each bit of them. There is really no similarity between the system that we are proposing under this Bill for Scotland which, in itself, provides for examination of the vires of a Bill on internal matters by the Judicial Committee, and the system that the Westminster Parliament operates where of course no such thing happens.
There is no inconsistency in adding to the Scottish system a judicial inquiry into consistency with European directly applicable law. It does not bring about any possible impact upon what might happen in this completely independent and sovereign Parliament, which is not bound by any legalistic or legislative provisions at all. I do not think that we should be afraid of creating a precedent in that way, because the two situations are quite different.
I have answered the three points that the noble and learned Lord made, and we therefore have to decide what to do. On balance, I would suggest o your Lordships that it might be better, if the Government will not think again and will not concede this point, not to press the matter. I say that simply for the reason that if there is a conflict, as I have explained to the House, it will be dealt with. It is not going to make any difference except for whoever pays for it. I am simply sorry that the Government are going to put the burden of paying for it on the pocket of the citizen, when they have the opportunity now, by accepting these Amendments, of seeing that the State pays for it in a realm where the State should properly pay for it. But if the noble and learned Lord will not think again about these things, then I think I

481
had better accept this decision and we shall see what happens. It probably will not happen very often, but it is going to be very expensive for somebody when it does. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his further thought, but in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
31 Clause 19, page 8, line 33, at end insert ("and if the Judicial Committee decides that a provision is within the legislative competence of the Assembly or is so compatible the decision shall be binding in all legal proceedings.")
The commons agreed to the above Amendment and proposed the following Amendment thereto:
32 Line 3, leave out ("or is so compatible").
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32. This Amendment removes from an otherwise acceptable Amendment on finality of judicial decisions the reference to compatibility with directly applicable Community law. It is consequential on the main Amendments which have just been discussed. There is nothing else to say. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 32 to the Lords Amendment No. 31.—(Lord McCluskey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
33 Clause 20, page 8, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
34 Page 8, line 41, leave out ("prerogative and other ").
5.47 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 33 and agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34 proposed in lieu thereof. As with the matter to which I have just spoken, this is a subject that we have spoken about before. It concerns prerogative powers.
482
The subject has been debated at length in your Lordships' House and I can add nothing that is new. I understand from the Paper that has been put in by the official Opposition that they do not propose to ask that this go back to the other place, and in the circumstances, and having regard to the time, I do not propose to rehearse the arguments with which we are already familiar.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 33 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34 in lieu thereof.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I will not spend any time on this matter either. If we cannot have the original Amendment we sent down, certainly let us have No. 34, which ceases to draw the untenable distinction between prerogative and executive powers. I have thought of all sorts of the most excellent answers to the very bad points made by the noble and learned Lord when we last discussed this subject. Perhaps I can treat him to those on another occasion, and the House not at all. The matter has been widely discussed in another place. It was a monster then; it is a monster now. The Government will regret it. They ought not to do this sort of thing. It is still done under protest, but I am not going to suggest that your Lordships should send it back.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to add one word to what my noble friend has said. One thing was said quite clearly by the Government—and here I agree with the exact contents, and I apologise for not giving it before—when the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office said at column 804 of the Official Report for 6th July:
"It does not appear to have been one which was current in Dicey's day ".
Let us be absolutely clear what that means. This is a flat repudiation of every standing authority on constitutional matters.
I was able to give quotations at an earlier stage, not only from Dicey but up to the 1970s on this point. The Government have driven straight through the whole lot; they could not care less. You may ask, "What does this matter?"

483
The danger is that it should be regarded as a precedent, an authority, for doing something in the future. There is a new constitutional principle which the Government have been totally unable to define. They do not know what the purpose of it is, and they just say that it is a vague substance.
This is something that we should not regard as utterly trivial. Here we are at the present time with a sheaf of books coming out telling us that our Constitution is not all it should be. Some people want a written Constitution; some people want this, and some want the other. Is this the time to play fast and loose with perfectly well-known principles of constututional custom, law, and convention? The Government have pushed this through, so to speak, at the point of a barrel. The Government know perfectly well that if they want additional powers the way to get them is the way we have always done it in this country; we take statutory powers. There is no difficulty about that. But this is to take powers out of the air. This is where there is a real danger. Powers will be invented and no one will go to the expense of challenging them. They will be drawn out of the air, and if no one challenges them they may become a custom. This is a most unfortunate step the Government are taking, marching straight through this unnecessarily and without the slightest definition of what they are doing or what they want to do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
35 Clause 20, page 9, line 34, at end insert—
("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service for those appointments.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
36 Because the appointment of the officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries should be left to the Scottish Executive.
5.51 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 36, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 9, line 31, leave out ("A Scottish") and insert ("The First")
484
line 34, leave out ("him") and insert ("a Scottish Secretary")
line 34, at end insert—
("Provided that he has obtained the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the number of officers and servants in each grade")
My new Amendments put forward an alternative to the original which was passed by this House. The Amendment which went to the other place was not discussed; it was simply put to the vote and, because of the guillotine, it received no discussion at all. However, in the vote, without discussion, there was a majority of only nine against the Amendment. The Amendments I am putting forward now in lieu are in the same sense as the earlier Amendment, but they are clearer in expressing what we intend. To begin with, I draw your Lordships' attention to the Reason numbered 36 for rejecting the Amendment:
"Because the appointment of the officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries should be left to the Scottish Executive".
But as the Bill stands, or as it stood when it came to this House, it is not left to the Scottish Executive; the First Secretary, the head of the Scottish Executive, does not need even to he consulted. It is left to the individual Scottish Secretary, the individual equivalent of a Minister in Whitehall, to set up his Department and do the recruiting on an establishment which he has thought up himself, apparently without any consultation with his own chief, the First Secretary. I would say therefore that the wording of the Reason given to us does not really cover the objections to at any rate one part of our original Amendment.
Our Amendment would have required the consent of the First Secretary, the chief of the new Scottish Executive—that was not originally in the Bill—and in addition we would have provided for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service in Whitehall and at Westminster. That is the total extent of the Westminster check which we proposed, other than the total amount of money which is to be available to the new Executive and Assembly. We still think it necessary that there should be some check from Westminster on the establishment from scratch of completely new departments and the filling of them, apparently with no limit, of civil servants.

485
The new wording of the Amendments which I now propose provides for the numbers and grades to receive the assent of the Minister for the Civil Service. The point there is that there was a misunderstanding at an earlier stage in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when replying spoke as if he thought that our original Amendment meant that each individual appointment had to receive the consent of the First Secretary and the Minister for the Civil Service. Of course that was not the intention. Our intention is that the initial establishment for each of these new Scottish Departments—we still do not know how many there will be because that is not written into the Bill—should have some Westminster check on it. The other change which we have made in the new Amendments is that it is the First Secretary himself who is to lay down what the numbers and grades should be, so it is still within the new Executive's power to do this, but it is the Cheif Executive himself, whereas under the Bill as it originally came to us he had no say whatever.
It would be an anomaly bordering on the ridiculous if the Bill stands as the Government propose. If Ministers of Government Departments in Whitehall cannot significantly add to the strength of their Departments, which is the position today, without the permission of the Minister for the Civil Service, or the Treasury or Prime Minister if there is a dispute, why should these new Departments which are to be set up ab initio by the new new Scottish Secretaries be built without any check, curb or sanction from Whitehall or Westminster? We were told during the debates on the Bill in this House that these Departments would all be manned by members of the home Civil Service, precisely the same categories of person who man the Departments of the central Government in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Cardiff and elsewhere. They are to be paid for by the United Kingdom taxpayers.
We think the Commons should have the chance of discussing these Amendments, or Amendments on these lines, because they can propose variations if they wish to do so. Very large sums of money are involved, and the size of Departments is another subject which is eminently one for the Commons to discuss. I am not
486
suggesting there would necessarily be deliberate empire building by the new Scottish Secretaries. It is a human weakness—it may not even be a weakness—that someone who is first appointed and given a portfolio by the First Secretary, as happens in Government when a Prime Minister appoints a Minister, may feel carried away by enthusiasm for the task he has been given. He may think it is one of the most important jobs to be done, and he may feel he has particular reforms or new ideas to introduce. He may well, in all good faith, then feel that he must set up an over-large or top-heavy Department to carry out those tasks. That is a human characteristic which is familiar to most people who have been in public life. In eagerness and good faith, a new Scottish Secretary may try to set up a new Department which many others, and the taxpayers in particular, may not think need be as large as he thinks it should be.
Without our Amendments there is nothing in the Bill to indicate there would be any direction or guidance from the First Secretary, the head of the new Executive, to the individual Scottish Secretaries. This is a matter particularly for your Lordships' House; it is customary for the Leader of the House to be the Minister for the Civil Service, and he is today. I am concerned with this because, as noble Lords may know, one of the matters with which from this side of the House I am charged to deal is the Civil Service.
In the absence of any provision covering this in the Bill, may I have an answer to three questions: First, how will the new Departments be established? Secondly, how will the recruitment or transfer of home civil servants be carried out? It is clear that some will be transferred from the Scottish Office, many of them probably carrying out the same functions because those functions are to be devolved, but the Manpower Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill indicates that there will be about 750 additional civil servants in Scotland as a result of the Bill. The Government estimate that number as being extra, and of course that could well be an underestimate if there is no curb on the enthusiasm of individual Scottish Secretaries.
My third question is: Must the Department for the Civil Service supply whatever

487
is requested?—because that is how the Bill reads at present. If a Scottish Secretary decides he needs 5,000 home civil servants for his Department and he wants so many Under-Secretaries, so many Assistant Secretaries, and so many Principals, there is nothing in this Bill apparently to say that the Department for the Civil Service does not provide what has been requested if it is within the total amount of money which has been supplied to the Assembly in the block grant—and it is left to the Assembly and to the Executive as to how that money should be used. It is a very large sum of money. If the Assembly and the Executive were to decide to spend what many would think to be too large a proportion on the manning of Departments, there is nothing at present in the Bill to stop that going ahead. That is my third question: Are the Department for the Civil Service to supply the demands without any argument?
I hope that the Government will change their minds. They do not necessarily need to accept these Amendments although we have made changes in order to meet the views expressed by the Government. The Ministers in another place did not express any views because there was no debate at all. The chopper of the guillotine fell. I hope that the Government, having had time to think about it today, will give us a more forthcoming answer. In any case, I believe that this is an Amendment which ought to be discussed in another place.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords—
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 35, to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being as eager as one of the projected Ministers or Secretaries of the Scottish Administration who are going to leap in like some form of idiot—if I may say so with respect—and throw about money that the British taxpayer is providing. I think that one of the weaknesses of a whole series of Amendments put up from this side of the House is the assumption that the Scots will throw money about. It is a well-known fallacy that the Scots throw
488
money about. The whole restraint on the Scottish Assembly is the fact that it is working from a Consolidated Fund which is set at a certain formula for a number of years. It is highly unlikely that in setting up the new Administration the First Secretary will not take the advice of the experienced people across the road in the Scottish Office or, indeed, of the Head of the Civil Service. Certainly it must be able to staff the Departments in the way it thinks it can afford, because otherwise it never will be responsible if it is to be told exactly how to staff its Departments. The constraint on it should be that of cash, and that constraint is there. Therefore, I think that this Amendment is entirely unnecessary. If the Assembly is to be of any use at all, then it should be allowed to spend its own money. If it throws money to the winds like chaff I shall be very surprised indeed. I must say that I think this Amendment is wholly unnecessary.
6.5 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, without accusing anybody of throwing money about without proper thought, any reading of the clause as it now stands shows that it is too open-ended to allow it to go on. The wording is:
"A Scottish Secretary may appoint such officers and servants as he may think fit".
That is too open-ended, too wide and too full of risk. One does not know who may have these appointments. One may not know what sort of special circumstance may cause things to happen which, on second and third thoughts, would not have happened. The Amendment, which ought to be accepted, in no way removes the power of the Scottish Secretary to advise and I have no doubt that on most occasions his advice would be accepted. But writing in this open-ended power carries too many risks and it ought not to be allowed.
There is no question that the Minister for the Civil Service should have a say at the very beginning both on the numbers and the types who will undertake these new offices which will involve spending a lot of money, and which carry with them a lot of power. However, I do not want to rehearse that argument again. We have had it before in this House. I merely want to emphasise to the

489
noble Lord who will be replying that although we have had the argument in your Lordships' House, they have not had the detailed argument in another place, which exercises the power.
Quite apart from the merit of the argument and whether your Lordships agree with me that the present words are too open-ended to be accepted, or whether your Lordships think they are correct, we are in a position to make doubly certain by giving another place the chance to look at it with care. The last time this matter came in front of them they were restricted by having a guillotine. They had to neglect discussing other things in order to give the thought that ought to he given to this one. The result was that this was put to a vote without any arguments being presented, without the Members being able to form a judgment on the "pros" and "cons" that are involved in it.
The noble Lord and his friends on the Government Bench ought to take into account that it looks as though noble Lords on this side of the House, many of whom disagree with the Bill as a whole, are showing great restraint on the number of occasions where this House is disagreeing with another place in the number of Amendments it is going to send back to them. It looks as though there will be hardly any. At the outside four will be sent back to another place for further thought. That means that they will have a chance this time to give time to the Amendment because they will not then be under the constraint of the guillotine which prevented them from discussing it. If without discussion it had had an overwhelming majority, that again would have been a case to show that another place did not need argument, the thing was so obvious; and the vote shows they are overwhelmingly in favour of the words as they stand.
Here the majority was only nine, and since his noble and learned friend made great play of the fact that we ought not to push previous Amendments to a vote tonight because of the overwhelming majority in the other place and because they had been discussed time and time again, the reverse side of the same coin is that if they have not been discussed and if. when put to a vote, the vote has
490
been a marginal one—and a majority of nine is just that—I should have thought that your Lordships had a duty to send it back again to another place which will now have time to give some thought to it.
If after that detailed thought, and if they can then get their majority, however small, I would think we could then accept the decision. But at this minute, with a very important, open-ended power that has not anything like a majority in another place because it has never been discussed there, quite apart from the merits—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has strong feelings on what he considers to be the merits—I believe that we have a duty to give another place a chance to give the detailed thought to this important point that, through no fault of their own—other than they passed the guillotine restraint—they should have given to it. If their next vote confirms the last, which was only a marginal vote, we should accept it. Without that other vote we ought to use our powers here—and I hope that all sides of the Chamber will do so—to send it back again even against the wishes of the Government Front Bench.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I am at a loss to understand why the Government will not accept this Amendment. There is a fairly recent precedent of a similar kind. When the county councils were reorganised into regions all the local authorities in the Highland region got together and made out a draft structure plan for the new Highland region. The new Highland region came in and they totally ignored it and have appointed far more officials than ever were suggested to them by the old councils which had the experience behind them. Here you have an almost exactly similar situation, and I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment.
6.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, upon reading the record it would not be improper for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or myself, to draw from my remarks the conclusion that in my reply to the noble Lord's earlier Amendments I may in part have misunderstood the situation. However, I hope he will believe me when I say that I under

491
stand fully the import of the Amendments which he how proposes in lieu of the previous Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has explained, these Amendments, which require the consent of the Minister of the Civil Service to the numbers of officers and servants employed by Scottish Secretaries, are only slightly different from Amendment No. 35 which they replace. Here I paraphrase the noble Lord, but that was the emphasis of his remarks. Amendment No. 35 provided that individual Scottish Secretaries must obtain the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service and the First Secretary before making appointments.
The Government had three objections to the Amendment. First—and this was the most important one—the requirement for the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service would provide for an unwarranted interference by a United Kingdom Minister in the affairs of the Assembly. Secondly, the requirement for the consent of the First Secretary was unnecessary. In the Government's view, this was surely a matter which the Scottish Executive could be left to work out for itself. Thirdly, the Amendment, in addition to controlling numbers of civil servants, also sought to control individual appointments. Such control was unnecessary and inappropriate, as the staff concerned would be subject to the usual Civil Service procedures. This was certainly said very clearly by the Government at the time.
The new Amendments would provide that officers and servants of the Scottish Executive should be appointed by the First Secretary, rather than by individual Scottish Secretaries, and that he must obtain the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service to the numbers of civil servants appointed. The Amendments do not therefore overcome the Government's principal objections.
The Assembly would be quite justified in regarding the control proposed in the Amendments as an unwarranted interference in its affairs. We reiterate this point from this side. The Assembly is being given substantial powers and it is in the Government's view for the Assembly and the Executive to decide how many staff the Executive needs to carry out its powers. The manpower implications of
492
any policy will need to be weighed as an important component in the exercise of responsibility for devolved matters, and an important constraint will be that staff costs will have to be met out of the block fund—a point which was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, a few minutes ago. To provide for the consent of the Minister of the Civil Service as to numbers carries with it the implication that the Government could frustrate the policies of the devolved Administration and would be constantly monitoring performance and efficiency, and the Government believe that this could be a recipe for conflict. The Amendment also provides that the number of individuals appointed should be subject to the consent of the First Secretary. The Government consider that this also is a matter which the Scottish Executive can be left to work out for itself. The Government believe that the best safeguard is that of finance, as well as the pressure of public opinion.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put three specific questions to me. First, he asked how the Departments will be established. The Scottish Office Departments are non-statutory. They are to be set up and changed administratively. The same will apply to the Departments of the Scottish Executive. The noble Lord also asked how the transfer will he carried out. I can tell him that it will be carried out by administrative means, and the Government do not anticipate difficulties in this regard. With regard to recruitment, I can advise the noble Lord that the block fund will control the enthusiasm for staff increases. When staff are sought they will be recruited through the Civil Service Commission, and they will be subject to the rules of the Civil Service, as at present.
I should mention to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that the United Kingdom Government will determine initial staff levels. The Scottish Executive will have control of staff matters only when it has taken full control of devolved matters. I hope that this information is of use to the noble Lord.
The Government are opposed to the Amendment for the reasons I have mentioned. We believe that the other place, in rejecting the original Amendment did so principally on the grounds

493
that control of this kind from Whitehall was unacceptable, and we therefore trust that the House will not press the proposed Amendments. Before I resume my seat, I should like to put one more point to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. The matter was debated earlier in the other place. I agree that it was not debated the last time round, but it was debated earlier; and the House should be made aware of that fact.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I know that there was a debate some months ago when the Bill first entered the other place, but this Amendment was voted on without any debate at all, and the Amendments which I am proposing in lieu would give the other place an opportunity to discuss the matter, which is essentially a matter for the Commons. I propose to reply very briefly. I am afraid that I do not regard the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, as satisfactory. The brief which he has given simply does not explain why the Bill has this omission, and he has not answered my point about whether the Ministry for the Civil Service will have to supply civil servants to meet any demand from a Scottish Secretary.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that the sanction of funds would be available, but the block grant is massive, and it will cover expenditure on education, health, housing, roads—indeed a huge range of services in Scotland. With an Assembly which will not be raising taxes itself the danger is that it can spend a lot of money on personnel and offices, and then complain that it has not been given enough money by Westminster for undertaking health, housing, education, social services and other matters which sound praiseworthy—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords—
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: I must continue because we are running behind
time. I should agree with the noble Lord here if, on the one hand, there was a break down within the block grant—but the idea is not to have a break down—of how expenditure should be allocated, or if there was a limit set to the amount of expenditure that could be allocated to personnel or offices. But there is nothing of that kind in the Bill—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, the noble Lord really must permit me to intervene. Does he think that the Scottish Assembly, the First Secretary, and the Executive will be unable to apply modern budgeting methods before they start to spend £3,000 million? If he thinks that they are incapable of doing that, he should oppose the Bill root and branch !
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I do not think that; and the noble Lord has not read either the Amendment which went to another place or the Amendments which I am suggesting now. It is only these Amendments of ours which bring the First Secretary in at all. As the Bill is drafted, the First Secretary is not consulted and his consent is not required. The individual Scottish Secretary can build his own empire. That is one of the two points in our Amendment—that the First Secretary should have some say. The second point is that the Minister for the Civil Service should be consulted. I will not pursue this matter further in view of the Government's intransigent attitude towards it. I believe that the Commons should be given the opportunity to discuss it, and therefore I do not intend to withdraw my Motion.
6.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 35 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Auckland, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Belstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Burton, L.

Alport, L.

Bolton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Carrington, L.

Cathcart, E.

Halsbury, E.

Polwarth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Cockfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hereford, V.

Reigate, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Robbins, L.

Croft, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Croham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Romney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Killearn, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Kinnaired, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Digby, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Selkirk, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Spens, L.

Dulverton, L.

Lothian, M.

Stamp, L.

Dundee, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Marley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Elton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tenby, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Teynham, L.

Faithfull, B.

Minto, E.

Torphichen, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ferrier, L.

Monson, L.

Tryon, L.

Forbes, L.

Morris, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Vernon, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Vickers, B.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vivian, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gridley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Westbury, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Hampton, L.

Phillips, B.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Plant, L.

Balogh, L.

Henderson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Banks, L.

Hood, V.

Raglan, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

Rhodes, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brock way, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rochester, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Samuel, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Kilbrandon, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Byers, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Crook, L.

Leonard, L.

Sligo, M.

David, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Lockwood, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

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

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wade, L.

Energlyn, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wall, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gardiner, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Glenamara, L.

Melchett, L.

Wigg, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wigoder, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Willis, L.

Granville of Eye, L,

Northfield, L.

Winstanley, L.

Gregson, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Perth, E.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDENT
37 Clause 20, page 9, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("and:") in line 43 and insert—
("Such executive powers as have been conferred on a Minister of the Crown by an
496
enactment passed or made before the passing of this Act shall, if they relate to devolved matters and are exercisable in or as regards Scotland, be exercised by a Scottish Secretary;")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
38 Because it would not be compatible with the decision taken by the Commons on Amendment No. 33.
6.29 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 37 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38. This Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 33, which the House has already considered.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 38.—(Lord McCluskey.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
39 Clause 20, divide clause 20 into two clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) and (2) and (4) to (10) and the second consisting of subsection (11).
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment and proposed the following Amendment thereto:
40 Line 3, leave out ("subsection (11)") and insert ("subsections (3) and (11)").
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40. This Amendment is consequential on the decision taken on Amendment No. 33.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord McCluskey.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS
41 Clause 26, page 12, line 22, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall")
42 at end insert ("(a)")
43 Clause 26, page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("(b) for ensuring that no committee shall be appointed with functions not relating to devolved matters").
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
44 Because it should be left to the Assembly to decide what committees to appoint.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 44. These Amendments were fully debated in the other place. The debate concentrated almost entirely on Amendment No. 43 and the
498
extent to which standing orders should provide that no Assembly committee should have functions extending to non-devolved matters. It is not seriously argued that Assembly committees should be barred from discussing matters other than devolved matters; the concern of those who supported the Amendment was rather that the Assembly should not have powers to set up committees with the function of considering matters which are not devolved.
In the Government's view the Amendment would only serve to introduce doubt into a clause which is at present both simple and straightforward. And it betrays a substantial misunderstanding—and I think I could add, mistrust—of the way the Assembly can be expected to operate. In the first place, there is doubt as to how the Amendment would be interpreted. It would seem to prevent any committee from being allocated any function which lies outside devolved matters. If that is so, then any trace of non-devolved matter in a committee's functions is prohibited. On this view, the remit of every Assembly committee is tied to matters which are on their face devolved matters. In the Government's view, this would impede the practical, sensible functioning of Assembly Committees.
Secondly, if the Assembly did set up, say, a committee on Foreign Affairs—unlikely as that may seem—this could not have any implications for the conduct of this non-devolved matter by the United Kingdom Government. The Committee might make recommendations—that is all. But why should anyone object to this? Everyone is agreed, judging by comments made earlier in the House, that there is nothing to prevent the Assembly from discussing the same matters in full Assembly and making recommendations. The point is that these would only be recommendations; what the Assembly or its committees cannot do is take effective action in relation to a non-devolved matter.
It is for these reasons that the Amendments appear to be misconceived and unnecessary; they might damage the effective operation of the Assembly's committees. In moving a similar Amendment on the Third Reading of the Wales Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady

499
Elles, made clear that, in view of the decision taken in another place to disagree with this Amendment, she would not press the Amendment to the Wales Bill. In these circumstances, I trust your Lordships will not seek to insist on the present Amendment to the Scotland Bill.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 to which the Commons have diasagreed for their Reason numbered 44.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
45 Page 12, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that in appointing members to such committees referred to in paragraph (a) above the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is as closely as practicable reflected in the membership of each such committee.")
The Commons agreed to the above Amendment and propose the following Amendment thereto:
46 Page 12, Line 1, leave out ("Provided that")
47 Page 12, Line 2, leave out ("referred to in paragraph (a) above ").
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree to the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47. The House will recall that Amendment No. 45 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, at Report stage. The Government, while having some sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment—and we expressed that at the time—took the view that this matter should best be left to the Assembly itself to determine. That remains the Government's view. However, in view of the strength of feeling in this House, the Government did not work to oppose this Amendment in another place. As a consequence, two minor changes are needed to improve the drafting of Amendment No. 45. The purpose of Amendment No. 46 is to convert the passage concerned from a proviso into an ordinary subsection of Clause 26. The proposition embodied in the passage added to the Bill by Amendment No. 45 is not a proviso to what has gone before.
The purpose of Amendment No. 47 is to delete words which were only necessary because of the new paragraph (b) inserted by your Lordships' Amendment No. 45. This Amendment is consequential upon the fact that Amendment No. 45 was disagreed to in another place; it returns
500
the Bill to its original state, otherwise the clause in its final form would not make sense. I hope that the House will understand that it has been necessary to propose these two Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 to the Lords Amendment No. 45—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I express appreciation of the Government's acceptance of these Amendments.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
48 Clause 31, page 15, line 14, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State")
49 after ("may") insert ("by order")
50 Clause 31, page 15, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
51 Clause 31, page 15, line 20, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State")
52 after ("may") insert ("by order")
53 Clause 31, page 15, line 32, at end insert—
("(7) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.")
The Commons disagreed to tile above Amendments for the following Reason:
54 Because the salaries and allowances of members of the Assembly should be determined by the Assembly itself.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 48 to 53 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 54, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 15, line 18, after ("Assembly") insert ("Scottish Secretaries and assistants to Scottish Secretaries")
Page 15,line 19, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall by order")
Page 15,line 32, at end insert—
("(7) No order under this section shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons").
My Lords, in moving these Amendments I should like first to refer to the fact that our original Amendment provided that remuneration for the Assemblymen should be permanently decided by the Members of Parliament at Westminster. I should have thought that there was quite a lot

501
precedent to indicate that this was a desirable state of affairs. We have seen fit to have the Boyle Committee to determine the remuneration of our own MPs and Ministers because it is admittedly a difficult problem for assemblies to decide for themselves. I do not think that we can have been greatly reassured when one member of the Scottish National Party in another place suggested that the proper salary for an Assemblyman would be £8,000 a year—although I do not know that we should necessarily be over-keen to encourage comparisons with the rather miserly and inadequate pay that we make to our MPs in another place: and, of course, the less said about the remuneration in this House the better.
What we have now proposed is that it should be simply a matter of an order in Westminster for the initial determinant of the pay of the Assemblymen. This is a matter which one would have thought that Westminster should debate; that it should not be left simply to the Secretary of State; that the Government might therefore accept this view, bearing in mind that here we are once again setting a pattern for the future on a matter which is of the greatest possible importance. I should add that one of these Amendments, the first one, is purely a small tidying up matter to include people who I imagine were intended to be included in any case.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 48 to 53 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof set out on the Order Paper—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, all that I should like to say is that the process is going on. Here we have another piece of nannying and suggesting that the Assembly need to have their salaries set for them. The Conservative Party in this House have, bit by bit, tried to make major changes in the Bill. Each bit in itself is small but, added up, they come to a major derogation of the purpose of the Bill: the setting up of an Assembly. I do not think that I need say any more. It is wholly unnecessary. Again, they are spending the money, a limited sum; and if they are limited by the sum, then
502
they do not need to be told what salaries they should pay themselves. I am certain that in spite of anything said by any member of the SNP in another place the salary will be very sensible and not extravagant in Scotland—unlike the way they are in England, where they are either too large or far too small.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as I respond, it would be fair to say that there is general recognition that the Government will have to set the initial salaries of the Members, and Members only, in good time for the first elections. If I may say so, that is what Lord Strathcona's Amendment is now dealing with. Clearly, the Assembly cannot do this for the first elections. Potential candidates will need to know the likely level of remuneration. The Bill provides that the Secretary of State may direct what the initial salaries may be. These Amendments propose that the Secretary of State should be required to determine the initial salaries of Members of the Assembly, and Scottish Secretaries and Assistants, by order, subject to Parliamentary procedure, as the noble Lord has indicated.
The Government believe that these Amendment should be rejected for the following reasons: first, there is really little point in referring initial salaries to Parliament if the salaries set by the Secretary of State can be altered by the Assembly at any time once it has been elected. Secondly, Parliament will not be in a position to take a view on the workload of the Assembly. It has been reiterated from time to time in your Lordships' House—certainly from this side—that these are matters for the Assembly to decide. It would be contrary to the Government's approach if Parliament attempted to prescribe through salary how the Assembly should operate. Direction by the Secretary of State is a more flexible approach in keeping with the second leg of Clause 7(1) which provides that the Secretary of State may give directions for regulating the Assembly's procedures pending the making of standing orders.
Thirdly, there is no need to involve either the Secretary of State or Parliament in the determination in advance of initial salaries of Scottish Secretaries and assistants. They cannot be appointed until the Assembly exists and they will not

503
take over their responsibilities for devolved matters until some time after the elections. There will be ample time for the Assembly to make a determination during the transitional period. The other place have carefully considered the proposals which this House came to; and the proposals on these Amendments were specifically mentioned in the debate. Now that they have reached a decision by a significant majority on a Division, I trust that this House will accept that decision and will not insist on the present Amendments.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that there is enough between us for us to wish to go through the Division Lobbies. I think that the Government do not agree with the Liberals that there is any question of "nannying" here. They accept that somebody has to set the initial salaries, and the Secretary of State appears to be going to do it. I do not believe that they have exactly the same arrangements for the Wales Bill. That is somewhere half way between what they are saying and what we are proposing. However, I do not propose to push this matter any further, if the Government are reluctant. I am prepared to leave it at that and withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
55 Clause 48, page 24, line 36, leave out ("the British Waterways Board or")
56 Page 25, leave out line 1.
57 Schedule 10, page 49, line 18, leave out ("inland waterways")
58 Schedule 10, page 50, line 43, after first ("services") insert ("provision of inland waterway services,")
59 Schedule 10, page 57, leave out lines 7 to 9.
60 Schedule 10, page 57, leave out lines 17 to 27.
61 Schedule 10, page 60, leave out lines 17 to 22.
62 Schedule 10, page 60, leave out lines 38 to 43.
63 Schedule 13, page 76, leave out lines 9 and 10.
64 Schedule 13, page 76, leave out lines 29 and 30.
65 Schedule 15, page 78, line 44, column 2, at end insert—
("Inland Waterways")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
66 Because the subject of inland waterways is one which it is appropriate to devolve.
6.43 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 55 to 65 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 49, line 18, after "reservoirs" insert "Non-navigable".
This Amendment has been put down for procedural reasons rather than on the issue itself. I do not in any way wish to belittle the strength of the argument in favour of not devolving the waterways. This point has been argued at two previous stages in the Bill. It will introduce three sources of finance for the waterways instead of one as at present. It will almost certainly create extra administrative expense, but I can quite understand a local government being prepared to accept the extra administrative expense for the freedom of action that they feel it will give them.
I should like to ask the Government the specific question: Do they envisage that they will have some kind of agency basis with British Waterways to avoid the rather ridiculous anomaly of setting up a mini-British Waterways to run two small canals? I should like to emphasise once again the anomalous situation which devolving the waterways will create because the ports are not devolved. Those of us who use the Crinan Canal will find it rather ridiculous that we will go down that noble waterway staffed by about six people and, when we come to the little port of Ardrishaig we will move into another "regime", so to speak. This seems faintly absurd and it should not happen.
The Select Committee on Nationalised Industries roundly condemned the proposal to devolve the waterways. Since we had our debates the Government have answered that in a fairly unconvincing reiteration of their original stance, which in no way weakens the case. The real reason for moving this admittedly less good version of the original Amendment is simply because the Commons never did this House the courtesy of discussing the issue at all at any stage.

505
This is the only issue on which this can be said in the Scotland Bill. I personally, felt that many of the issues not discussed on our Amendments, should automatically have been sent back to the Commons because that conduct seems discourteous to this House. This is the one issue that has never been discussed at all. It seems wholly proper to say to the Commons: "What is the use of this House ' beavering away ', doing all this work, if you are not going to do us the courtesy of paying attention to what we have done?" This is the reason for moving these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 55 to 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 66, but propose the said Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has put down an Amendment of two words joined by a hyphen and offered to withdraw all the Amendments previously carried in your Lordships' House, Amendments Nos. 55 to 65. We are grateful, but not for the reason that the noble Lord might suppose. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would probably—and I emphasise "probably"—be to nullify the entry in Group 16. This has a precise meaning. But the phrase "non-navigable" does not. It means—at the risk of stating the obvious—not capable of being navigated. Since all water, save the smallest stream, is navigable, perhaps for example by canoe, the effect of the qualification could be very wide indeed and leave nothing of substance to be devolved, including navigable rivers.
The noble Lord has therefore withdrawn one set of Amendments and substituted something which might be considered as being simpler. I do not think that is the case. I think the position remains for all practical purposes the same, and that seems a total opposition to the devolution of inland waterways. On this the Government have clearly reiterated their position from time to time. I do not wish to add anything at this stage. The Government's view has been endorsed in another place.
506
It is true that the issue was not debated there. That is a fair point to make, and I accept that. But there has been a debate on the inland waterways provisions in the Wales Bill. This House, and another place, having debated the issue, have decided that it is appropriate to make provision for the devolution and responsibility for inland waterways to the Welsh Assembly. I would argue that in Scotland the case for devolution is even greater because there are no physical links between English and Scottish canals, for example. With this in mind, I doubt whether your Lordships would envisage a disagreement with the Commons on the question of devolving responsibility for inland waterways in Scotland.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord give some indication as to how the two canals, Crinan and Caledonian, would be run?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I want to be precise about this. There has been a suggestion earlier that the British Waterways Board might be fragmented, but that is not what the Bill proposes. We have in mind that the British Waterways Board should become answerable to the Scottish Administration for its operations in Scotland, and not the Government, and that it should look to the Scottish Administration and not the Government for the necessary finance. In a matter primarily of local importance, such as the Crinan Canal, that seems an eminently sensible proposition. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, for the reasons he has given, and to express the hope that he will press it to a Division if the Government do not accept it.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, with the greatest of reluctance and having thanked the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his support, I shall have to resist allowing this House to show pique, although I would dearly wish to do so, because I think it has been harshly treated. Having expressed our displeasure at the way this matter has

507
gone, and being unconvinced of the validity of the Government's argument, nevertheless I am content to withdraw my Motion.
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

LORDS AMENDMENT
67 After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
Proposals for powers to raise moneys
(". If the Assembly decides that it wishes to make proposals that power should be conferred on the Assembly to raise by taxation moneys to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, it may communicate such proposals to the Secretary of State who shall lay such proposals before both Houses of Parliament.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
68 Because the Secretary of State should not be required to lay before Parliament proposals received from the Assembly for extending its own powers.
6.51 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 67. This Amendment was the subject of a substantial debate in the other place and, at its conclusion, of a particularly decisive vote. The Amendment was able to find only 37 supporters, including Tellers. Conservative Members failed to support the Amendment, on the advice of their Front-Bench spokesman, Mr. Brittan, who described the clause as a meaningless declaration and an imperfect mechanism for raising the taxation issue in a manner at best superfluous and at worst likely to lead to conflict. On that, I think I have very little to add.
I sought to make it clear, when the new clause was first discussed in Committee by your Lordships, that the Government did not like it because we thought it was misleading—misleading only in the sense that it implied that there was available somewhere a tax which the Assembly could trot out and put before Parliament. It suggested that, despite all the evidence to the contrary, there might be such a tax or a selection of taxes. The Government take the view that in principle they are in favour of devolving some supplementary tax power, but that so far no suitable tax has emerged. I do not
508
think that I should add anything more. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 67 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 68.—(Lord McCluskey)
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I moved and which was supported in your Lordships' House. May I just say one word about it? I am sorry that the other place did not go along with this. I think it would have been a good thing for the Assembly to have been encouraged to try to produce ideas for the form of taxation it might want. But, given the fact that there was a long debate, that there was no great support in another place, and that the Government, as I understand it, have said they would always be ready to receive proposals—I should like to make clear that it is not necessarily proposals to raise the total of taxes but it might mean proposals to change taxes in one form or another—I do not propose to pursue the Motion put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey.

LOR DS AMENDMENTS
69 Before Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
Voting of Scottish Members of Parliament
(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, if, following the first meeting of the Scottish Assembly, a Bill to which this section applies has been passed by the House of Commons but there would not have been a majority in support of the Bill if there had been excluded from the members who voted in the division of that House on the question that the Bill be read the Third time all those representing parliamentary constituencies in Scotland, that Bill shall be deemed not to have been read the Third time unless after the next fourteen days on which that House has sat after the division took place that House confirms its decision that the Bill be read the Third time.
(2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not come into operation unless it has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(3) This section applies to any Bill which does not relate to or concern Scotland or any part of Scotland.")
70 In the Title, line 2, after ("Scotland") insert ("and in the procedure of Parliament")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for, the following Reason:
71 Because no change in the procedure of the House of Commons is justified.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 69 and 70, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 71, but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof as set out on the White Paper. There is a grotesque structural fault in this Bill. Our Amendment which went to the other place made an attempt to alleviate the situation. We admitted that it could not completely correct the Bill, because that would have needed reconstruction and the amendment of a very large part of it; but it did give the other place the opportunity to discuss this subject on the basis of a change of procedure, and it was effective in drawing attention to this very serious flaw, for, in the Division, there was a tie.
The Government have made no attempt to solve this problem since the original devolution White Paper. They have pretended that the problem does not exist. We believe it should have been tackled right at the beginning. It has been known as the "West Lothian question", I understand, because the Bill as it stands would result in the Member for West Lothian speaking and voting on various subjects relating, say, to West Ham or West Bromwich, but not having any vote on what was going on in West Lothian. The position of Scottish MPs would be that they would be able to influence what was happening in English domestic affairs, such as health and education, but they would not be responsible for those subjects where Scotland was concerned and where their constituencies were concerned, because of the Assembly sitting in Edinburgh. When the moment comes that a decision purely on English domestic matters would have been taken one way, simply because the Scottish Members caused a majority, even though there was a majority within the English Membership in the other direction, then we believe the situation would be regarded as intolerable and, indeed, dangerous.
I will not repeat the arguments which have already been given by my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my right honourable friend Mr. Francis Pym. The main
510
difference from the Amendment which was passed at our Report stage is that we have inserted Second Reading instead of Third Reading. That was a substitution proposed by my right honourable friend in another place. I am certain that we should give the other place a further opportunity to discuss this matter and to vote upon it again.
Moved, That the House doth not insist on Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to which the Commons have disagreed but proposes the Amendments in lieu thereof set out on the Order Paper.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord McCLUSK EY: My Lords, can I try to follow the excellent example set by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and be brief. It is perhaps a little inconsistent for the noble Lord opposite to move that this House should accept the verdict of the other place on a decision arrived at on the casting vote of the Deputy Speaker, but send back to the other place a revised version of the new clause virtually in a form which was defeated in the other place by the quite handsome majority of six votes.
The change of the focal point for a second vote from Third to Second Reading and the narrowing of the ambit of the main condition precedent, I would ackknowledge, are perhaps minor improvements; but they do not overcome the important issues of principle and practicality which were discussed when we last considered this matter and which were further explained by my right honourable friend the Minister of State when he replied to the debate in the other place. These are essentially matters for the other place and it is not for this House to tell the other place what procedures it should adopt for the conduct of its business. When this Amendment was debated on earlier occasions in your Lordships' House, many speakers made it clear that they thought the proposed system would not work, although some of them in fact finally supported it in the Lobbies. However, the new clause was approved on the grounds that the other place should be given an opportunity to discuss what has become known as the "West Lothian question". The other place has now debated that issue again and has decided

511
against this proposal. Certainly there was a tie, as has been referred to, but, after reflecting overnight, when they came to consider the consequential Amendment for a change in the Long Title they rejected that by a majority of 33–295 votes to 262—which suggests that over night wiser counsels had prevailed.
I realise that I am uttering words which, though they may call forth occasional cries of mirth from the Benches opposite, are not going to move their stony hearts, and I think your Lordships will expect to have a vote on this matter. I urge your Lordships to accept the decision which has come from another place; but your Lordships will take your own decision on that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I do not think I need reply, but this is a matter which should go to another place. Therefore, I do not propose to withdraw my Motion.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that the House do not insist on their Amendments Nos. 69 and 70 to which the Commons have disagreed but propose the Amendments in lieu thereof set out on the Order Paper.
7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 104; Not-Contents, 81.

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Pender, L.

Alport, L.

Gray, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Amory, V.

Greenway, L.

Polwarth, L.

Ampthill, L.

Gridley, L.

Raglan, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Bolton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Henley, L.

Reigate, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hereford, V.

Robbins, L.

Burton, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rochdale, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Kemsley, V.

St. Davids, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Crathorne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Swinfen, L.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Torphichen, L.

Dulverton, L.

Margadale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Tweedale, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elles, B.

Minto, E.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Falkland, V.

Mottistone, L.

Westbury, L.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wigg, L.

Forbes, L.

Newall, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Brown, L.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

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

Balogh, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Banks, L.

Castle, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Collison, L.

Gardiner, L.

Birk, B.

David, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Brimelow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Glenamara, L.

Brockway, L.

Diamond, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Segal, L.

Gregson, L.

Lockwood, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Simon, V.

Hampton, L.

McCluskey, L.

Snow, L.

Hanworth, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Maelor, L.

Stone, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Melchett, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson, L.

Murrav of Gravesend, L.

Wade, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Northfield, L.

Wall, L.

Hughes, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.[Teller.]

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wells-Pestell, L.[Teller.]

Jacobson, L.

Perth, E.

Whaddon, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, B.

White, B.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wigoder, L.

Kennet, L.

Plant, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kilbrandon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Leonard, L.

Rochester, L.

Llewelvn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of the Commons Amendments and Reasons be now adjourned.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
7.9 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Adoption (Scotland) Act,

National Health Service (Scotland) Act,

Interpretation Act,

Theft Act,

Representation of the People Act,

State Immunity Act,

Industrial and Provident Societies Act,

Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Act,

House of Commons (Administration) Act,

Protection of Children Act,

Consumer Safety Act,

Local Government Act,

Rating (Disabled Persons) Act,

Iron and Steel (Amendment) Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

514

Kendal Market Act,

King's College London Act,

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act,

British Transport Docks Act.

APPROPRIATION (No. 2) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
7.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)rose to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 19th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Vote on Account was appropriated in March this year, and this order will appropriate the balance of the 1978–79 main Estimates. The order also appropriates certain sums arising out of excess Votes for the financial year 1976–77. The total of the main Estimates provision, including the sum already voted on account, is £1,299 million, compared with a total Estimates provision, including Supplementaries, of £1,318 million in 1977–78. Details of the provisions sought are set out in the main Estimates volume, copies of which are available in the Library.
The largest increase over 1977–78 is £24 million for family benefits. This is a result of the higher rates of child benefit which came into effect on 3rd April 1978. An extra £8 million is required for housing services, mainly because of increases in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive grant and increases in the Executive's expenditure on renovation of private

515
sector houses. I am glad to say that an extra £4 million is to be made available to housing associations, in the expectation that their activity is on the increase.
The largest decrease is in expenditure on the agricultural assistance scheme. The fact that the meat industry employment scheme is only provided for up to the end of June explains the reduction, but, of course, the Government recently announced that this scheme will continue until March 1979, and provision for this is being made in the Appropriation (No. 3) Order that I will be moving formally after this order. The Appropriation (No. 3) Order simply makes provision to enable the meat industry employment scheme to be continued until 31st March 1979 when its future will again be considered in the light of circumstances at the time and makes a token provision for the payment of a subsidy to milk producers until 31st March 1979.
There were excess Votes of £l million on two Votes of the 1976–77 Northern Ireland Estimates. Details of these and of the reasons for them are set out in the statement of excesses, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The excess Votes have been considered by the Public Accounts Committee, which has recommended that the necessary sums be made available.
The provision in this order will ensure that existing services are continued at a similar level to last year, and will allow work on tackling the major social and economic problems facing Northern Ireland to continue. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 19th May, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the effects of the Appropriation (No. 2) Order, together with which the noble Lord will be moving the Appropriation (No. 3) Order. The meat industry employment scheme to which the noble Lord referred has in the past been the subject of some discussion on these Appropriation orders. We on these Benches have always supported the continuation of that scheme while the need for it continues. I am bound,
516
however, to repeat what I have said on previous occasions: that I believe that the need for that scheme would be very greatly lessened if only the Government could be persuaded to use their negotiating powers in the EEC with more persuasion so that the value of the green pound in the United Kingdom is fixed at a more realistic level. As things are, however, I accept the need for the meat scheme and also for the milk scheme. Accordingly, I support the passage of both the No. 2 and the No. 3 Appropriation Orders.
I believe that other noble Lords who are here this evening may wish to speak—particularly at a moment when it is a matter which is very much in all of our minds—about the employment situation in Northern Ireland. For my own part, I should like to concentrate only on Class VIII of the order, which includes an appropriation of over £57 million for expenditure on schools. I should like to know whether any proportion of that sum is earmarked specifically for secondary reorganisation.
May I make it absolutely clear that, as in Great Britain, the Government's policy of trying to introduce a universal comprehensive system is highly controversial and, if I may say so, understandably so, because both the grammar schools and the intermediate schools in Northern Ireland have a very fine record indeed. The fact of the matter is that the Association of Local Authorities has voted against the policy of introducing a universal comprehensive system, the Ulster Parents' Union—which has rapidly increased its membership to some 26,000—is opposed to it, and the Northern Ireland Governing Bodies Association has made clear its opposition. But in each case this opposition is both reasoned and reasonable.
May I also make clear the position of the Parliamentary Opposition. We are always ready to consider changes in the organisation of secondary schools, provided that those changes make educational and economic sense, and provided also that they have the support of the general public, particularly the support of parents. We reject the imposition, against parental wishes, of a blanket, universal system of reorganisation.
Because it is clear that such a policy does not command parental support in

517
Northern Ireland, I think that it is reasonable for me to ask to what purposes are the appropriations for school building under Class VIII to be put. May I ask whether any of the money is destined for building comprehensive schools? Some good comprehensives are already working in Northern Ireland within the education system.
As I have tried to make clear, provided that proposals for further reorganisation have parental support on both educational and economic grounds, then clearly more all-ability schools will be built. However, I am now asking whether the statutory processes needed in order to establish a new comprehensive school, or to change the character of an existing school to make it into an all-ability school, have been carried out in respect of any part of the £57 million which may be appropriated under Class VIII for the building of comprehensive schools.
There is one further question that I should like to put to the Minister. I should like to ask him whether recurrent expenditure for schools—presumably this falls within another sum, namely £74 million which is also appropriated under Class VIII—is to be paid out in order to meet basic needs, or whether it is designed to improve staffing ratios and not to influence secondary reorganisation. May I explain what I mean. I understand that this year each Northern Ireland grammar school has been allocated a quota of places which they can offer, and in some cases I understand that the quota is less than the school's capacity. Does this mean that extra recurrent expenditure and possibly some extra capital expenditure is being appropriated in order to provide for extra basic needs at the intermediate schools because grammar school places are deliberately being kept unfilled?
I am asking these questions because I think that it is essential to clarify the relationship between the statutory position, so far as establishing new schools is concerned, and the power of Government to allocate resources for the building and the running of them. May I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to confirm in his reply that Government policy on secondary reorganisation in Northern Ireland can be carried through only on a voluntary basis and only when
518
the agreement of area boards is secured, that this will include the approval of parents and that resources will be allocated for reorganisational purposes only when those processes have been fulfilled.
7.20 p.m.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his explanations. Perhaps I may concentrate on just two points from this order. First, the problem of unemployment is particularly serious in Northern Ireland, where frustration can do nothing but harm in the present emergency. Men and women who are in employment are much more likely to be good citizens than are their fellows who are out of work. Therefore I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether he is satisfied that all reasonable steps are being taken in the fight against unemployment.
My second point to some extent follows what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Criticism has been levelled at the Government for the sum which they have appropriated towards the spread of comprehensive education in Northern Ireland. All the old arguments have been raised once again, including what I believe to be the fallacy that the old system offers parents a larger choice of schools for their young. One cannot go over the whole comprehensive argument yet again. A fortnight ago, in response to a question of mine, the noble Lord told the House that a substantial majority of parents favoured going comprehensive. I accept that the noble Lord is probably right; but there is a considerable body of opinion which challenges that view—and we have heard something of that from the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
There is a claim that Northern Ireland views things differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and perhaps we should look forward to Stormont once again settling its own problems, although that cannot be just yet. We support this order in general, with the hope that comprehensive education will help and not hinder the vitally important spread of integrated education.
7.22 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I too welcome this order. It is

519
vast order which covers the whole field of Government in Northern Ireland during the year. It really merits a long and detailed debate, but the problems of direct rule really prevent a detailed examination in this place of the appropriation order.
What this order shows clearly is the very high level of Government expenditure in Northern Ireland. This must be demonstrated clearly again and again, because without this level of expenditure the whole economy and structure of Northern Ireland would disintegrate under the threat of the IRA. The prime aim of the IRA is to destroy the economy and the very basis of the community. The level of Government expenditure which has been pumped into the country is such that it has prevented that, and for that the people of Northern Ireland are duly grateful.
I have spoken on a number of occasions about the strain which is placed on the Members of the Northern Ireland Government and the Secretary of State, and I should like to re-emphasise the tremendous efforts that they make under very difficult circumstances. If I may say so, the noble Lord himself works extremely hard; but his colleagues in the Commons have an even harder life, and I do not believe that people in the other place appreciate exactly the strains that are placed on the Ministers and their families. In saying this, direct rule is a pretty inhuman operation: so much is accountable in Westminster, so little is accountable in Northern Ireland. By their efforts the Ministers have done their best to humanise a pretty inhuman institution.
I am glad to observe in various debates and statements that an effort is being made to fill what I call "the McCrory Gap"; that is, to transfer back to local authorities those powers which are suitable to be transferred back. I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State or his Minister of State on his latest coup in getting General Motors to go to Northern Ireland. We congratulate him on that. They had to present a really sincere case in the United States in order to achieve that end. In passing, may I say that to get General Motors to Northern Ireland has been one of the most expensive bits of inducement—if that is the right word. About £10,000 a job
520
was the figure which has been worked out by some economists. We cannot ask for all the details, but I should like to feel that since it involved such lavish expenditure there were some undertakings from General Motors that they would give value for money. Perhaps the noble Lord could make inquiries into that and let me know another time.
I said that the appropriation order shows the very high level of Government expenditure that is necessary and will have to continue in order to prevent the breakdown of society in Northern Ireland. Without any doubt it shows the value of the place of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom; but it does expose Northern Ireland to a great deal of criticism in that Northern Ireland is separately accounted for and people are inclined to compare Northern Ireland Government expenditure with that of Great Britain as a whole. I think there are parts of Great Britain where expenditure, if it is carefully chosen, would be of a much higher level than for Great Britain as a whole.
In discussing the details of this appropriation order I should like to take as my starting point the words of the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Dunn, when he said that in Class II Vote 1 there was a decrease in money used for industrial development. This, together with the announcement that unemployment has reached the very high level of 74,000 (in fact in 1936 it was above that level) 13 per cent. of the working population being unemployed, leaves me with no alternative but to press the Government very hard to redouble their efforts towards finding solutions to this appalling problem. Further to that—and the noble Lord will understand what I mean—I believe that the Government must alert the country as a whole, and Northern Ireland in particular, to the fact that there is worse to come. This must be done since at some stage we shall be running into an election and people should understand the number of jobs which are at stake because of Government expenditure.
It can be shown that even with the present rather higher level of new job creation from new industry, in 1982 there could be a figure of 100,000 unemployed in Northern Ireland. The position is as serious as that. I know that is much too

521
simple a way of dealing with it, but it is so bad that even if the figure is a little too high we must have a radical rethink on the question of employment within Northern Ireland. With 100,000 unemployed, even if there were no political unrest at all, we have a recipe for violence and revolution. That is how serious I consider the situation to be.
Northern Ireland will benefit very rapidly when the economy of Great Britain begins to improve. Have we thought this out? If there is a demand for labour in Great Britain should we not be preparing some scheme to help people to come over from Northern Ireland for work? After all, the Government of Northern Ireland have a scheme to induce people to come out of the bad areas of Belfast to go into the good areas of Craigavon. I wonder whether that is not something which should be thought about very soon. I am well aware of the excellent work that is done by manpower services and youth employment opportunities and job promotion and job opportunities; I wish them well and hope that they can achieve what they are setting out to achieve.
I am not optimistic that in the present recession we can generate many new industries, no matter how hard anybody tries, and no matter how incentives or inducements are increased. One comes to a certain point when, no matter how much more help you give, it still will not produce any more business if there is no more business going around, because one can only get a proportion of it. But there is an area—and I have to declare an interest, having something to do with guest houses—which should be thought about very seriously, and that is tourism.
For a very long time tourism was considered really not the sort of industry which Government should support; it was not really contributing, and if it did contribute people thought it really was not quite decent to do so. Nowadays, I am glad that tourism has been accepted as a major industry, so much so that I was very thrilled to see that the BTA announced that the total revenue was £5,000 million, and this has continued to grow despite the recession in the industrial sphere. This, I think, is most important. The noble Lord will know
522
that the increase in the number of visitors to Northern Ireland, even at present, is plain to see. We do not have to wait for figures; we can see people about. Therefore, I feel it is the right moment to start a massive effort to support tourism. If I say that we must make a massive effort, it must not be taken that I consider the support given to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board by the Government is not generous; it is extremely generous. But more needs to be achieved.
My Lords, the main effort to produce employment in Northern Ireland over the years since the war was made in the industrial field. I think a certain amount of that effort was made with that priority because people did not really think that tourism could produce wealth for the community. Our neighbour in the South of Ireland put a very high priority on tourism. While that makes a direct comparison invalid, there is a validity about the level of employment that has been created, because it gives us a figure to aim at. The employment in tourism in the Irish Republic is 100,000. On the same basis, we in Northern Ireland ought to have 30,000 people employed. In fact we have rather less than 10,000. That is the target, a target which is, in my view, achievable, because we have all the assets that they have in the South—beautiful scenery, the lakes and everything else. So we have a target of 20,000. I did a bit of higher calculation. Taken on the basis of the General Motors' incentive at £10,000 a job, I think it comes out that the Government could afford to spend £200 million to achieve those 20,000 jobs.
My Lords, what should be done? The first thing is that Enterprise Ulster and other Government assisted bodies should be directed to create wealth-creating facilities with a tourist element. Secondly, I want to suggest that the Government should consider, and go ahead with if it is feasible, advance hotel building with a conference set-up and golf courses and complete facilities. I know that there will be protests from a few people who would feel that their interests were being affected, but people have learned that when the best shops come next to them in the High Street everybody benefits; if we have the best hotels in Northern Ireland I believe everybody will benefit.

523
I would ask the noble Lord about the Bangor Marina for taking tourists yachts and pleasure craft. There are no spare anchorages for pleasure craft up the Irish Sea, but at one fell swoop the whole situation of Bangor could become completely altered; it would then become once more a prime tourist town in Northern Ireland. Going a little nearer home, the noble Lord's Department has been sponsoring and setting up a number of sports complexes. I should like the noble Lord to look very thoroughly at ensuring that these complexes are of international standard, and not, as in the case of one which I had something to do with, just three feet short in the swimming pool. What we want is a certain number of these to be designed not only as a community leisure centre, but also as an international gathering place for sportsmen. What about the Commonwealth Games? We really should consider very seriously holding them in Northern Ireland. The total expenditure is not very great, and after the Games we should be left with unrivalled facilities.
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the help that the BTA have given to the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. I know a lot about their work, and wonderful co-operation exists between the two. I have seen it both abroad and at home. But with the upsurge of tourism now—and it quite clearly is an upsurge—is it not time that the Northern Ireland Tourist Board had one of their own people in the United States of America and in Europe, from where more and more people come to us. The effect of the troubles on the tourist public appears to be decreasing. Whether it is because all the key television teams have gone off to Africa or somewhere like that, I am not sure; but there is no doubt that there is a decreased emphasis there. The real need in relation to tourism is for more accommodation in Northern Ireland, and that is why I am repeating this question on advance hotels. I welcome the order.
7.37 p.m.
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I should just like to say a few words, because I know the noble Lord gets into some trouble in Northern Ireland, both with regard to hospitals which may have to be closed at some time
524
n the future and with regard to his education responsibilities. Of course, it is to me, as to many other people, a great sorrow that it falls to Ministers over here to deal with Northern Ireland problems. I wish to God there was a power-sharing Executive at Stormont, running an Assembly and looking after Northern Ireland affairs, and then we should not be faced with discussing these problems here in London.
I should like the people of Northern Ireland to know this: that I do not believe, certainly in so far as America is concerned, that if there were a power-sharing Executive operating in Belfast today they would be able to do any better. I was in New York last Fall, as they say in the States, and I was most impressed by what the Consul General in New York, and indeed all the other Consul Generals in America, are doing for Northern Ireland today. I wondered indeed whether if a power-sharing Executive were in operation they would be able to do any better. It seemed to me, from the discussions I had with the Consul General there last Fall that Northern Ireland was his first priority, and I really was most impressed with this. It may be that this is why General Motors is in fact coming to Dundonald. Whatever the reason, I should like to say "Thank you".
In the old days in Northern Ireland we always used to say that when Britain caught a cold we over there contracted raging 'flu. Unemployment is, I am afraid, a great problem in Britain today, and so inevitably it is a so a problem in Northern Ireland. In so far as it can be alleviated in any way by the introduction of multi-national companies to Northern Ireland, then that course must be pursued, as it is being pursued with all vigour by British representatives in America. Curiously enough, at the moment I was there the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, who bears much the same name, was also there, and he told me how much help he had had from the Consulates General in America. So while things are difficult, I think people in Northern Ireland should realise the tremendous help they are getting from the Government machines in their various capacities, and should say "Thank you" for what is being done on their behalf.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken for their welcome for the order and for the many kind things that have been said about my right honourable and honourable friends. In view of what the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, said, I am sure that the House would join with me in wishing my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Dunn—who unfortunately is in hospital in London at present—our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, regarding the desirability of not having Ministers at Westminster dealing with the m my problems with which we have to deal in Northern Ireland. Of course, we would entirely agree with him about the desirability of seeing a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland with participation by representatives of both communities.
I would say that I should not expect such an Assembly to do anything different as regards one issue, at least, that was raised—namely education. I do not believe that anywhere in the Western world or, indeed, anywhere in the world, is it likely that a system of selecting children at the age of 11 by a method such as the 11-plus is capable of persisting for very long. Nor do I believe that it would be possible for any future Administration in Northern Ireland to reintroduce a selective examination like the 11-plus. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, pointed out and reminded your Lordships, two out of the three organisations representing parents in Northern Ireland are, in fact, in favour of abolishing selection at 11-plus, which is what the Government's policy involves. On the other hand, there is no question of there being a blanket, universal provision. The Government are anxious that there should be a system of local planning by the local area education and library boards, in consultation with local people and in particular with individual schools.
Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the opinions held by many people who are involved in education are important and have been and should continue to be considered by the Government. I would have added one group to the list which the noble Lord
526
gave the House—namely, teachers. I am sure that he did not omit to mention teachers because they happen to be one of the strongest groups in favour of nonselective education. Nevertheless, that is, of course, the case, and the Government were pressed very hard by many interests involved in education in Northern Ireland, including teachers, and the seventh advisory Committee which was set up by the Stormont Government and which is commonly called the Burges Committee, which recommended the course of action which the Government are, in fact, now following.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the money being appropriated under this order and the use to which it would be put. The estimates for school building provide for new schools and the extension of existing schools. Some of these schemes will involve provision for the reorganisation of secondary schools on non-selective lines, and other parts of the provisions will, of course, involve extending and making improvements to existing selective schools—whether they are secondary intermediate or grammar schools. As the noble Lord said, there are several non-selective schools in Northern Ireland already, and all that is necessary for a school to be organised in a non-selective way is for the development scheme procedure which is specified in Article 11 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 to be followed. That has been done in the several cases where the existing schools have become non-selective.
The noble Lord also asked me about the system of controlling intakes. I should like first of all to stress that the existing transfer procedure—which is still, of course, selective, although not based on the 11-plus examination—controls the intakes to all secondary intermediate and grammar schools. The system does that to ensure that one sector, as opposed to the other, does not unduly benefit by a massive increase in intakes at a time when in Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in the United Kingdom, intakes to all secondary schools are falling. So, there is no question of more money being needed to build more grammar schools—or more secondary intermediate schools, as I think the noble Lord suggested—because people are being kept out of grammar schools.

527
All that we are trying to ensure by the quota system is that both sectors of secondary education are treated fairly, and that was recommended to us by a working party which represented all the educational interests in Northern Ireland. I think that there is a broad measure of agreement that this is the procedure that should he followed next year, and we are, as the noble Lord will know, in the middle of a review of the system for next year. However, I have no doubt that a quota system which treats secondary intermediate and grammar schools equally and fairly will continue to be necessary and will not lead to any increase in public expenditure but, in fact will avoid such an increase.
The noble Lord asked about our policy. I hope that I have been able to give him the flavour of it, but certainly the policy at present is that we should proceed with this process on the basis of consent, consultation, local agreement and local planning. Whether legislation will be needed will, of course, depend very much on the outcome of one or more of the working parties which, for the moment, are looking into the details of the reorganisation of secondary education.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question as a result of his last sentence. The noble Lord referred to whether legislation will be needed or not. Legislation for what?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the reason we have set up a working party is to determine what legislation is needed, so it would be foolish of me to attempt to pre-empt the work that is being done by the working party, particularly as it is made up of representatives of all the educational interests in Northern Ireland and is having widespread consultation with all interests concerned. It will be for that working party to report on what legislative changes are needed to ensure that the process of secondary reorganisation can be completed.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord a little further. Why should not the development scheme process be used?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the development scheme process, as I have
528
made clear, is being used already and can continue to be used. However, there are other matters—for example, there may be some legislation needed. By giving examples one tends to pre-empt the work of the working party, but perhaps I can do so in an entirely hypothetical way. It is possible that legislation will be needed to safeguard teachers' salaries. It is likely that legislation will be needed to reorganise the way that voluntary schools are financed. As the noble Lord will know, one working party is looking into the continuing finance for voluntary schools in a reorganised system. That may well involve legislative changes. There are no doubt a host of other matters which may involve legislative changes and upon which the working party will be reporting.
I should like to turn to the economy. Several noble Lords mentioned the tragically high rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland. I should certainly accept that it is tragically high—it is much too high. I am grateful for the acknowledgement in various ways of the amount of effort that is being put into reducing this—for example, the work in America by the permanent representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the numerous visits which my right honourable friends have made to various countries in the world. We are delighted when all this effort pays off in terms of new investment by General Motors, AVX and so on. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, asked me about the value for money of these investments. As he knows, much of this information is and has to be confidential, but if there is anything that I can tell him on investigation I will write to him about it.
It is quite true that because of the slump in the world economy the full appropriation for industrial investment incentives has not been spent over some past years in Northern Ireland. But there has been a substantial reallocation of that money to public sector employment, and that is one of the reasons, for example, we have been able to bring the pupil/teacher ratios not only into line with those in England and Wales for the first time but slightly to improve on that, because we have been able to increase very substantially the number of teachers employed. The same applies to other areas of public sector employment.

529
The noble Viscount is taking, in my view, an unduly pessimistic view if he assumes for the future, as I took him to assume, that a Conservative Government will be returned, committed to massive cuts in public expenditure which will lead to the rather gloomy forecast which he was making about the future for Northern Ireland. I certainly would not expect that forecast to be borne out because I would not expect such an outcome at a General Election.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, our Leader, has, in fact, made a commitment to very high Government expenditure. Therefore, I am not worried about that. I should be much more worried about the other outcome.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it is very difficult for me to work out just how all these massive commitments for additional expenditure will allow for the massive cuts in taxation to which the noble Viscount's Leader has also committed her Party.
The noble Viscount asked me about tourism and raised a couple of detailed points. First, the Bangor marina is still being considered by the Government in conjunction with the interested parties. As the noble Viscount knows, a consultant's report is being produced on the possibility of providing a major new marina at Bangor. But until the report is completed, a decision will not be made about that proposition.
The noble Viscount also mentioned the question of international sports facilities. Certainly many of the major leisure centres which arc planned, or indeed open, are providing venues for international sporting activities. The first time I went to the new leisure centre in Belfast—Maysfield—on a Saturday, I was delighted to find deaf people from Dublin playing five-a-side football, and an international judo competition going on with representatives present from Great Britain as well as from all over Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The noble Viscount knows that we have had to decide not to go ahead with the next Commonwealth Games in Northern Ireland because of the massive amounts of public expenditure which would be
530
pre-empted by that decision and because of the very serious effects that we feel it would have on sporting provision for the rest of Northern Ireland, particularly outside Belfast, on which we now want to concentrate. But that does not pre-empt any decision on future Common-wealth Games.
Finally, the noble Viscount asked me about expenditure on tourism and the measures being taken to encourage tourism. Perhaps I could write to him on the detailed points he made about advance hotels being built; but he knows that the Government have taken a number of new initiatives in recent months to encourage the tourist industry. The level of grant is being increased for local authority schemes from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent., and a number of new schemes have been introduced. I certainly agree with the noble Viscount that we would wish to continue to do all we possibly can to encourage that industry and, indeed, all other ways of creating and maintaining jobs in Northern Ireland.

APPROPRIATION (No. 3) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 10th July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 10th July, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
7.53 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 26th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of a series of orders

531
introduced approximately every two years to deal with miscellaneous financial matters. The last order in the series was the Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1976. The main purpose of this order is to increase some of the limits imposed by Northern Ireland legislation on certain financial transactions. The order does not deal with the appropriation of funds for public services.
The order increases the limits placed on expenditure on roads, on advances made to the Housing Executive, and on the aggregate amount of loans and grants that can be made for harbour works. The order also proposes an amendment, in Article 4, that will bring the provisions governing the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund more into line with the United Kingdom Contingencies Fund. The order makes various other useful changes, which I should be very happy to explain in greater detail if any noble Lord would like to me do so. I beg to move.
Moved, The the draft Financial Provision (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 26th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord O'NEILL of the MAINE: My Lords, I just want to make a brief comment. I was a little alarmed when I saw Article No. 12, the "Abolition of the Ulster Land Fund." I should like some noble Lords to appreciate that in so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, we actually made use of our Land Fund. Noble Lords may recall that it was set up by Mr. Dalton after the war, £50 million being allocated for Britain and £1 million for Northern Ireland. We made good use of that fund. We subsidised the National Trust in saving beautiful places and I had the greatest pleasure in giving £500,000 to the Belfast Museum for the creation of the National Ulster Museum. However, as the noble Lord may know, in Britain the Land Fund just sat there. In fact, I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, telling us during the Mentmore debate that the Land Fund was a bit of a non-existent fiction.
However, on pursuing my researches into Item No. 13, which is headed "Grants and loans to the National Trust", I take it that the National Trust and other suitable bodies will not suffer due to the
532
technical abolition of what was described by some other other noble Lord as "a bookkeeping transaction"; namely, the British Land Fund. There are many things of which Northern Ireland cannot be proud, but this is one of the things of which we can be proud. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates the importance of having funds available somewhere or other in order to assist noble and worthy organisations, such as the National Trust.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I can certainly give the noble Lord that assurance. It is a technical change and the Government retain the power to make grants to approved bodies, such as the National Trust, the Ulster Museum, the Ulster Folk Park Museum and so on.

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
7.56 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 8th June, he approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order aims to reform the law in Northern Ireland on divorce, annulment of marriage, judicial separation and other matrimonial proceedings. First, it establishes a single ground for divorce, that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Second, it allows a fairer distribution of property on dissolution of marriage. And third, it aims to provide better protection for children in divorce cases. Broadly speaking, it follows the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which applies in England and Wales.
This draft order is the result of a long period of consultation in Northern Ireland, which began in 1976 when the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights was asked to consider Northern Ireland's divorce law. It reported last year that there was a widespread desire for the law in Northern Ireland to follow the law in Great Britain. This was followed, last November, by a proposal for a draft Order-in-Council, together with an Explanatory Document. We received many

533
comments on this, and the draft order now before the House has been improved as a result. However, the overwhelming majority of those who commented were in favour of reform.
The order will alter the grounds of divorce in Northern Ireland so that in future the only ground on which a decree of divorce may be granted would be the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. The misleading concept of the matrimonial "offence" would disappear. Irretrievable breakdown will be established by proof of one or more of the facts set out in Article 3. In the reference to adultery in Article 3, the order follows Scottish, not English law. The order has two further parallels with Scottish law: first, there is no requirement for solicitors to certify to the court whether they have discussed the possibility of reconciliation (a provision to this effect has proved to be of no value in England and Wales). Secondly, the court will be able to dismiss a petition for divorce based on proof of adultery, if the adultery has been connived at by the petitioner.
The order will give the courts greater flexibility in granting financial relief, and it provides safeguards to protect a wife from losing her entitlement to a widow's pension or suffering other financial hardship if her husband divorces her without her consent on the basis of five years' separation.
Besides the two ways in which the order differs from the English law that I have already mentioned, there are other differences, which are mainly the result of representations made during the consultative period. First, under Article 43, rules of court will provide that where a petition for divorce, nullity or judicial separation has been presented, and there are children of the family to whom Article 44 applies, reference must be made to a suitably qualified person to consider conciliating the parties and for a report on the suitability of any arrangements which have or may be made for the children's welfare. Second, we received many strong representations that the county court should have a divorce jurisdiction, and Article 48 now makes this possible. There are also differences over proceedings for financial relief, and what are known here as "postal divorces"
534
will not be available in Northern Ireland, again as a result of representations made to us.
This order has been the subject of long and detailed discussion both inside and outside Parliament. I believe that it has been greatly improved by changes made as a result of these consultations. I believe that this order will help to reduce the suffering and bitterness that can accompany the breakdown of a marriage, and I hope your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 8th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—as I am sure others of your Lordships are—for the information he has given on this important step forward in the matrimonial laws of Northern Ireland, and the matching up of them with England and Wales. There are greater trained brains in this type of law than mine. I am not a lawyer. There are those in your Lordships' House who know what divorce and its problems in law are all about. Divorce has always been thoroughly controversial, and it will continue to be so. But I believe that this order is a great step forward.
I gather that, at the moment, there are something in the vicinity of some 700 divorces a year going through. I believe that those are the facts. There are many tragedies in Northern Ireland, and I believe that this order could well help in the cases of broken down marriages and help the children who suffer problems from a broken down marriage. I noticed that the advice that the Government received was from many different bodies, including the Church authorities. I believe that to be a great step forward. I believe also that the Queen's University played a great part in advising the Government. It appears that there is a majority in favour of this order. I think that we all agree from these Benches that it is a great step forward. Divorce will always be controversial with many bodies, but probably as life goes on in a minor rather than a major way. We welcome this order.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I too am grateful for the noble Lord's compassionate approach. However, I should like to say that this is another order that seeks broadly to bring the law of Northern Ireland into line with that of England and Wales, and in this case on the question of divorce. As I understand it, before 1939 the number of divorces granted in the Province each year was normally as low as single figures. As in the rest of the United Kingdom today, the figure is very much higher.
There are two extreme and opposing ways of looking at this problem. The first is to say that the old law was absurdly restrictive and caused much suffering to couples who wished to end their marital union. The second is to look with horror at the high number of divorces granted today and say that unnecessary unhappiness is now caused because marriages can more easily be dissolved, and that the realisation of this is a destabilising influence.
On the whole, this is a reasonable order, but I am sure we must never, in thinking of divorce, undervalue the great importance of family life. Perhaps I am not a good person to speak on this subject because for 20 years I have been happily married and have not for one moment had any desire for divorce. On the contrary, I should have considered it an extremely selfish move even if I had wanted it for myself, knowing the devastating effect it would have had on our children.
Parliament, of course, cannot make people good or happy, but it can help to create an atmosphere in which this is more easily possible. The whole question of the law of divorce must be considered at any time that it seems unsatisfactory. In saying that we support the order, as do quite a number of organisations, as an honest attempt to deal with the unhappy problem, perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whether he can clarify for me the position as regards what has been termed postal divorce. Can he offer an assurance that it is not proposed to introduce a system by which a divorce might be obtained on affidavit evidence alone? One must accept the need for an understanding approach to this problem, but we should not make the process of divorce, if I may use the
536
word, easy. I should be grateful for clarification on that point. Incidentally, I learned today that 1979 is designated by the United Nations as The Year of the Child.
8.5 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, after the notable speeches with which your Lordships were favoured on the Appropriation Orders, it needs no emphasis from anybody addressing your Lordships of the heavy responsibility which lies on the Westminster Parliament now charged with the duty of legislating for the people of Northern Ireland. When the measure affects the most intimate relations of countless ordinary people, the welfare of countless children and the fundamental institutions of society like marriage and the family, a measure is not simply, in my respectful submission, to be nodded through in an empty House during a dinner hour.
It is true that this measure is founded on the 1969 Act in this country, but we have now had a great deal of experience of that Act and we have been able to judge what injustices and hardships it has caused. At the very time that that Act was being debated parliamentarily, those injustices were demonstrated by such disparate political figures as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, then in the House of Commons, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill. I think she was by that time already in your Lordships' House.
They had no doubt—as I have no doubt—that this measure, like the 1969 Act, is utterly unjust to married women. I have therefore presumed to come here to say so, drawing on the experience I had myself being charged as President of the Divorce Court in this country. I do not believe that it is the actual divorce itself that causes the anguish that one sees, that brings about the poverty one knows; and that was amply demonstrated by the Finer Committee on one-parent families. It is not the ground of divorce, it is the fact that a union is being broken up, that promises are being betrayed, that one family, if not two, is being relegated to subsistence level and having to look to the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, for assistance.

537
Not only that, it was my painful duty with my colleagues to take on the task of adjudicating on the fate of children of divorced parents. That again does not depend on the grounds of divorce. It does not matter if you pretend that you have gone over to a system of breakdown of marriage; it is the break-up of the secure background of those children. We found that a child could generally—and this was also brought out by the Morton Royal Commission—put up with a very considerably amount of turmoil between the parents, but it was the actual background that one saw bring out the symptoms of bedwetting, stammering, speech disorders, and plummeting down in class. One could almost time those symptoms, and therefore the first question that has to be asked is whether this measure will multiply or diminish such situations.
There can be little doubt that this measure makes divorce much easier, and will make it much more frequent, as well as much less just, than the present law of Northern Ireland. One can see the effect of the 1969 Act in this country; the number of divorces between 1969 and 1977 approximately trebled. In 1976, which is the latest date for which I have been able to find figures, divorces in Northern Ireland numbered less than 700. If this measure has a similar effect to the 1969 Act in this country—and there is no conceivable reason why it should not—Northern Ireland can look forward to about 2,000 petitions for divorce each year; that is, after the spate is over, and that will be a rising figure. That is in a population of about 1½ million. Is that really what Northern Ireland wants? Does it know that that is what it is in for and that is that what it has been saddled with by this measure?
There was a pressure group behind the 1969 Act. It was called the Divorce Reform Union and it had extremely able political or Parliamentary officer whom I have seen working in other capacities, and in those other capacities I have greatly admired his work. This is what he wrote shortly after the 1969 Act was passed:
"In future, marriages will quite normally end in the mid-20 years of age of the parties".
He was the person who was able best to judge the effect of the measure which he
538
has done so much and with such ability to promote. Does Northern Ireland realise that? Does Northern Ireland really want that? Does it really wish that the nature of marriage will change from, in general, a lifelong union to one of a short term of years?
I mentioned the effect on the children and I mentioned the Finer Report. There is no excuse for us now, as there might have been in 1969, for ignorance of the dire effect of one parent families, of being a member of a one parent family, on children. When that report was debated, both elsewhere and in your Lordships' House, there was a rather cavalier rejection of the remedies which that most distinguished and careful body had put forward. But that it is important, in my respectful submission, for your Lordships to recognise is that this measure facilitates and is designed to facilitate the creation of one parent families, notwithstanding what we know about them since the Finer Committee reported. Does Northern Ireland realise that? Does it really want to multiply the poverty, misery, bitterness and heart-searching that is involved in one-parent families?
Can Lord Melchett tell me the cost of this measure? I have given your Lordships as best I can the likely future number of petitions compared with today. The noble Lord on the Liberal Benches was anxious that there should not be introduced into Northern Ireland the summary procedure whereby divorce could be granted without even the appearance of the petitioner or any other person as a witness in court. What will be the cost of legal aid, on the assumption first, that the summary procedure is resorted to, so that there is little better than register office divorce, and, secondly, on the basis that that procedure is not introduced? What will be the cost in social security? We have all the information that the Finer Committee accumulated. We know that the great majority of men in Northern Ireland cannot support two families on one wage and that therefore one—and It is usually the first—goes plummeting down to subsistence amd must rely on the mercies (I use that word advisedly) of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Thus, what will all this cost? Is it the best use of money in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland? Can we really say it is, after listening, as your Lordships

539
did, to the notable speeches on the appropriation orders? Is that expenditure in preference to other possible expenditures really what the people of Northern Ireland want?
I will not cover the ground I ventured to cover when I think the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, introduced a Bill, which made no progress and which rather covered the same ground as Part II of this measure; but I must at least deal with the noble Lord's assertion that divorces will in future be based on breakdown of marriage and that we have got away from the matrimonial offence. One need only look at Article 3 to see that that is quite wrong. The court, by Article 3(1), must grant a decree
"… on the ground that the marriage has broken down irretrievably"
but the court is not to be satisfied of that unless one of the five matters set out in paragraph (2) is true. The first is "adultery". Is adultery not a matrimonial offence? The second is "that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent". Is that not a matrimonial offence? The third is desertion. Is that not a matrimonial offence?
The truth is that although it is possible to construct a divorce system genuinely based on breakdown of marriage—and that is what was advocated by Lord Walker in his dissenting opinion in the Morton Commission Report and supported by some others—this does nothing of the kind. It labels the matter "irretrievable breakdown". But irretrievable breakdown depends on the proof of one of three matrimonial offences, plus divorce by consent—which I shall come back to—plus divorce by repudiation—which I shall come back to.
It is true that paragraph (5) says that if the court is satisfied of any such fact—that is, adultery, intolerable conduct, desertion, and so on—then, unless it is satisfied on all the evidence that the marriage has not broken down irretrievably, it shall grant a decree of divorce. I ask the noble Lord how many times since 1969 has an English court been satisfied, despite the proof of one of the facts in sub-paragraphs (a) to (e), that the marriage has not broken down? I do not believe a single one. The reason for that
540
is, of course, all the petitioner has to do is to say, "I am not going to go back at any price at all".
I have seen that myself in connection with Islamic divorce. There you have divorce, as your Lordships know, by repudiation. But Pakistan has erected over and above that an elaborate procedural machinery whereby the parties have to go before some officer who will try to reconcile them. There was one case I had to try in this country where the reconciling officer was the Head of Chancery at the Pakistan High Commission. He took the view that the marriage had not irretrievably broken down, but the husband there who wished to repudiate his wife merely said, "I say it has and I am not going to make a go of this marriage whatever happens". Then, of course, the High Commissioner, the Head of Chancery, was bound to admit that the marriage had irretrievably broken down. It is the merest humbug—if I may say so with respect—to pretend that we have got away from a matrimonial offence to a system of breakdown of marriage.
I am certainly not going to deal with the social fundamentals of marriage and the family, but I venture to say, because this measure can only be understood if this fact is accepted—and I think all of your Lordships will accept it—that men and women in the nature of things perform different functions in society. It is the woman who becomes pregnant and bears children and, generally speaking, has the care and duty of looking after the children during their immaturity. As a result, women are inherently—even working women—disqualified to some extent in their economic activities. But there is the fundamental division of co-operative labour, between husband and wife. By the wife playing her role as home-keeper she releases the husband to perform his as breadwinner. Does that not give the wife a right to share in the loaf when it comes to be cut up? It may be that if the wife has defaulted on her own vows, has disregarded her own obligations, that she may have forfeited either in whole or in part the right to claim her share of the loaf.
But what of a wife against whom nothing more can be said than that she has ceased to find favour in her husband's eyes,

541
possibly because some younger woman has found greater favour. Yet it is that woman who can be repudiated. It is that woman who can be cast off and it is that woman who will be reduced to the conditions that were described by the Finer Committee. The matter goes further than that. Emoluments in these days are often postponed to be enjoyed in the form of a pension, including a widow's pension. Why should a blameless wife be deprived of a widow's pension—and there can be only one widow in a monogamous society like ours—yet that is the system which is sanctioned by this measure. Indeed, that particular injustice is inherent in the system of divorce by repudiation such as you find in Article 3(2)(c).
I turn to the measure itself, and again I shall try not to cover the ground that was covered in the debate on the measure of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, but I am going to ask the noble Lord—he referred to this—in Article 3(2)(a) one of the facts that has to be proved is that the respondent has, since the date of the marriage committed adultery. Why is that separately listed? Why is it not subsumed in sub-paragraph (b) of the paragraph dealing with intolerable conduct? Is adultery not behaviour in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent? In the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act of this Session there is no such paragraph giving a right to a matrimonial order as the sub-paragraph (a) here—in other words, adultery. Obviously the draftsmen of that Act, the Government, considered that an act of adultery was an act of intolerable conduct such as to justify the other spouse in living apart.
I can think of only three cases which would fall within sub-paragraph (a), which would not fall within subparagraph (b). Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me whether I am right about these three, and whether there are any others. The first is when, say, the petitioner has committed frequent, flagrant, and humiliating adultery himself, and his wife in despair commits an act of adultery—perhaps only an isolated act. That would give entitlement under subparagraph (a), but not under subparagraph (b). But is it just that it should?
542
Should a wife in that position be cast off to the conditions described by the Finer Committee? Do the people of Northern Ireland consider that to be just?
The second situation that I can think of is where there is connivance; that is to say, where, say, the petitioner either consents to adultery, or even procures the adultery of the respondent. That would give a right to a divorce under subparagraph (a), but not under subparagraph (b). But is it really just that a petitioner who procures the other spouse to commit adultery should obtain a divorce, with all the evil consequences that that involves to the respondent, particularly a respondent wife?
The third situation—and this is the only other one that I can conceive—is where the adultery is condoned; that is to say, where the spouse against whom the offence of adultery has been committed takes the other back and resumes the co-operative division of labour, enjoying a right as a spouse, as if the act giving a right to divorce has not taken place. That is dealt with on a very limited basis by Article 4, where the only bar is cohabitation for six months. However, let us suppose that there is cohabitation for less than six months. Let us suppose that the wife becomes pregnant during a period of five months' cohabitation. Is it right that she should be divorced under those circumstances? Is that just? Is that what the people of Northern Ireland know is the effect of this measure? Is that really what they wish?
If I am right in saying that those are the only three cases which would fall within Article 3(2)(a), and not within Article 3(2)(b), the only effect of Article 3(2)(a) is to perpetrate injustice, and I hope that the noble Lord will deal fully with that point. Article 3(2)(c) purports again to deal with divorce by consent and ostensibly after only two years' separation, but there can be consent not only to divorce, but to adultery. Connivance and collusion are no longer barred. Article 49 expressly says so in relation to collusion. Why?—if not to facilitate and promote divorce. In other words, the effect is that under this measure there is divorce by consent not after two years' separation, but only after the time that it takes to arrange an act of adultery. I ask the noble Lord whether

543
I have got it right. Is that what is understood in Northern Ireland? Is that what is wanted?
There is much more which I thought I ought to draw to your Lordships' attention, but I know that your Lordships have much other business—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear !
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I do not in the lease apologise for drawing to the attention of your Lordships a measure that, in my experience and in my belief, is so destructive of human felicity, so entirely unjust to married women, that it demands proper consideration.
8.35 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, first, I wish to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put to me. I can assure him that, as I said in my opening remarks, there will not be any postal divorces (as they are known) in Northern Ireland. This was one of the changes which was made as a result of the very extensive consultations which took place in this case, arising from the views expressed to us by the Official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. I believe that the changes we have made went a very long way—if not entirely—towards satisfying the many worries that they had about the order before the consultation period started.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, asked me a series of questions, and I think I would be gauging the flavour and the mood of the House correctly if I did not spend as long as the noble and learned Lord spent in asking the questions by replying to them all in detail. Perhaps he would allow me to write to him if there are particular points of detail which I do not cover in my reply—
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not confine himself to a written letter—though I am very grateful for his courteous offer—because this measure is of immense importance to very many people in Northern Ireland, and they are fully entitled to know what the measure will do to them.
Lord MELCHETT: I shall come to that very point in a few moments, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me. The noble and learned Lord asked me about Article 3(2)(a) which, as I said in my opening remarks, and as the noble and learned Lord will know, follows the Scottish law which, according to the information we have, and as a result of the very extensive period of consultations in Northern Ireland, was expressed to us to be working apparently satisfactorily. It was felt by those whom we consulted in Northern Ireland to be a more appropriate formulation than that in the English law, and that is why it is included in the order. The reason for this, which the noble and learned Lord will have seen, and which was given in another place, was that it was felt right that the choice as to whether or not to rely upon adultery ought to be left to the aggrieved spouse. I refer to Hansard of another place of 20th June this year.
The noble and learned Lord also asked me about the cost of the measure. I think he will accept that it would be very difficult to make a realistic estimate about the cost without making a number of assumptions about the future. The noble and learned Lord made a number of such assumptions which I would not necessarily accept as valid. To extrapolate simply from what has happened in England and Wales and to apply it to Northern Ireland is always dangerous. It is almost always unreliable and inaccurate, and I believe that on those grounds alone it would be difficult to estimate what the costs—if there are to be additional costs—of this particular order would be.
The noble and learned Lord also asked how many times an English court has been satisfied that a marriage has not irretrievably broken down if a number of specific things are found to have happened. The noble and learned Lord did not give me notice of that question, and I regret that I do not have the information with me. I am afraid that that will have to be one of the matters about which he will have to allow me to write to him.
The noble and learned Lord also asked me on a large number of occasions whether this was what Northern Ireland really wanted; and whether the people of Northern Ireland really know that this

545
was what was going to happen to them. He also suggested near the start of his speech that the measure was being nodded through your Lordships' House with an almost empty Chamber—but the Chamber is certainly not almost empty at this stage of the proceedings. As I said in my opening remarks, the consultations on the measures started in 1976. If I may say so, I think it a little insulting to the people of Northern Ireland to suggest that after that very long and extensive period of consultation they do not know what is involved in the measure and what the effects are likely to be. No doubt they will have had the advantage of reading the noble and learned Lord's contribution to the debate in your Lordships' House on the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when many of these points were made.
Not only has the consultation been going on since 1976, but the draft order has been published and available in Northern Ireland for no fewer than nine months. As the noble and learned Lord will know, that is an exceptionally long time for an Order in Council to be published and available. It has been extensively discussed and a great many meetings have been held. I bow, of course, to the noble and learned Lord's extensive knowledge of the law, which I do not pretend to match; but I am sure he would also accept that there are many in Northern Ireland with extensive and expert knowledge in the law and on many other issues who are also concerned with the order. They, of course, all of them, have been fully involved in the consultations which have taken place since 1976; and, as I made clear, and as other noble Lords who have spoken on this subject have made clear, there is widespread agreement in Northern Ireland that this is a desirable measure.
There are certainly arguments over the balance between the harmful effects of divorce, particularly on children, and the harmful effects of forcing people whose marriage has irretrievably broken down to remain married to each other; and several of the opinions that I have had expressed to me from Northern Ireland have been from women in that position who were anxious to obtain a divorce, who were not able to do so under existing Northern Ireland legislation and who
546
felt that their children were being very seriously harmed as a result. My Lords, I was grateful for the welcome given to the order by noble Lords speaking from the Liberal and Conservative Benches—a welcome that was obvious in another place and was obvious when your Lordships gave a Second Reading to the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Dunleath, and a welcome which I am quite sure will be widely echoed, as it has already been, in Northern Ireland.

RENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
8.42 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 27th June, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft Order deals with Northern Ireland's private rented sector. Although only 12 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland is owned by private landlords, these houses present some of the most serious and difficult problems because of their condition and the very low rent levels. The Government's objective is a limited one: to try to keep as many of these houses as possible in the stock and in a reasonable state for as long as possible. The worst houses would have to be demolished and replaced and the better houses repaired and modernised. If the better houses are to be maintained, rents must increase. My Lords, the Order contains a number of very valuable provisions which will enable us to fulfil the objectives that I have outlined, and I hope the House will welcome it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 27th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)

ROADS AND ROAD TRAFFIC (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Roads and Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before

547
the House on 19th June, he approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this draft Order touches on many aspects of road traffic and safety law. It will strengthen the law and bring the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in Great Britain. The draft Order covers a wide range of matters, all of which will make a substantial contribution to road safety and which I believe are urgently needed in view of the appallingly high number of road casualties in Northern Ireland. Again, I hope your Lordships will give a welcome to this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Roads and Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 19th June, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I will not keep him a moment; he has been under enormous pressure and torture the last hour, and I think he is doing very well. This Order was interesting to me on a particular item called builders' skips. These are instruments dropped on the side of a road for rubbish to be placed in them. I had the feeling that, with security as it was, these could be used as barriers in one way or another. I am wondering—and I did not see it in the Order—whether a builder or anybody involved in using one of these skips has to obtain permission from an authority to place one of them either on a road or on a site. I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten me on that. On page 3, indeed, which was interesting to me, in Article 4(3), it says:
"The Department or a constable in uniform may remove or reposition a skip or cause it to be removed or repositioned".
May I ask the noble Lord whether a constable in uniform could move one of these ton-weight instruments? Otherwise, we are quite in agreement with the Order.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have no doubt that that is why the Order carefully provides for a constable to be able to cause it to be removed, rather than placing the sole duty on the constable to remove it personally. The answer to the noble Viscount's other question, is that the Order originally embodied in Article 3 the provision that a person would have to obtain permission from
548
the Department of the Environment or the road authority before a skip was placed on a public highway, but after strong representations from the Northern Ireland Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors, who said that the existing provisions in the Order would give sufficient powers for the authority to ensure that skips were sensibly and safely sited, that provision was withdrawn. I hope your Lordships will accept that.

SCOTLAND BILL
8.45 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments and Reasons on the Scotland Bill be now further considered.

LORDS AMENDMENT
72 Before Clause 62, insert the following new clause—
Speaker's Conference
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Act there may be appointed not less than six, nor more than twelve months after the first occasion on which the Assembly meets a Speaker's Conference, being a conference convened at the request of the Prime Minister and presided over by the Speaker of the House of Commons with the function of considering and making recommendations to the House of Commons relating to the appropriate number of Members of the House representing Scottish constituencies after the enactment of this Act.
(2) Those participating in the Conference shall be Members of the House of Commons invited to do so by the Speaker, who shall secure that the balance of parties in the House of Commons is reflected, so far as practicable, among the participants in the Conference.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
73 Because the convening of a Speaker's Conference is the concern solely of the House of Commons.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73. As I said in our earlier debate, we have maintained throughout the devolution debates—and, indeed, before they began in Parliament—the commitment not to change the present level of representation

549
from Scotland, and indeed from Wales, as a consequence of devolution. Parliament will remain sovereign, able to legislate on all matters, including those to be devolved, and we have never accepted that the devolution proposals are flawed because of the continuing full participation of Scottish and Welsh Members in the business of another place. This question has been debated three times in the other place and defeated decisively on each occasion. Although the present new clause was not debated when the other place considered this House's Amendments, the official Opposition did not seek to divide the other place on the Government's proposal that the new clause should be disagreed with.
When this House debated the new clause, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, argued that we should give the Members of another place a chance to look at the matter again. We have done this, and the other place has firmly indicated that it has made up its mind and does not wish to go over the ground again. This is not a matter on which we should seek again to lecture the democratically-elected Chamber, and I therefore trust that this House will accept the views of the other place, which no-one sought to oppose, and not insist upon the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon Amendment No. 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 73.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, it is the normal procedure for a Speaker's Conference to consider matters of this kind, and your Lordships will recall that only recently a Speaker's Conference made recommendations on the representation of Northern Ireland—recommendations which the Government quite quickly accepted. So that is the normal procedure, and my noble friends and I, in putting this forward, have been able to give the other place an opportunity to consider this matter again. I do not think that it would be right for us to provide them with yet another opportunity because this is a matter which they have been able now to discuss; the guillotine did not cut this discussion out.
My Lords, we still believe that it would allay many apprehensions in different
550
parts of the United Kingdom when this new major constitutional change takes place, if the Bill is accepted at a referendum and if a new Assembly and Executive are established in Scotland. When that is being carried out, we think there will be many apprehensions in different parts of the country, and a Conference of this kind, considering the question of future representation, would, we think, be something which would allay those apprehensions. But there is no point, we think, in this matter being discussed again in another place, and therefore we have not put down a Motion.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
74 Clause 67, page 33, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
75 Schedule 10, page 49, leave out lines 15 and 16.
76 Schedule 10, page 58, leave out lines 36 to 44 and insert—
("The Forestry Act 1967 Included.") (c. 10), section 15.
77 Schedule 10, page 59, line 16, at end insert ("and the matters dealt with in section 58 are not included")
78 Schedule 13, page 75, leave out line 35.
79 Schedule 16, page 84, leave out lines 11 to 17.
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
80 Because the subject of forestry is one which it is appropriate to devolve.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we now come to the subject of forestry. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 74 to 79, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 80, but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
Page 33, line 16, leave out ("with the necessary modifications") and insert ("not")
Page 49, leave out lines 15 and 16.
Page 58, leave out lines 36 to 44 and insert—
("The Forestry Act 1967 (c. 10) section 15 included")
Page 59, line 16, at end insert ("and the matters dealt with in section 58 are not included")
Page 75, leave out line 35.
Page 84, leave out lines 11 to 17.
The alternative which we now propose has the same effect, if it is accepted, as our previous Amendments. It is a rephrasing. There was a short debate in the Commons on the Amendment which has been returned to us but most of that

551
debate was occupied by the Government spokesman who spoke for about 25 minutes and left about 10 minutes for the remainder of the debate before the guillotine fell. In the subsequent Division, the majority was only six. We have had a debate in this House before and I will not go over these matters again; but I will remind your Lordships that agriculture is not devolved under this Bill. The farmers' representatives in Scotland, the Scottish National Farmers' Union, won their case before the Bill appeared. Agriculture and forestry should operate closely together and, certainly, since the war, many if us have been advocating their more close working together and have been glad to see this happen and to see virtual integration in many parts of Scotland and also South of the Border.
The very reasons which the Government have given for not devolving agriculture apply also to forestry. For example, there is a system of Government support and it is operating against the background of the EEC systems. To separate the country's forestry into three parts—because, if you take the proposals for Wales as well, that is the effect—seems to be a backward step. It is agreed that virtually everyone in the forestry industry in Scotland is opposed to devolving and, during the course of his speech in another place, the Secretary of State for Scotland admitted that. I would add that the Scottish National Farmers' Union are opposed to the devolving of forestry.
The headquarters of the Forestry Commission moved to Edinburgh during the time that I was Secretary of State for Scotland. I was much involved in that move together with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, who was then chairman of the Forestry Commission. One of the reasons for that was that 80 per cent. of the woodlands in Britain are north of a line running between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, 80 per cent. of forestry activities are in the northern part of England and in Scotland. To try now to make a separation between England and Scotland forestry where the Border runs, we think, is retrograde. This Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Dulverton in our previous debate. Your Lordships supported it and I spoke in support of it. I hope that we shall give another place an opportunity to consider this matter again,
552
to give them more time than even under the guillotine which they have been allotted—I understand that it is three hours—for our Amendments than they had last time to consider this; and to take another decision on whether forestry should be devolved or not.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 80 but propose the said Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Lord Campbell of Croy.)
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, if I may put again with some extra ammunition the arguments that have been put many times, I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put the main argument when he said that 80 per cent. of the forestry in Great Britain was north of a line which included part of England; and that this was the reason for moving the Forestry Commission headquarters to Edinburgh. I think it is entirely wrong that the Government should not have devolved at least the executive control of agriculture to the Assembly. All the experience of Northern Ireland has shown that local control, knowledgeable control, was extremely effective in Northern Ireland.
Nevertheless, I think that there is even less of an argument for returning forestry to the control of Parliament in Scotland. I think that one of the great hopes for the Highlands and the upland areas of Scotland is for proper integration of forestry with agriculture there. To suggest that the Assembly would have less concern or less interest than the Parliament of Great Britain is, I think, nonsensical. The Assembly will have control of the budget of some £3,000 million and their concern would be to allocate that in the best possible way for the development of Scotland and for the saving and advancement of vast, desolate areas of Scotland.
I know that influential people have taken an extreme conservative view of change. It is innate to the Conservative character that they dislike change; but the fact is that not to devolve forestry would be to make a mockery of the whole concept of a Scottish Assembly. Scotland has more upland ground, more barren ground, more ground in need of development and in need of co-operation between agriculture and forestry than any other area

553
of Britain. I am certain that the Assembly would take a very much more serious view of this and would be prepared to allocate resources for the development of forestry. Much has been made of the fact—some of it wrongly—that the Forestry Commission said that on the whole they would prefer to serve one master. I asked the Minister a specific question: Did the Forestry Commission say that it was impossible to work or difficult to work? The Minister answered: They have said it was entirely possible. Such information as I have been able to gather is that they could serve two masters or three masters, because already forestry is split into conservations and Scotland is a perfectly natural unit. The Forestry Commission could administer it with great ease and if, as I suspect, they got extra resources from the Assembly, they would allocate it from their consolidated Vote and they would be very happy indeed.
I think that this is all part of the general attitude of the Opposition to this Bill. They want to strip as many powers from the Assembly as possible: and I think that this is entirely wrong. If the Assembly is going to work, it must have control of some of the major factors which affect Scottish life. In the future, forestry will be one of these and this is why I oppose this Amendment which is the same as the previous one except that it is differently worded. I hope that the House will oppose it.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. I speak as someone who lives in the middle of the biggest forest in Europe. This is the Forestry Commission forest in the Borders. How can one talk about devolving it when it is intimately associated with the agricultural industry, when we are working closely together—and I speak as a farmer—with the Forestry Commission when you cannot tell where the Border is in the forestry area. The forest starts on the English side at Otterburn and at Keilder in Northumberland and it stretches over to the Scottish side into Dumfrieshire into Selkirkshire into the far West. It is impossible to tell where the boundary is. I could tell you, my Lords, because I ride along it and I know where it is; but very
554
few people do. You cannot possibly tell where it is.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, says that the reason that we are against devolving is because we think that the Assembly could not manage it. It is nothing of the kind. We do not want forestry devolved because it is intimately associated with agriculture where in the Borders we work closely with the Forestry Commission. There are other forestry interests, private forestry interests, and they all work closely together. The idea that forestry would be improved, that it would be better for Scotland, better for forestry, better for everybody to have it split, is, if your Lordships do not mind my saying so, absolute rubbish. The fact remains that forestry is one of the great industries which serves both England and Scotland.
It is not only trees; it is all the other things that go with it. It is the sawmills, the manufacturing industries, the pulp mills, and so on. All are intimately associated, they work marvellously together. They never have strikes. They never have anybody wanting to do anything different. It is without exception the most successful enterprise which is part the Government, part the Forestry Commission. After all, we all pay for the Forestry Commission. It is not that it happens to be a Government show; we have all an interest in it. They all work closely together.
In the Borders it would be absolutely crazy to divide it. As my noble friend Lord Campbell said, he was the person who brought the Commission to Edinburgh, with that splendid new headquarters. The whole thing is managed in Edinburgh. What will one do—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords—
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: No, Lord Mackie, I am not going to give in to you. My Lords, the fact remains that I know something about this; I live with it and by it. In fact I had the chairman of the Forestry Commission to stay. I was taken all over the Border Forestry Commission by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and I have no doubt that the present Forestry Commission Chairman, who is Lord Mackie's brother, will

555
also be a visitor to stay with me in order that I may take him round the forest.
I am talking about something that I know about. Without exception, this is one of the silliest propositions that this Bill has yet put forward. I hope very much that your Lordships will send it back to the House of Commons because I believe that people there will have the common sense to realise that this is one of their big mistakes and they can remedy it before it is too late.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy in seeking that forestry should not be devolved. I have a completely different view to that taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. There are many reasons for this such as the need for better land use through integration of agriculture and forestry. This is something which, when I was at the Scottish Office some 19 years ago, we greatly encouraged. It has been going on ever since. If we devolve forestry now it will put the clock back—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? Since the noble Baroness would not let me intervene, will he tell us which of the European countries has a smaller area devoted to forestry of its national territory than this country, seeing we have been so successful up to now?
A noble Lord: That has nothing to do with it.
Lord FORBES: The question has been answered, my Lords. This country is a very small one already; if it is carved up more for forestry the position is going to be even worse. Already the question has been raised about the added expense of moving part of the Forestry Commission headquarters back to England. This would be absolutely crazy when expenditure is running higher and higher every day when one thinks of devolution—
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: The noble Lord has his facts wrong, my Lords. There is no question of moving part of it back to England. The Forestry Commission is to act as agent for both the Assembly and the English. There is
556
no question of splitting the administration at all.
Lord FORBES: That means some civil servants at least, my Lords, would be moved back from Edinburgh, whatever happens. There are many more reasons. The matter of real significance is when one thinks for a moment what is the danger which devolved forestry could produce. That great danger is one of a possible conflict between the Assembly and Westminster. What an outcry there would be if forestry in Scotland got less assistance than Forestry South of the Border. What would happen if there was a conflict which devolved forestry could well bring about?
The great danger is that conflict could lead to constitutional confusion. This, the greatest danger of all, could lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. If one thing is clear it is that virtually no one except a small minority which includes the Scottish Nationalists wants the break up of the United Kingdom. The unity of the United Kingdom should be uppermost in our minds at all times when discussing this Bill.
If this Amendment is not agreed to, the setting up of an Assembly controlling forestry will be adding yet another area of possible conflict which, added to over-government and constitutional confusion, may well lead to the break up of the United Kingdom. Before it is too late we should ask ourselves: Who will gain from the resulting chaos? It will not be the Scots; it will not be the English. It will he the Communists. They are the only people who are always looking and hoping for chaos in this country so that they can take over and impose their way of life on us. There is no better breeding ground for Communism than chaos. if we are to value the continuity of the United Kingdom, we must not only support this Amendment, but there must also be a massive "No" to an Assembly for Scotland.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I have heard some nonsense arguments in this House but really this evening the noble Baroness, with great respect, let her emotions run riot, and the noble Lord indulged in a diatribe about Communism. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, needs some support in this issue.

557
Timber is going to be one of the great scarce resources in the future. Scotland has a huge area capable of development. It has not been developed to-date. The history of afforestation in this country is not a magnificent tale of success; it is a tale of underdevelopment. To take away this enormously large potential resource from the control of the Assembly is absolutely ridiculous. I have heard so many arguments on this Bill about the necessity of taking this, that or the next thing away from the Scottish Assembly. The arguments used tonight could be applied to almost any of the other powers given to the Assembly by this Bill. As I say, I am really shocked by the arguments being used.
Lord POLWARTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it would be disastrous for the United Kingdom if there were to be two totally different policies for forestry North and South of the Border, which would be perfectly possible if there were an Assembly and a Government of different political complexions?
Lord BROWN: It means different policies being followed by these two parts of the United Kingdom in many respects, and if the argument is used that merely the possibility of two different policies emerging should decide that the thing should not be devolved, you can apply that argument to everything in the Bill.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, you have borne with me on previous occasions on this subject, but I feel I must just rise to support my noble friend on the Front Bench in this Amendment. Some of your Lordships will know that I am involved in this subject and am at present chairman of the representative body of the growers. In Scotland, in England and in Wales, I would remind your Lordships that the whole industry—the growers, consumers and the professional bodies involved, together with the trade unions most concerned in forestry—feel that the devolution of forestry will be seriously damaging to their industry.
For reasons besides those advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—which I found were most convincingly put across, but for the wrong reasons—Ministers
558
have said that they wish to devolve forestry because it is so closely bound up with amenity, recreation and other entirely peripheral considerations. That is curious reasoning. Forestry is, first and foremost, about timber production, even though there may be important side-benefits, just as farming, with which we are charged, as foresters, to get integrated, is about food production. Forestry carried toward on a broad strategy and a united policy for Britain could be contributing goods worth £500 million per annum to the economy in the next century. I am not alone in fearing that it will do no such thing in the hands of two, or even three, different legislatures.
I beg to remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, wrote to me the other day. He gave me full permission to quote from this, as indeed I did only recently in the case of the Wales Bill. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is again absent from our assembly, with all the authority he can so rightly command in your Lordships' House: he is out of reach in a remote part of the Highlands. He said to me, writing shortly after we discussed this in connection with the Scotland Bill, and I have his leave to quote from what he said:
"I was extremely sorry I missed the debate … I was isolated on an island in Scotland at that time … and wish to put on record that I support it 100 per cent. During my period of office as chairman of the Forestry Commission I had the headquarters removed to Edinburgh and it would now be"—
and here I quote verbatim—
"a piece of nonsense to devolve forestry. It would add to the bureaucracy and it would make it increasingly difficult for the industry to deal with so many Government bodies if the Assemblies of Wales and Scotland were added. I shall he pleased if you will make this view known to as many MP's as possible."
That in fact has been done.
My Lords, just one more thing: influence over the land use of Scotland is something over which any Scottish Assembly would wish to exercise its mind and powers. It is not impossible that they would wish to see an expansion of the forestry industry on many of the under-utilised hillsides of the North: but surely they would be content to leave the silviculture within the forestry fence and the complexities and vagaries of the timber industry as a responsibility of West

559
minster, so that, among other things, Scottish forestry might grow and benefit along with that in other parts of the Kingdom, with strength and unity in a highly competitive world market. I support my noble friend on the Front Bench most wholeheartedly on behalf, certainly, of timber growers in the United Kingdom.
The Marquess of TWEEDDALE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy on the Front Bench, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. He talked just now as if the entire Forestry Commission was staffed by Liberals. Apparently, they are, like the Liberals, perfectly prepared to serve two masters. But I myself do not believe that that would work.
The Earl of LONSDALE: My Lords, I want to intervene for a minute or two, and I must declare myself as a predecessor in office of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. But from a commercial point of view, industries that depend on homegrown timber for their livelihood—the sawmilling industry, the pulp manufacturers and the chipboard manufacturers—are all of one voice in feeling that the devolution of this very small forestry industry of ours would lead to confusion and trouble in their industries. I spent a large part of this afternoon with the Secretary of State for Scotland on the problems confronting one of these industries, the chipboard industry, which is in grave trouble at the moment. Those in that industry certainly feel very emphatically, as does the sector working party for the pulp and paperboard industry, that devolution of the homegrown forestry industry would be disastrous.
9.15 pm
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has explained, the effect of these Amendments is exactly the same as that of Amendments Nos. 74 to 79, and, not surprisingly, the Government's objections to them are the same as their objections to Amendments Nos. 74 to 79. The Government's proposal to devolve forestry matters has been debated fully, both in this House and in another place. It was debated at some length at Committee
560
stage in another place, when the Government's view was endorsed by a majority of 40 votes. The Government's view was again endorsed after a full debate during the Commons consideration of Amendments Nos. 74 to 79. The Government's reasons for devolving responsibility for forestry matters have been explained and accepted in full in another place. And I need not remind the House that the original Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, was agreed to in this House by only the smallest possible margin. Therefore I do not propose to argue the Government's case again at length, but there are one or two points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention.
Actually and potentially, forestry is a matter of great importance in the rural areas of Scotland—a point emphasised by my noble friend Lord Brown. The Government take the view that if the Scottish Administration do not have the ability to determine what share of their resources should be devoted to State afforestation, and what forms of assistance should be made available to private woodland owners, the administration of devolved functions in relation to land use and development in rural areas will be seriously circumscribed. We have decided that, on balance, the right conclusion is to devolve responsibility for forestry and afforestation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that it is wrong to devolve forestry while reserving agriculture; that these are analogous areas of interest, and I quite understand that that is a point of view which is expressed with clarity. I just want to emphasise to your Lordships' House that the main reason for the different treatment proposed by the Government is not the different degrees of development of EEC policies, but that is a factor; although the two activities are closely linked, there are significant differences between them and in their places in the national economy.
In practice, variations in local support for forestry can be absorbed inside a single economy and domestic common market, to an extent that would not be practicable in the case of agriculture. Variations in support for agricultural production would be very quickly reflected in the recipients' general competitiveness and in prices, and in either the

561
domestic common market or the wider European Community they would quickly lead to distortions of competition and to contention. In the case of forestry, however, the grower must wait an extremely long time for any significant return on his investment, and when the return comes it will be determined not by conditions at the time when planting took place, but primarily by price movements in world markets at the time.
It has also been suggested that everyone involved in the forestry industry, including the Forestry Commissioners themselves, is opposed to its devolution. I agree that the Government's proposals have given rise to a great deal of debate among those associated with forestry, and many of the representations which the Government have received have expressed concern about the effects of devolution on their interests. These worries have been voiced both by those representing woodland owners and by those representing forestry workers. But in neither case have the views given been unanimous. For instance, the Scottish TUC is strongly in favour of the Government's proposals to devolve forestry, and so are some of those whose interest lies with woodland owners.
If I may make reference specifically to the position of the Forestry Commissioners, it is the case that when they were consulted on the Government's first White Paper they indicated that they would have preferred to see forestry matters reserved. And that should clearly he said. However, this was in January 1976, and in my view we have come a long way since then. The Commissioners also said at the time, and they have reiterated since, that on the assumption that forestry matters are to be devolved they welcome the Government's proposal to retain them as a unified body to carry out the policies of the respective administrations. They consider, as do the Government, that the Commission provides the most effective means of so doing. May I commend the last few remarks which I have made to the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, for his particular attention, because I consider that they represent an effective exposition of the Government's position on the point which he made.
I should stress that the Forestry Commission already operates on a regional
562
basis, and that for its activities in Scotland it is separately responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Commission will not, therefore, have to adjust its structure greatly to accommodate the needs of devolution.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene. He has quite rightly stated that the Forestry Commission is separately responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland, but does he realise the full implications of that? The Forestry Commission is responsible to the Secretary of State for Scotland in person and not to the Scottish Department.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I was going to make the point that the Bill provides for consultation with the Commissioners before an order under Clause 64 is laid before Parliament for approval, so the position alters at that point. This is a change from the Scotland and Wales Bill, which itself laid down detailed arrangements without the same opportunity for consultation and flexibility, and the Commissioners have welcomed this change.
In the final analysis, in my view, the correct test is the one which the Government have applied: does forestry fit the criteria for deciding what should be devolved? On balance, the Government believe that it does. The other place has indicated on two occasions that they agree with that view, and I hope therefore that your Lordships' House will now accept it.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify, if he can, why distortion does not matter in the case of forestry in relation to competition while it does matter in the case of agriculture? If I understood him correctly, the noble Lord said that the reason is because it is a long while before the trees are marketed. There are long-term and short-term industries, of course, but I cannot believe that forestry growers are likely to go in for planting, in view of distortion, simply because the distortion will not affect them until they cut their trees.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—perhaps he has done so already—may I ask him about the question of devolving agriculture but not forestry. The noble Lord will be aware that a recent consultative document advocates the planting of 4 million acres, most of which will be in Scotland. If the best part of 4 million acres in Scotland are to be planted, not when they are cut but when they are being planted there is bound to be a conflict of interest between forestry and agriculture. If the one industry is to be devolved but not the other surely it will be very difficult to resolve these problems. If both came under the same Minister those problems would be much easier to resolve. How would the noble Lord resolve this problem?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not share the pessimism of a number of your Lordships. I consider that the new, devolved proposals will work in a spirit—I have said this umpteen times in your Lordships' House—of mutual goodwill and co-operation. I do not see the kind of difficulty arising about which the noble Lord, Lord Burton, has spoken. The noble Lord is entitled to his view. He sees it differently from the position which I have outlined. I do not think that I can add anything more to that which I have already said.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to start by agreeing with what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said. Forestry is a commerical business and it will be even more important for our economy in the future than it has been in the past. Very long-term investment is involved, but that is a reason for not upsetting the industry, for not doing what virtually everyone in the industry considers will cause it damage.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that he is in favour of maintaining centralisation? The centralisation of the CAP has been a pretty good worry to us; does he still want to maintain centralisation of the control of afforestation?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I shall be coming in a minute to some other subjects when I deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, has said, so perhaps the noble
564
Lord, Lord Brown, will wait until I come to that. I agree with what he said. I think we must regard it as an important industry which unfortunately, due to great fellings during the two wars and the long-term nature of the industry, has not been supplying us with sufficient home grown timber which would have helped us greatly with our balance of payments.
My noble friend Lord Dulverton pointed out that the reasons given by the Government on various occasions for devolving forestry have been trivial; they have been concerned with amenity and tourism and so on. Those are all matters which the forestry industry must take into account, but they are not important reasons for devolving forestry. We know why they have had to give these reasons—I made an illusion to it in my opening remarks. It is because the very reasons that they have given for not devolving agriculture apply to forestry, and after what they have said about agriculture it is difficult for them to put forward reasons, commercial and other, for devolving forestry. We believe that splitting up the industry would weaken it, and the ancillary industries believe so, too, as has been said by one of my noble friends. The paper and board industries hope that the forestry industry will not be devolved.
Now I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said—the self-appointed defender of the Government on this subject and sometimes on others. It is not a question of us on this Bench and my noble friends behind me doubting whether members of a new Assembly would be able to manage forestry competently or whether they would manage it as well as it has been managed up to date. That is not the point. The question is whether we quite unnecessarily split up an industry and thereby damage it. We have the feeling that the Government have simply been looking round for subjects that they could devolve to the new Assembly. They chose this one but not agriculture because, as I pointed out, the Scottish farmers won their case before the Bill appeared. But forestry they decided to devolve.
The Government could have changed their minds, because, for example, we moved an Amendment in this House on doctors' and dentists' salaries and conditions of service: the Government opposed

565
it and we had a Division, but it was not because we thought that the new Assembly might not be able to look after that matter efficiently. It was that over a period of years a system had been built up of a pay research unit in which there was full confidence on the part of the doctors and the dentists and the country as a whole, and it seemed to be vandalism to destroy that system, simply in order to give the Assembly something else to do. And the Government saw the light; they accepted our Amendment, even after a Division in this House. That is one of several Amendments which are not on the paper today because they were accepted by the Government in another place without a Division. In the same way the Government could do that with forestry. They could see again that it is not a question of doubt as to whether the new Assembly could do this or not; it is simply a question of whether it is worth causing damage to a very important industry just in order to give the Assembly another function.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way, as he has referred to me? It is perfectly true that teeth are the same in Scotland and in England, but the conditions for growing trees are quite different. What he is really saying is that so essential is a centralised structure for the Forestry Commission that we cannot have different conditions of, say, grant in Scotland from that in England. The argument is that in Scotland forestry is so much more important than in England that surely the Assembly, in dealing with it, could make specially favourable conditions within Scotland while retaining the structure of the Forestry Commission which is managing the whole industry.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, all I can repeat is that virtually the whole of the forestry industry, not only in Scotland but also elsewhere in Britain, did not think that devolution of forestry as proposed in the Bill by the Government would improve the prospects for their industry. I was speaking of doctors' and dentists' salaries and conditions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was not speaking with levity on this, because it was an important matter not of teeth but of the medical profession. I am glad to say messages of thanks have been
566
coming to me from doctors in Scotland ever since that decision was taken and announced by the Government in another place, because I moved the Amendment in this House which caused the Government to change their mind, even after a Division in this House, on devolving doctors' and dentists' salaries and conditions. I give that as an example because it was again a function which the Government had chosen for the Assembly and about which I am glad to say they have now changed their mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, also suggested that we were continually trying to prune what the new Assembly would do, but he seems to have forgotten that we supported Amendments for giving it tax-raising powers, a very important new function, which the Government have turned down. We also proposed that it should have powers in the field of industrial relations and that was also rejected by the Government. I proposed that it should have powers for taking censuses and dealing with population statistics. That was also opposed. These are all examples of things which we were suggesting were appropriate and should be given to this new Assembly. So I hope the noble Lord will not go on suggesting that we are simply trying to take functions away, when the most important one on tax raising, for example, has been rejected by the Government.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—I have to address him because he was the self-appointed defender of the Government on this subject—was suggesting that somehow the Scottish Assembly would be able to find more money for grants, presumably out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund, for forestry, but that would have to be at the expense of some other items. What other items? Is it to be education, housing, the arts, social services, roads—some of the many other subjects which the Assembly and the Executive are going to have to deal with. If forestry is to get more money, then something else will suffer under the block grant system. I hope the noble Lord will think of that also.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords—
Several noble Lords: No !
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Well, my Lords, if the noble Lord continues to attack me surely I have the right to reply. The Conservative Party have been continually attacking the Government machine for waste of public money. Surely a local Assembly might well be able to divert resources at present being wasted.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sure that is a hope that is shared by every quarter of this House. If the Assembly is set up, if the Bill succeeds in the referendum, I am sure there is no Member of your Lordships' House who will not hope that it will exercise a great deal of care in the use of any money it receives. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replied again for the Government, and I am afraid the answer he gave was not different, as he indicated himself, from the one which we received before in the previous debate. The Government have, unfortunately, not changed their views, as they did on a number of other subjects on which we voted in your Lordships' House when they went to the Commons. I am very sorry that they have not done so. I do believe, as my noble friends do, that this is a matter which the Commons should be given an opportunity of considering and on which the Government should be given another opportunity of changing their mind. Does the noble and learned Lord wish to intervene?
Lord McCLUSKEY: Only to say this, my Lords. I do not feel it is right to leave it on the record that the noble Lord,
Lord Campbell of Croy, has properly represented what happened on doctors' and dentists' pay. If he cares to read the speech I made on the Committee stage, he will see that he has misunderstood his own Amendment, the effect of it, and the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I will certainly read it again. I listened carefully at the time to what the noble and learned Lord said. I hoped that I was simply recording here that the Government, having caused a Division on this matter in your Lordships' House at a certain stage, nonetheless saw the light and accepted the Amendment when it went to another place. If, in the course of saying that, I have said anything unwittingly which might reflect upon what the noble and learned Lord said, then of course I shall get in touch with him afterwards. However, I certainly did not intend to do so and I still cannot think for the moment that I have done so. I think that this matter should be considered again by another place, and therefore I do not intend to withdraw the Motion.
9.36 p.m.
On Question, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 74 to 79 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the said Amendments in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents 62.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Dulverton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Dundee, E.

Kemsley, V.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Elton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bolton, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Boothby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Burton, L.

Forbes, L.

Long, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Carrington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Lothian, M.

Cathcart, E.

Gainford, L.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Gisborough, L.

Margadale, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gowrie, E.

Marley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gray, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Craigavon, V.

Gridley, L.

Minto, E.

Crathorne, L.

Harcourt, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L. [Teller.]

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Monson, L.

de Clifford, L.

Henley, L.

Morris, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hereford, V.

Mottistone, L.

Digby, L.

Hewlett, L.

Newall, L.

Donegall, M.

Hood, V.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Polwarth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Vernon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vickers, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sudeley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B

Rochdale, V.

Torphichen, L.

West bury, L.

Sandys, L.

Trenchard, V.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Selkirk, E.

Tweeddale, M.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Balogh, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Perth, E.

Banks, L.

Hughes, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilbrandon, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Brown, L.

Leonard, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Castle, L.

Listowel, E.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

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

Simon, V.

David, B.

Snow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stone, L.

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

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gardiner, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Wall, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Whaddon, L.

Hampton, L.

Northfield, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

LORDS AMENDMENT
81 Clause 80, page 38, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) If a resolution under section 79(4) of this Act has been moved in each House of Parliament, but has not been passed by both Houses the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council providing for the repeal of this Act.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
82 Because disagreement about commencement does not justify repeal of the Act.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 81 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 82. When we discussed this matter before, I said that this Amendment was unnecessary and could easily be misunderstood by the people of Scotland who will be liable to see it as yet another anti-devolution hurdle to be cleared before the Assembly can be established. May I remind you of the practicalities. Unless at least 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the referendum say "Yes" and there is a majority of "Yes" votes, the Secretary of State is required under the provisions of Clause 80(2) to lay an order for the
570
repeal of the Act. Is it really to be supposed that if these stringent tests are met Parliament will decline to let devolution proceed? I think not, since it is based upon the proposition that Parliament would wish to fly in the face of such massive support as expressed in the referendum provided for in the Bill, and make specific provision in advance for the Act to be repealed despite those stringent tests having been passed.
It was suggested in the other place that the 40 per cent. hurdle might be surmounted and the majority obtained, but that the Government of the day might for some reason of national crisis not wish to bring this Act into effect. It would be wrong, it was suggested, to leave the Act in a kind of limbo. If the imagined crisis were long term, there would be nothing to prevent the Government introducing a short repealing measure if the situation demanded. If it were short term then the Government of the day would surely wish to be able to keep their options open and leave the Act on the Statute Book so that it could be implemented if circumstances permitted.
This Amendment is unnecessary and restrictive. The other place has indicated very clearly—in fact by a substantial majority of 48—that it does not accept it, and I trust that this House will not insist on it.
Moved, that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 81 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 82.—(Lord McCluskey).

LORDS AMENDMENT
83 Schedule 10, page 48, line 34, leave out ("Aerodromes")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but have made the following consequential Amendment to the Bill:
84 Schedule 10, Page 67, line 50, at end insert—
("Civil Aviation Act Not included.")
1978 (c. 8),
sections 8 and 9.
9.48 p.m.
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 83 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 84, with the words so restored to the Bill. I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to speak also to Amendments Nos. 85 to 89, relating to Schedule 10, Nos. 90 and 91 relating to Schedule 13, and No. 92 relating to Schedule 15.
Your Lordships will recall at Committee stage our discussions on aerodromes. At that time the Government laid out their reasons for devolution; reasons accepted by another place after a lengthy debate. It is the Government's intention that the Assembly should have responsibility for aerodromes in Scotland as part of their wide-ranging responsibilities for communications, transport and physical infrastructure. We consider that the Scottish Secretary and the Assembly should assume the necessary powers immediately the necessary commencement order is made under the Scotland Act except in the case of the BAA and CAA. These bodies have invaluable experience in running airports and the Government regard it as essential that the Assembly should have the benefit of that experience. These bodies are listed in Schedule 13 and can therefore be subject to a Clause 64 order.
Once consultations have taken place with the BAA and CAA the Scottish Administration can then decide how best to make use of the skills of those bodies; and ask the Secretary of State to make the necessary order. The order will, of course, be subject to Affirmative
572
Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, which will ensure that the Scottish Administration's proposals are sensible and workable not only from the Scottish, but also the wider United Kingdom point of view. Before leaving this point I should emphasise that there is nothing in the Scotland Bill to force the splitting up of the BAA or the CAA. If the Assembly so decides, and Parliament agrees, the two authorities may continue to operate as at present, but answerable to the Scottish Administration rather than to the Government for their operations in Scotland, looking to the Scottish Administration for the necessary finance.
I should also like to make it clear that the Government propose to devolve aerodromes not aviation. We are talking essentially about the physical entity on the ground designated as an aerodrome, its management, and some peripheral matters affecting the immediate vicinity. The devolved Administration will not, for example, have any powers in relation to flight safety, air navigation, the fixing of international routes or the control of aircraft using airports in relation to noise pollution. All such matters will remain with the Government.
Much has been made both by your Lordships and by another place of the international nature of air travel and the inextricable links between Scottish airports and airports elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I would mention paragraph 136 of Cmnd. 7084, entitled Airports Policy, which stated:
"As the consultative document recognised, Scotland forms a relatively distinct unit in airport planning terms. The scope for diverting London traffic to Scotland, apart from traffic with Scottish origins or destinations at present interlining through London, is negligable, and, with the limited exception of the extent to which people in the Borders might look towards the North of England, there is no overlap with the catchment areas of airports in England and Wales. Historically, air travel has been more developed on domestic routes in Scotland than in England and Wales".
Given this, I see no reason for thinking that the Government's proposals are anything but sensible and workable. On the question of the control of aircraft noise, it is the Government's policy that the Assembly should have no powers in relation to the control of noise pollution or vibration caused by aircraft using aerodromes. Amendment No. 84 will

573
exclude from the competence of the Assembly the matter of making by-laws about that subject. I hope your Lordships will give due weight to the views of the other place.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I must comment briefly on this because, although it is only a matter of aerodromes, when this was discussed in your Lordships' House we indicated that it was a matter of anxiety that the whole aviation industry might tend to use Scottish airports less if the procedure became more complicated because of any changes which the Assembly or Executive might make where airports in Scotland were concerned. It was as simple as that; that if one has another set of regulations slightly different from the others in a transport industry affecting different countries, there might he just that disincentive to land in Scotland. Not only would that be had from the point of view of communications, industry and commerce in Scotland, but it would also probably add to the congestion at airfields in the South of England.
We had hoped that the Government might on reflection accept this, and I hope I give no offence to any of the Ministers sitting on the Front Bench opposite when I mention that there were other matters about which the Government changed their mind when the Bill went through another place, but because of the way in which these things are recorded in Hansard of another place, that is not obvious. It simply says, "Amendment number so-and-so agreed", and one does not realise, for example, that that Amendment concerned betting and gaming, a matter which the Government eventually accepted; or the question of the referendum six weeks' minimum period, which I am glad to say, although we voted on it in this House, the Government accepted. There were others, though I will not detail them. Noble Lords who have not been able to follow closely what went on in another place may not realise that the Government accepted a number of Amendments which were voted on here. This could easily have been another one, for the reason I gave; namely, if the Government thought there was a serious danger of the aviation industry being affected by this devolution.
574
However, having said that, I recognise that the Government have not changed their mind and are putting back in the Bill the original provision.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, this is the sort of example about which I have been talking. Who on earth could think that a Scottish Assembly would be daft enough to put restrictions or extra charges on Scottish aerodromes to stop aeroplanes landing there? This is exactly the sort of thinking which I consider offensive to any Assembly that is to come.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has, I am sure unwittingly, completely misrepresented what I just said. I did not speak of restrictions or extra charges. I used the word "changes", and that is the point. A change of whatever kind, if it means yet another complication, could be a disincentive. That is a fact, and if the noble Lord talks to people in the aviation industry he will find that whether something is regarded as a beneficial change or not, if it is a change it can be a disincentive if it introduces another complication.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, what the noble Lord is saying is that the changes that any Scottish Assembly might make would be stupid enough to stop aeroplanes coming into Scotland. I think that the explanation he has given reinforces my point. If you are to have devolution, either you say the Scots people are totally unfitted for it or else they are sensible enough not to make changes which will stop aeroplanes coming into Scotland.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
85 Schedule 10, page 51, line 8, leave out paragraph 9.
86 Schedule 10, page 54, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
("The Civil Aviation Not included.") Act 1949 (c. 67), section 28.
87 Schedule 10, page 59, leave out lines 17 to 19.
88 Schedule 10, page 65, leave out lines 36 and 37.
89 Schedule 10, page 67, leave out lines 28 and 29.
90 Schedule 13, page 76, leave out lines 7 and 8.
91 Schedule 13, page 76, leave out lines 11 and 12.
92 Schedule 15, page 78, line 44, column 2, at end insert—
("Aerodromes")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
93 Because the subject of aerodromes is one which it is appropriate to devolve.
9.57 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 85 to 92 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason numbered 93. My Lords, this is consequential upon the previous matter.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 85 to 92 for the Reason numbered 93.—(Lord McCluskey.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
94 Schedule 10, page 49, line 14, at end insert ("or, in the case of the mouth or entrance of the River Tweed, up to the limit fixed under the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1959 and the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1863.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
95 Because it is unnecessary to make special provision for the River Tweed.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 94 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 95. My Lords, at last we reach the Tweed Box which I have no doubt many of your Lordships have been waiting to hear about. The Government have been in long correspondence with Mr. Alan Beith, the Liberal Member of Parliament in another place, about the effect of devolution on the Tweed Fisheries. The Government were persuaded to accept representations from that source and moved Amendments to Schedule 2 in this House at Report stage. These Amendments—to which the Commons have now agreed—put beyond doubt that the Scottish Assembly will not be able to legislate for those parts of the Tweed system lying in England. The Amendments fully meet the main concerns which have been expressed by Mr. Beith
576
and, through him, by the Northumbrian Water Authority and the Northumberland Fishermen's Federation.
However, we understand that fresh fears have been created by the wording of Amendment No. 94 which is quite a minor Amendment. It was proposed by the Government after it had been agreed in principle by Mr. Beith and those in correspondence with him. But when the Amendment was looked at in detail in its drafting they felt that its wording carried a suggestion that the Assembly will additionally be able to legislate in respect of the part of the Tweed Box South of the Border. We do not think that is so but we do not see that it is necessary to pursue the wording of this Amendment against the wishes of those concerned. I hope that the House will accept that view and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 94 for the Reason numbered 95.—(Lord McCluskey.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
96 Schedule 10, page 50, line 31, at end insert ("Grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and special grants with respect to items for the collections of libraries.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
97 Because it is inappropriate to devolve general responsibility for museums, libraries and galleries but reserve the matter of the grants in respect of their collections.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 96 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 97, but propose the following Amendment in lieu:
Page 50, line 31, at end insert ("Special grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and libraries.").
My Lords, before I turn to my Amendment in lieu thereof I want—and I hope it is in order—to protest what I feel is the discourtesy with which we have been treated in relation to this last part of this last consideration of the Commons Amendments. They were completed only two days ago and yet we are expected today to deal with the whole thing in a way which may be possible for the Opposition Front Bench, but for those who have not the

577
advantage of special help it is something which is very difficult. I feel I am speaking on behalf of many noble Lords who have said to me that this is not the way in which the Lords should be treated.
I feel the more strongly about this because we were all very anxious to get on with matters this evening. But what happened? Instead of having a brief interval for dinner, at least an hour and a half of our valuable time was taken up on a matter which, although it may be very important, is not what one would expect when we are dealing with this Bill. I apologise for having to make that observation, but I really feel that we have not been treated in the way we ought to have been.
I now turn to the Amendment which I propose in lieu. This has been a very unhappy business, and I must go back into history for a few moments. Your Lordships may recall that during the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and I, in different respects, moved an Amendment which was accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Ten days later we received a letter from the Government saying that they had retracted what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, had said, and that they were sticking to whatever their position might be.
Later, the noble Earl, Lord Haig, had an Amendment passed with the full support of your Lordships, and I withdrew my Amendment because it was all part of the same purpose; namely, that the special grants should not be the subject of a devolved matter, but rather should come from the United Kingdom grant. At the next stage the Government themselves—and I was grateful for it—moved an Amendment. They said that our earlier Amendments were muddled and that they were introducing a provision which would give effect to what the Lords wanted. At that time I took special care to say "Thank you" to the Government for their having done that. I said that your Lordships would recall that on Report the Government had gone back on their earlier thoughts. I was happy that they had now had third thoughts, and under pressure from your Lordships, and I suspected also under pressure from one or two of the people who were sitting on the Government Benches, the Treasury
578
had given way. Therefore we had obtained just what we wanted.
But that was not the end of the story. Ten days later I received another letter, this time from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, in which he said:
"Probably I misunderstood what you said …".
I do not believe that anything could have been clearer than what I said. At that time no one on the Government Benches bothered to get up and say that he had misunderstood the situation, they just let it lie. So the whole matter went to the Commons in a thoroughly confused and unhappy state. There was a long debate in the Commons on the matter. Mr. Harry Ewing, who was speaking for the Government, was, to put it, midly most disingenuous in what he said. He said that there was great confusion, and that it was quite clear that the situation was one in which the National Library of Scotland, the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland, and the Royal Scottish Museum favoured devolution of all purchase grants; in other words, the institutions with which we are dealing were in favour of what I am suggesting to the House. I am sorry, but that is not the case. The National Gallery and Museum of Modern Art, and the National Library do not want special purchase grants to be part of the devolved issues. In other words, what was said is not correct.
The situation became impossibly complicated. Mr. Harry Ewing said that we had confused things, but the confusion at the present time is far worse than that. As things are—and I accept this—the ordinary grants for the museums, galleries and libraries should come out of the block grant. That we have now all accepted. But what we are asking, and what my Amendment asks, is that when it comes to the special grants then we should look to the United Kingdom. Special grants are for emergency situations, and by the very nature of things we do not expect to get special grants out of the block grant; you cannot make allowances for them. We expect to get them from the United Kingdom. But the Government are not ready to accept that.
However, my Lords, having gone that far, they then, it seems to me, make the confusion absolutely extraordinary, because not only do they say, "All the

579
same, you can have recourse to the National Land Fund ", but they also say—and here I have to quote again, this time what they said in a letter, originally:
" The above-mentioned arrangements are of course without prejudice to the freedom of action by the Government to make funds available in any case they think fit for any purchase, whatever the circumstances ".
What could be more confused than that?
I really think that we ought to find a clear principle and a clear distinction on these things. That is the purpose of my Amendment, which I know the noble Earl, Lord Haig, would support if he were here. It is quite simply that, in the case of the ordinary grants to museums, galleries and libraries, they come out of the block grant: but when it comes to anything else—a special grant, a National Land Fund grant or this other, curious last resort grant—then we should look to the United Kingdom. I hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships will feel able to support me in my Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 96 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 97 but propose in lieu thereof the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Perth.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words about this matter because I was involved in this subject when it came up before under this Bill. Though I know my noble friend Lord Haig would have liked to be here, he could not at this short notice come here; and he certainly did not know, as I did not until about two minutes ago, that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was considering pressing his Motion, which I shall come to in a minute. As the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, this has been a sorry story of error and misunderstanding. I came into it when, at the opening stages, I enquired about the future of the special grants system, which many of us resident in Scotland know has been the cause of additions to the very fine collections in Edinburgh, part of our national heritage.
The answer I was given was that the special purchase grants would continue because they were reserved by silence in the Bill. A few days later that had to be corrected. Those who had taken part in the debate received letters on that matter.
580
The situation had been described in good faith, but it was mistaken and it had to be corrected. I would only say that that shows the danger of that particular method of reservation—reservation by silence—because one could not assume that because something had not been mentioned in the Bill it was covered by the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, has taken part in all these debates about museums, galleries and libraries. He has himself a special concern with libraries in Scotland and the Scottish Library, and he has drawn attention to its needs, which are rather different from the needs of the galleries and museums. All those who are concerned with museums, galleries and libraries in Scotland are worried that, in future, money may not be forthcoming in the way it has been in the past if the proposals in the Bill, as the Government put them forward, are not changed. They believe that in particular cases they will be competing with other good causes within the block grant and that there will not be special arrangements when there is something of particular importance or significance for Scotland which ought to be purchased.
But I would say this to the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I was not surprised to see that he had a Motion on the white Paper this morning. I understand that he was only able to get down to it at 8 o'clock or 9 o'clock last night. I had completed mine by then and I did not realise that more were coming down. But even when I saw it this morning, I had not thought that he proposed to divide on it; and this is the reason. It cannot be said that this subject has not been fully discussed in another place, because on our Amendment the Commons did have a very long discussion the other day. When our original Amendment was put to the vote there was a majority against it of 31. I do not myself think that it would be appropriate, although I sympathise with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has said, to send this new variation of the old Amendment back to the Commons for a further debate.
We have been considering various matters which we think ought to go back and, as noble Lords will see, we have during the course of the day had Divisions on three matters. The criteria by which we have judged them have been whether there had been reasonable time for debate in another place and what the results

581
were, together with the importance of the subject. I do not think that the noble Earl will be able to gain what he hopes to gain from sending this for further consideration to another place. So I must tell him that I myself would not feel disposed to support him if he were to press it to a Division, although I am, as he knows, exceedingly sympathetic to the views that he has expressed.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, as a CrossBencher, I am not expert in Parliamentary tactics. Whether or not this is to be pressed to a Division by the noble Earl is not the thought which is uppermost in my mind at the moment; but I must say that the wording of the Commons' disagreement to the Amendment seems to me to be fantastically unrealistic. I think it was Gladstone who once said of a certain political economist whose name I forget:
" He banished political economy to Saturn ".
I would say of the authors of the wording of this disagreement that they banished political economy to Arcturus—or some remote spot in the universe. Doubtless, if one were proceeding,ab initio,to lay down rules for devolution in some utterly unhistoric situation in which all cultural institutions were starting, so to speak, from scratch or from an equal position in all parts of the world, nothing could be said against this unimpeachable sentiment:
"… it is inappropriate to devolve general responsibility for museums, libraries and galleries but reserve the matter of the grants in respect of their collections ".
That is not the case in the United Kingdom in the year of our Lord 1978. If the financing of acquisitions to museums, libraries and galleries in Scotland is restricted to the block grant, the likelihood is that very precious treasures, part of the heritage of the United Kingdom, in the last analysis will be lost. That needs to be made quite explicit. I do not know anybody connected with art administration who would contradict that for a moment. One has only to visit the National Gallery of Scotland—I paid a special visit after our last debate on this matter; I had been in the neighbourhood for another purpose—to see before one's eyes works of art now on loan worth many millions of pounds, and which it is quite inconceivable would be purchased
582
out of the block grant. If therefore the Government persist in the attitude expressed in this banal but totally irrelevant disagreement, they are persisting in a course which, in all probability, will result in the United Kingdom losing things which we should like to retain.
Lord DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, may I ask a question, largely from ignorance? We are talking mainly at the moment about the acquisition of additional works of art for museums, galleries and the like. What happens when works of art are tendered in lieu of death duties in Scotland? There is also the question of the loss of works of art from Scotland. Do they get wafted down to the vaults of the National Gallery in London, or are they made available? Will they be made available in Scotland? Are they to stay in Scotland? Here are we talking about things being under the Assembly and available, and really the development of Scotland, and also the maintenance of the treasures of Scotland. Can the noble Lord give me an answer to that? There are two sides to the matter. First, there is the provision of the resources to increase the cultural treasures of Scotland. Secondly, there is the means of maintaining in Scotland the treasures that are there already. Both are equally important. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer that question.
Lord REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I make one small intervention? The Commons rejected the Lords Amendment in terms which are quite clear:
" Because it is inappropriate to devolve the general responsibility for museums, libraries and galleries but reserve the matter of the grants in respect of their collections ".
That is a proposition with which I would find it very difficult to disagree. What we are now discussing—and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is proposing—has words which are very different. They read:
Page 50, line 31, at end insert "Special grants with respect to items for the collections of museums and galleries and libraries".
I hope the Minister will lend a sympathetic ear to the proposition that is before us. I agree with the noble Lord who suggested that this is not something on which we should have a Division. I hope the Government will seriously consider what is suggested. Ordinary

583
grants for museums, galleries and libraries are part and parcel of the administration of museums, galleries and libraries and are part of the area which will be devolved to the Assembly. Therefore, it will be for the Assembly to decide year by year—and I hope more than year by year because one wants to look further ahead than one year—and give some idea for perhaps two or three years ahead how much they can spare out of their total resources and their consolidated grant and so on, for museums, galleries and libraries. What we are here concerned with is the special need when a particular object or objects come on to the market which it is particularly important for the whole of the United Kingdom that Scotland should acquire for one of its gallaries. That is what is suggested—and only that—should be devolved in this way. I should very much like to know whether the Minister feels that to ask for that is merely asking for what has already been turned down. That is not so, because what was originally put forward did not make this distinction between the general and the special grant.
10.21 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, if there is a point of agreement this evening, I think it is that unquestionably there has been an element of misunderstanding, and indeed confusion, surrounding this issue, so I hope that your Lordships will bear with me if I take a few moments longer than I might otherwise have done at this time of evening to explain yet again, with as much clarity as I can, the Government's position.
This Amendment was moved by the Government on Third Reading in order to correct a defective Amendment which had been carried earlier to reserve purchase grants for libraries, museums and art galleries. That was done, as I believe was made perfectly clear at the time, totally without commitment on the Government's part, to the principle underlying the Amendment. It was done simply to ensure that the Bill, as it returned to the Commons, was technically correct and would not give rise to doubts of interpretation. It is evident that the debates on this subject, both here and in another place, have betrayed this element of confusion to which reference has been made.
584
I believe that any misunderstanding which has arisen is a misunderstanding about the nature of the purchase grants we are talking about. At present, libraries, museums and galleries receive annual grants-in-aid for the purchase of objects to add to their collections. That is how the majority of museum purchases are made. The Government would agree with the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that annual purchase grants and grants-in-aid for Scottish museums and galleries should not be reserved. The proposal contained in Amendment No. 96 to reserve annual purchase grants for museums and galleries—but not for libraries—is completely out of keeping with the Government's proposals for devolution generally and the devolution of responsibility for the arts in particular. The Government believe also that it is a piece of administrative nonsense.
Some of the confusion in the past has been caused by a misunderstanding of the role of the National Land Fund, and perhaps I might direct the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to the point I am just about to make. I would repeat yet again that access to the Fund will be reserved but that will not prevent allocations to Scottish institutions of items acquired with assistance from the Fund. I believe the Government have reassured the House on this point in the past, but I do so again this evening. The nub of the argument centres on the position of special purchase grants, which I believe is where the greatest misunderstanding falls. With respect, I would direct the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, to the points I am about to make.
I would emphasise that we are speaking of occasions where a work of art or any object of interest comes onto the market for sale, as for example, the Gains-borough, "Ben Truman" or the Canaletto "Warwick Castle", to quote two recent pieces. We are not speaking of an item which arises as a result of death, and consequently comes within the scope of capital transfer tax. This is a matter of national taxation and may involve the use of the National Land Fund—which are both, as I have just mentioned, reserved. At present, institutions can apply to the Scottish Office for a special purchase grant when some exceptional object comes on the market whose cost is outwith the scope of their regular purchase grant.

585
Such a grant is rare; it has to have the approval of the Treasury, who will look in the first instance to the Scottish Office to meet the cost from savings in its annual vote; and it is the practice that it will not be more than half of the cost of the object. I should like to stress that such grants are at present ad hoc and made in extreme circumstances; they involve a great deal of turning out of pockets. However well the system works at present—and I do not think that that is what we are debating here—the key is that every available resource should be utilised, including the institution's annual purchase funds and all available private funds, before a special purchase grant will be sanctioned.
After devolution, the Government propose that if a special item comes on the market, or special circumstances arise, which involve extraordinary expenditure and which cannot be budgeted for, the first place—the most natural place—for the institution to turn to should be the devolved administration, to consider whether the money can be found from the block fund. In this, special purchase grants should be no different from any other unforeseen expenditure in any of the devolved fields.
But then, if the work of art were important enough, the sums of money involved so large that they clearly could not be found from within the block fund, it would be open to the Scottish Administration to ask the Government to help. These Amendments would have the effect of cutting the Scottish administration out of this process, and I must emphasise that. If a work which was important to Scotland was threatened, the Scottish Administration would be powerless to help save it. The Scots would have to come to London, to ask the United Kingdom Government to take the decisions—admittedly, sometimes very difficult decisions—about what was of importance to the Scottish heritage and what should be preserved. The devolved administration will have large sums of money at its disposal; it will be able—and ought to be able—to act as quickly and effectively as the United Kingdom Government on these matters. This does not preclude an appeal to the United Kingdom Government for help in extraordinary circumstances; it is rather a question of whether the devolved
586
administration should be excluded from a process in which it is essential to bring into play every available resource.
To exclude the devolved Administration from these matters—in which I believe they will wish to be included—would be irresponsible and could give rise to conflict. I put this question for consideration. What would happen if a Scottish museum or gallery, with the encouragement of the Scottish administration, came to the United Kingdom Government for a special purchase grant and was refused? The Scottish administration, thereafter, would be unable to help. The potential for recrimination and misunderstanding is considerable. It is for these reasons that the Government believe it could be irresponsible and contrary to the basic principles of devolution to exclude the Scottish administration from this matter. This was the view of another place. It was also the view taken by your Lordships' House when the same point was debated in the context of the Wales Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble Lord has actually put a question, so may I intervene to say this? I do not think that the question that he has put raises difficulties at all, because the Scottish administration would not be cut out. One would expect the request to go through the Scottish Administration, but that the special grant would come from the United Kingdom Government. I hope that the noble Lord listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said just now about this Amendment. From what the Minister has said, it really is something that he ought to be able to accept.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am trying to emphasise to your Lordships' House that the Government's position is flexible, is open-ended and is an attempt to maximise every available source of income in a situation where a special position has arisen. That is what I am trying to emphasise. I am saying, in short, that the Government's proposals provide that all resources, including those of the Government, can, in exceptional circumstances, be mobilised. The fact that where special grants are required the Scottish Administration will be expected to meet the cost, does not exclude the Government.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to translate into concrete terms sentiments which so far, and quite properly, he has developed in a series of abstractions? Supposing what is not at all a remote possibility, that there were to come on to the market an object as valuable, in terms of present sterling, as the Leonardo Cartoon, which came on to the market in the late 1950s at a price which, mustering all the reserves of the National Gallery, was quite beyond its capacity, would it be open to the National Gallery of Scotland, through the Scottish Assembly, to approach the Government of the United Kingdom with any hope whatever of receiving a supplementary grant?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, it would be for the Scottish Secretary to approach the Secretary of State for Scotland if additional money of a United Kingdom character were sought. As matters stand, leaving the question of the devolution Bill entirely on one side, I do not think that there is a counsel of perfection in matters relating to sustaining the arts, even at the present time, if only because there are always competing needs at the different points of resource. What I am attempting to say is that the Government's proposal is an attempt to maximise and mobilise all possible sources of revenue. I do not think that I can go further than that at this time.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have helped. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said. The matter was very fully discussed in the Commons, but it was discussed on a different basis: it was discussed on the basis that ordinary grants, in the case of museums, should also be available from the United Kingdom and not only from the block grant.
Mr. Harry Ewing, who was speaking for the Government at that time, said:
" So the amendment would cause the greatest confusion imaginable. That is one of the best reasons for rejecting it "—[Official Report(Commons); 18/7/78; col. 400.]
All right; it was confused; we all know that it was confused. However, this Amendment is very different; it is extremely simple. It is that in the case of the ordinary grant we should look to the block grant to find the money for museums, galleries and libraries. However, when it comes to the special grant, I say that we ought to be able to look to the United Kingdom. The Government, on the other hand, say: "We shall do all that we can to help, but first of all you have got to expect to get it out of the block grant". That is where confusion lies.
I believe that the Amendment which I am putting forward is very much simpler and that a perfectly clear distinction is made. A line is drawn between the one and the other. When the noble Lord said that it will rule the Scottish Assembly out of the question, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, answered him by asking his question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will reconsider what he said, or that those who sit behind him will think that the matter was very fully discussed in the Commons but that it was discussed on a different basis. What I am proposing now is extremely simple, is different, and I think the Commons should be given a chance to think again on whether this is not acceptable to them.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 96 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the Amendment in lieu thereof?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gainford, L.

Monson, L.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Morris, L.

Burton, L.

Harcourt, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Perth, E. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Hood, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Robbins, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Digby, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Donegall, M.

Linlithgow, M.

Sudeley, L.

Dundee, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Swinton, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tweeddale, M.

Faithfull, B.

Minto, E. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Ferrier, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Phillips, B.

Birk, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Boston of Faverhsam, L.

Hughes, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Collison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Simon, V.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Snow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Donnet of Balgay, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

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

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Maelor, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Glenamara, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Northfield, L.

Whaddon, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynee-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Motion disagreed to accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Question is that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 96 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 97.

LORDS AMENDMENT
98 Schedule 10, page 51, line 22, at end insert—
(". The initiation or holding of referenda.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
99 Because it is undesirable to prevent the holding of referendums on questions relating to devolved matters.
10.40 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 98 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 99, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 51, line 22, at end insert—
(" The initiation or holding of referenda, pleviscites or border polls ").
These Amendments regarding Assembly initiation of referenda were rejected in the Commons without discussion, and it is a curious fact that whenever we discuss it in this House the hands of the clock are nearly always hovering somewhere around 11 o'clock. This has happened on at least two previous occasions. There is an important issue here, I think, because the override powers which are in the Bill are inevitably a potential source of
590
conflict; indeed I suppose they are put there with that very reason in mind. But I think that the great fear is that the referendum might be used as a political and confrontationist device.
There are many who view the very concept of a referendum as what the nobe and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Land-side, in a previous stage of the Bill called an, "alien and undesirable intrusion" in any case. I am bound to say that my own faith in the concept of referenda has been severely shaken by the discovery and the Government's declaration of the way they intend to use the Government machine in the referendum on this Bill.
That leads me indeed to suspect the motives that Governments' might have—even if they have not in this case—in initiating a referendum. Surely a genuine referendum should only arise when a Government feel the need to consult the opinion of the electorate. Yet, apparently in this instance, the Government feel no sense of restraint in using all the machinery of persuasion at their disposal to tell the electorate what answer they expect to receive when they have answered the question.
We would clearly support the concept of giving unbiased information prior to a referendum, as was done in the case of the EEC, but partisan propaganda seems to me to be altogether a different matter. Considerable doubt in the course of our discussions has been cast on the Government's reason. They give as their reason for rejecting our Amendment:
" Because it is undesirable to prevent the holding of referendums on questions relating to devolved matters ".

591
Incidentally, it is rather satisfactory to receive official guidance on what is the proper plural of this rather difficult word. Apparently the Government draftsman prefers the English plural to the Latin plural, which I think I would have instinctively gone for myself.
However, in the past, the Government have had a habit of saying that referendums on devolved subjects are ultra vires under, I think, Clause 19 and perhaps also would give rise to the use of the override powers in Clause 6. However, my noble friend Lord Lauderdale—the good practical man that he is but who I am afraid is not with us this evening—questioned in practice how easy it would be to use the powers in these clauses. I have no doubt that if it were done the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, would say that we were once again trying to "nanny" the Assembly. We are not trying to do that at all.
It also crossed my mind that we might be once again subjected to the classic answer of: "Oh, well, you see that is reserved by silence", which has been one of the new Government answers which has cropped up during the course of our debates. But even if that is so, would it not be better to make the use of what is admittedly, on all sides, a very novel constitutional device in this country, subject to an agreement on an order passed through the mother of Parliaments which exists as the basic bastion of the Constitution? That is why we have initiated this motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist upon their Amendment No. 98 to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth propose the said Amendment in lieu thereof.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
10.49 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, in supporting this Amendment, may I preface the few remarks that I wish to make with an expression of concern at the limited time which has been allowed to Members of your Lordships' House for consideration of the matters before the House today. In this I echo the words which were spoken earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I do not, of course, expect the Government to pay any attention at all to what
592
I say in the context of the Scotland Bill. But I would have hoped that the unlikely alliance of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and myself in the context of the Scotland Bill might have given the Government food for thought, if indeed the Government are capable of digesting thought, which may be a matter about which some of us have some doubt.
Of course, this is not the first outrage which has been perpetrated during the passage of this Bill. Indeed, it occurs to me that one of the few occasions on which I felt in accord with the noble and learned Lord was when he said, in a rhetorical flourish, that he sometimes felt that he was in a madhouse, or he may have said a lunatic asylum. For a second I was in accord with him. Where I fell out with him was as to who was entitled to the appointment of medical superintendent of this establishment. I would have questioned his right to claim that appointment, which I felt he probably shared along with the right of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, to be the medical registrar.
But it is regrettable, particularly for Peers on the Cross-Benches, that so little time should have been allowed for reflection on these matters in relation to this important Bill. This is a feeling which I know is widely shared on the Cross-Benches and I hope that the Government will pay some regard to it.
I turn to the Amendment. I would support the Amendment with greater enthusiasm were I not as convinced, as I was three months ago that no amount of tinkering with this measure will make it one which contributes to the better government of Scotland. But there it is; these matters have been argued over and passed. I support this Amendment for two short reasons: first, because I believe in the sovereignty of Parliament.
The Amendment in our Constitution is a novelty, and I think it is a matter which requires considerably longer consideration than it has yet received, either in this House or in the other place. One must not be unduly dogmatic about this. Occasions may arise—we may agree or disagree as to whether this is one—in which the use of the Amendment is sensible. In the present climate when politicians, faced with difficult decisions,

593
are apparently under great temptation, I deprecate the suggestion that, when they cannot make up their own minds, they should put the problem of decision on to the shoulders of the people. I think that that is one of the reasons why government is so had today. I think that one of the difficulties is that Governments are reluctant to make decisions and if they can find any excuse to put off making decisions, they will do so. The referendum is always a good one, and the referendum was used in the context of this Bill, of course, to buy the support of the other place, which the Bill would not otherwise have received. These are all difficult and complicated questions which I think we ought to consider.
The second reason I would support this Amendment is because, having been an observer—and more or less active in the Scottish political scene now for well-nigh 40 years—I should have thought that it would be a little imprudent to leave this weapon, at this particular stage in our constitutional development when all sorts of questions about Bills of Rights and other related matters are being raised, in the hands of this subordinate Parliament. I think it would be imprudent to do this. For that reason, I would support the Amendment.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I, too, fully support this Amendment. I hope that this time I shall not be urging the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, to press it to a Division in vain. As he rightly pointed out, as a result of the operation of the guillotine the other place has not had a chance to examine this matter, and it seems proper that they should have the opportunity of doing so. It would be one thing if the United Kingdom were to be broken up as a result of a conscious decision by a substantial majority of the people of the United Kingdom or one of its component parts: it would he tragic, but in a democracy one would have to accept the carefully considered verdict of the people. However, it would be quite another thing if the United Kingdom were to be broken up as the accidental byproduct of tactical political manoeuvring. This is what could happen if the noble Lord's Motion is rejected. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will support the Motion.
10.57 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, in relation to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, made about timing, I did not understand the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to be making quite the same point. A lot of time was taken up during the dinner hour and much more time than we expected, but I do not think that those who listened to those debates will blame the Government for what happened on that occasion. In relation to the time for consideration of what happened in the Commons, what was done here is what is always done at this time of year; negotiations and discussions through the usual channels. The consideration of Commons Reasons had to be dealt with in this House this week to enable your Lordships' rejection of some Commons Reasons to go back to the other place and allow further time for consideration of them, so that the matter can come back here some time next week. That is a common manner of dealing with such things at this time of year; and it should be remembered that the matters we are discussing are matters with which we are very familiar, having been over this ground many times in the course of the last few months.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Can he quote any precedent for a Bill of this importance being put through Parliament in this way at what, if I may use the useful expression, is the "fag end" of a Parliamentary Session? Can he quote any precedent for that with a Bill of this magnitude and importance?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not know what is meant by the "fag end" of the Session. At the end of a Session this kind of thing happens routinely.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has not answered my question. I remember the "fag end" of a Parliamentary Session in 1970 when we were rushing through non-controversial minor pieces of legislation. It may be that there are precedents for this, and I am genuinely asking the noble and learned Lord if he can tell me of any cases in modern British Parliamentary history when a Bill of this importance has been put through in circumstances of this sort.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I will write to the noble and learned Lord a long letter giving him a list of these instances. Let me at this time of night turn to the substance of what we are talking about. I am not at all clear what is added to the Amendment by using the words "plebiscites or border polls", because certainly in relation to plebiscites, in practice it means the same thing as referenda or referendums, whichever you prefer. It means consulting the electors directly on important public questions.
The Government view—and I am repeating what I said before—is that no matter what is felt about the general constitutional desirability of plebiscites or the like in relation to industrial relations, the European Common Market, devolution or capital punishment, whatever it may be, there is no reason why the Scottish Assembly should be prevented from holding a referendum or plebiscite on a matter within its competence, if it wishes to do so and if it passes the necessary legislation. There is surely no danger that the Assembly could pass legislation to hold a referendum on a non-devolved matter, say the use of oil revenues or defence matters and by so doing bring pressure to bear on Westminster. When I last spoke on this matter I explained, I hope in some detail, that any such legislation would be open to challenge on vires grounds and, in addition, in Clause 35 there is the power of policy override in relation to Assembly legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, referred to the override power and said it would produce conflict. In the situation I am describing conflict would already be there.
As for the words "border polls", what might have been in mind here was that the Assembly should be prevented from conducting a poll on the issue of separation. But the Constitution of the United Kingdom is not a devolved matter and the Scottish Executive will have no powers to conduct a poll, or whatever one might call it, into matters which are not devolved. Thus, the addition of the words proposed are unnecessary in our view to achieve the purpose of the Lords' Amendment. It is an Amendment which, in any event, the Government oppose as placing an entirely unreasonable constraint in elation to devolved matters. If the Scottish Assembly within the devolved
596
field wants to consult the electorate, how on earth can this non-elected House say that that is an improper instrument in a democracy? For these reasons I trust the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, when the Minister writes to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, would he quote one measure within the last 20 years, which is the length of my experience in this House, which has any similarity in constitutional importance to this measure which has been hurried through in this way at the fag end of a Session?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I can distinctly remember one that was aggressive to the British Constitution; namely, the Common Market Bill. That rolled through this House disgracefully, without any change to a comma or a dot.
Lord BELSTEAD: That was not at the end of a Session, my Lords.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am bound to tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that it is a pity he did not feel able to apologise to noble Lords for the unhappy procedural situation we find ourselves in. I cannot say I do not accept and recognise the necessity, and I should like to be able to put my hand on my heart and say we would never have done it. I should almost certainly be wrong if I did, and therefore I will not.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point, may I ask him whether he recalls that the right honourable lady who is the Leader of his Party appeared on "Panorama" on Monday night and informed the watching and listening millions that this Bill would be through both Houses of Parliament by the end of next week?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I do not recall that, my Lords, because I was busy here at the time, though I would not dream of arguing with the noble and learned Lord on a point of fact. I recognise the exigencies of the Parliamentary timetable; but he might have said, at least on behalf of his side of the usual channels, that it is unfortunate and that it puts a rather unjust burden

597
particularly on those who do not have ready access to the people who have actually been involved in the other place. It is no use saying we have discussed this issue ad nauseam—of course we have, and "ad nauseam" is probably the right phrase for it. 'The fact remains that it was very difficult for people to discover what in fact happened in another place when Hansard for the hangover period, after 10 o'clock at night, was available only this morning. It really did put a number of noble Lords in a very difficult situation. Strictly speaking, that has nothing to do with this Amendment; it is a general observation which has cropped up. Two Cross-Bench noble Lords have made it. If I may say so, I think the noble and learned Lord was a trifle ungracious in not recognising the inconvenience to which they have been put.
Having got that off my chest and behind us, I did not really expect that we would get much change out of the noble and learned Lord on this Amendment. The embarrassing thing is that I find myself once again having to restrain one of my noble supporters on the Cross-Benches and disappoint him once more by telling him that in the interests of good government we on this side do not feel that it would be appropriate to press this Amendment to a Division.
Lord MONSON: Would the noble Lord not allow his Back-Benchers a free vote on this important matter?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
Amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether the House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 98 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason No. 99.

LORDS AMENDMENT
100 Schedule 10, page 61, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 41 and insert (" The matters dealt with in section 29A and those dealt with in section 29, so far as it relates to section 29A, are included.")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
101 Page 48, line 34, at end insert ("Insulation of nearby buildings from noise and vibration attributable to the use of aerodromes.")
102 Page 61, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 41 and insert—
("Not included, except so far as relating to the insulation of buildings near aerodromes against aircraft noise and vibration and except for—

(a) the matters dealt with in sections 30 to 32; and

(b) those dealt with in sections 6 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 20, 34 and 36, so far as relating to the operation of aerodromes.").

11.6 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 100, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 101 and 102—to the words so restored to the Bill.
I have earlier explained that it is the Government's policy that the Scottish Administration should have no powers in relation to the control of noise pollution or vibration caused by aircraft using aerodromes. It is, however, our intention that the Assembly should have powers to mitigate the effects of noise by the insulation of buildings near aerodromes. Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are technically better in achieving this result than the original wording.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 100, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
103 Schedule 10, page 67, line 50, at end insert—

("The Transport Act 1978 (c.).

Not included, except for the matters dealt with in sections 5(1) to (3) and 6, so far as they relate to road service licences and permits under section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73), and those dealt with in sections 7 and 14.")

The Commons disagreed with the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
104 Page 67, line 50, at end insert—

("The Transport Act 1978 (c.).

Not included, except so far as relating to inland waterway transport and grants to assist the provision of facilities for freight

haulage by rail and except for the matters dealt with in sections 5(1) to (4) and 6 to 8 so far as relating to road service licences or permits under section 30 of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73)")

Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 103 to which the Commons have disagreed, but that the House should accept Amendment No. 104 proposed in lieu.
Amendment No. 103 was moved by the Government on Third Reading of the Scotland Bill to take account of the Transport Bill, which was itself given a Third Reading yesterday by your Lordships' House. Some changes of substance were made to the Transport Bill on its Report stage after Amendment No. 103 was made, and as a result the Amendment no longer does what is required. I hope your Lordships will agree with the substitution of the new Amendment No. 104 in lieu.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 103 to which the Commons have disagreed, but doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 104 in lieu thereof.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS
105 Schedule 14, page 76, line 43, at end insert—

("section 93 section 96")

106 Schedule 14, page 76, line 44, leave out ("and 87") and insert ("87 and 92

Schedule 10 Schedule 17.")

107 Schedule 14, page 77, line 10, leave out ("concerning Scotland")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
108 Because it would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene in respect of these devolved matters.
11.9 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder whether, in the terms of my Motion, I could deal with these Amendments in two parts because there are two issues here. The first of them is to ask noble Lords opposite—it may well be the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—whether, in view of the fact that the question of historic buildings was not discussed very fully in another place,
600
they have decided that they are adequate, that there will be no opportunity for the United Kingdom Secretary of State to intervene if there is the risk of the demolition or severe alteration of a building in Scotland which is a building belonging to the national heritage. This was a matter that was discussed at some length on the previous occasion. I will not go over the exercise again, but I do not think that this has been discussed on the reconsideration in another place, and I would simply put the matter to him for him to consider again and to tell this House whether the Government have had further views.
There is another point here. It relates to the third of the Amendments which I am proposing. Although it would be germane to the question of whether or not the Secretary of State would be able to intervene if the Government were to accept the listed buildings Amendments which I have tabled, it goes rather wider than that. The intention, as I understand it, is that where there are override powers, or intervention powers, as they are perhaps better called, under Schedule 14, in the terms of the planning legislation, whereby the United Kingdom Secretary of State can get into the act where something is going on which goes rather wider than the pure Scottish interest, he should have exactly the same powers to intervene and override as he would have in every other respect under those clauses numbered in the thirties where the Bill deals with reserved matters.
I notice that there is a distinction between what is said in Schedule 14 about the area of intervention and the definition of reserved matters under those clauses numbered in the thirties which relate to the ordinary powers of intervention. I tabled this Amendment because I believe that it is intended that there should be no distinction at all.
So there are two points to this matter. Will the noble Lord tell the House once more whether the Government have had second thoughts about listed buildings? But even if they have not had those second thoughts, would he be prepared to consider an Amendment to the area of Schedule 14 which deals with the definition of what is the equivalent of reserved matters, so as to ensure that it is on all fours with the powers in the rest of the

601
Bill? Accordingly, I beg to move the following first two Amendments in lieu which stand in my name:
Page 76, line 43, at end insert—

("section 93 section 96")

Page 76, line 44, leave out ("and 87") and insert—

("87 and 92 Schedule 10 Schedule 17 ").

I have spoken to the third Amendment. It ought to refer to page 77, not page 76. At the moment I do not wish to move this Amendment because I should like to hear the noble Lord's reply to the first two Amendments and see whether, in the process of speaking to those, he would go a little wider on the third Amendment. Then we may be able to see whether there may be some agreement with us on that, even if there is not on the first two. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 108, but propose the said Amendments in lieu thereof.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, following the noble Viscount's structure plan, I should say to him that I have had second thoughts, and I have consulted further about what I have always considered to be a most complicated matter, although I know that the noble Viscount has seen the issue with a simple clarity which has quite defeated me. With regard to his first two propositions, the Government can see no way by which the Schedule can be adapted within its present structure to meet the purpose which the noble Viscount would see.
I now wish to go beyond that point and speak to his third Amendment (which he has not moved at this stage) in order to say to him that the Government would be pleased to accept that Amendment; indeed, they are grateful for his help on that point. However, there is one caveat: we should have to look again at the drafting of the Amendment. But it is only with that caveat; otherwise we accept the Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
602
I hope that if a historic building in Scotland was threatened the United Kingdom would not stand idly by. If, for instance, the Scottish Assembly and the Scottish Ministers had run out of money and an appeal could be made to the United Kingdom Parliament, I do not think that the United Kingdom Parliament would be deaf to it. If that kind of provision cannot be included in the Schedule it may have to be dealt with by administrative means, should the occasion ever arise. For the moment, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the first two of my Amendments in lieu.
Amendments 1 and 2 to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has said, I beg to move the third Amendment; that is,
Page 77, line 10, after ("Scotland") insert ("(whether or not it also concerns directly or indirectly any other part of the United Kingdom)")
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it would probably be better to put this in the Bill now. Of course, like all my drafting it is almost certainly wrong, but, at least, if we put it in there will be an opportunity for somebody further to consider it. I therefore beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist in on their Amendments Nos. 105 to 107 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 108 but doth propose in lieu thereof the third Amendment.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)

LORDS AMENDMENT
109 Schedule 17, page 89, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 40 and insert ("No sum shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund whether by Order in Council under this Schedule or otherwise for the purposes of the referendum, save that an Order in Council")
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
110 Because it is misconceived.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 110. In the light of an observation which fell from

603
the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, a moment or two ago, this is the only matter which was discussed in another place at such a late hour that it was not reported in the Official Report (Hansard) until today. The other matters, discussed on the 7th July and on Monday and Tuesday, were all available earlier.
The discussion on this matter in the other place is illuminating. Members of the other place, while pleading the cause of fair play, realised and acknowledged that as a matter of everyday practice Ministers promote Government policy on their official travels, and that the expenditure involved in providing an official car, which loomed so large at an earlier stage, is really quite minute. Moreover, if a Minister makes an official tour covering many engagements and many speeches on a variety of subjects, how does one identify the parts of it attributable to devolution? Your Lordships will find that in column 431 the honourable and learned gentleman Mr. Brittan acknowledged, in response to a question asked him by Mr. Sillars, that the Government were indeed entitled to campaign for their policy. He said, when asked that question:
"The answer, of course, is, Yes".
On the substance, I think that is all we are talking about. The Government have made it perfectly clear that what Members have called the Government propaganda machine is not going to be pressed into service. The Government are not going to issue leaflets or buy television time, or anything of that sort. There is a technical objection as well, which again was acknowledged in the other place by, among others, Sir David Renton. Speakers from the Opposition Front and Back-Benches in the other place recognised that the Amendment is technically defective. It is drafted in terms of charges on the Consolidated Fund, whereas the Bill, as will be seen from Clause 76, places the expenses of the referendum on Votes. The Government are being asked to draft a provision which prevents particular expenditure from being carried on a Vote. How can that be done? How could the Scotland Bill prevent Parliament from voting money in the future by the usual Approproation Act procedure? But that is what we are being asked to do. Opponents of the Bill have perhaps become a
604
little obsessed by a misplaced fear that the Government will promote a propaganda campaign, and have overlooked what appear to be the elementary rules of Supply in another place. This Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. I think that if your Lordships read carefully the debate in another place it will be seen that that was widely realised at the end of that debate, and I accordingly beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 109 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 110.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that this Amendment has served its purpose by enabling the whole question of the holding of a referendum to be discussed in another place because there was very little time for this to be discussed when the Bill was before the other place before it came to your Lordships' House. By the Amendments which we put down as probing Amendments in the early stages of this Bill, and then by this one, which was later passed, we were able to elicit from the Government, both in this House and in another place, their ideas as to how the referendum would be held. As there has been only one in this country and the conditions were entirely different, as has been accepted—in that case the Government were providing funds and services to both sides in the controversy—naturally we have been concerned to know what were the Government intentions on this point. What we now know is that there will be an Order-in-Council coming before both Houses of Parliament which will lay down the conditions for the referendum in good time before polling day, and we know now roughly what to expect in that Order-in-Council. So while this Amendment may have defects in it, I think it has enabled discussions in both Houses of Parliament on this subject which was previously shrouded in mystery.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, as it is generally agreed by responsible political commentators and by long-standing Members of the Labour Party like the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that the sole purpose of this particular Bill is to improve the Labour Party's chances in the forthcoming General Election, is it not only right and proper that Ministers'

605
expenses incurred during the referendum campaign, should the referendum take place before the next General Election, should be set off against their allowable Election expenses?

OVERSEAS STUDENTS: FUTURE POLICY
11.21 p.m.
Lord SAINSBURY Lord SAINSBURY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science is now in a position to announce the Government's future policy towards overseas students, and her views on the proposal submitted to her in September 1977 for the constitution of a commission to deal with the problems created by overseas students. The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I start by expressing my regret that this not unimportant Unstarred Question is being taken so late in the evening and to thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have stayed to take part in the discussion. Several Ministries and Government Departments are concerned, if only to a limited degree, with overseas students. These include the Department of Education and Science, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Department of Employment, the Home Office and, not least, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Overseas students' problems in Britain are not merely a domestic issue but have an international dimension. Although periodic consultation exists between the various Departments, from the point of view of many people concerned with the welfare of overseas students, it is inadequate. From a Departmental point of view, overseas students' problems are a minor part of larger problems which are the responsibility of those Departments and the effect on overseas students of Departmental decisions therefore tends to get overlooked. Therefore, the proposal was made by the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Students' Affairs and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, in close consultation with the British Council, for an establishment of a commission. This would help to ensure a co-ordinated and inter-Departmental approach to all aspects of overseas students' affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who is chairman of UCOSA will no doubt develop the thoughts behind the idea and the composition of the proposed commission. Briefly, it is suggested that the commission should be presided over by an eminent academic figure, with representation from all organisations whose main concern is with student affairs and from relevant educational and student bodies; but, as anyone with experience knows, if positive recommendations are to result from their deliberations, membership of the commission should not be too large. Most important, the commission would need to have access to the relevant Government Departments. According to British Council published statistics, there were nearly 125,000 overseas students, including nurses, in Britain in the academic year 1976–77, of which 83,000 were in public sector education; namely, universities, polytechnics and colleges. So a lot of young people are involved. Overseas students already have fundamental problems simply because they are living in a foreign country. For example, exchange control may suddenly cut off their money; and in their vacations they, unlike most United Kingdom students, can rarely afford to go home. This means that they have to continue paying rent and buying food.
In addition to these basic, common problems, a significant number of overseas students in Britain have other difficulties. These include lack of advice and help on practical training; the difficulty of finding accommodation at a price that they can afford; the extreme complications of Home Office immigration and Department of Employment regulations; obtaining employment in vacations; meeting increasing fees; and also the difficulty of finding a place of study when entering an educational establishment which is limited by quotas. I am sure other speakers in this mini debate will talk about these last two points, but I will refer to them briefly. Many students are able to come and study in Britain only through the sacrifice of their families who do not enjoy the benefits of a welfare state in times of sickness or unemployment. It is too simple as well as unjust to say that those students who can afford to come to Britain are from rich families. Wealth is in any case relative.
In addition to those students who are privately financed, I understand that several classes of students are affected by the quota system. These include: technical co-operation training fellows selected under schemes financed by the Ministry of Overseas Development; Commonwealth scholars; British Council scholars; students financed by overseas governments; students financed by the United Nations; and those financed by the European Community. In view of his great knowledge of the EEC, my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth will no doubt have something to say about the European Community's aim for free movement of students within the Community.
Moving from the European Community to the Commonwealth, some High Commissions and Governments are very greatly concerned about many of the problems that I have mentioned: fees, quotas and the availability of practical training. This is what I meant by the international dimension to which I referred in my opening remarks. There is a further international difficulty, and this involves students who, because of national emergencies, revolutions or other internal upheavals, such as those that have occured in certain African and South American countries, cannot return home in the immediately foreseeable future. Although a lot is done for these students, there is no standing arrangements and there is always a gap between help being needed and help being provided.
Your Lordships will appreciate that it would take up too much time to cover all types of students. For example, I understand that nurse learners from overseas have their own special problems. I should like to stress, however, that we are talking about young people who are at an impressionable age. It is important for them to adapt to our way of life and benefit from their stay in Britain. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that they themselves make a contribution to British educational and cultural life. The fairness of the treatment they have received during their stay here, and the views they form of Britain, will remain with them for a long time after they return home.
I think, therefore, that it is not just a matter of overseas students having particular problems, for thinking in that
608
way may lead to treating the students themselves as problems. It is more a generalised feeling among students, reinforced by their problems, that they are not really welcome in Britain, and that their feelings of warmth towards us when they first arrive prove not to be reciprocated. They are not asking for special facilities but for the removal of some of the obstacles put in their path which inhibit their progress as serious students. If we had a commission, many of the obstacles could be removed, if we had the will to remove them.
After the completion of their training, many of the well-qualified young people may reach positions of influence in their own countries. They can become useful ambassadors for Britain. For example, those who train as engineers may be important advocates of British plant and machinery, to the benefit of our export trade. But much more than the material value of their stay in Britain is the contribution they can make to international understanding. I await with interest to hear what conclusion Her Majesty's Government have reached about the proposed constitution of a commission, and their future policy towards overseas students.
11.32 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the House is returning to a subject which has occupied your Lordships in a previous Unstarred Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, some 2½ years ago, and in several Parliamentary Questions since then. If I may say so, the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is putting this evening is timely, because upon this difficult subject I think a firm statement of Government policy is overdue. The subject is difficult for this reason: no one would deny that the presence of overseas students in this country is of inestimable benefit. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and indeed the other speakers tonight can explain far better than I the benefits which result in young people from all parts of the world wanting to come here to study in our universities and colleges. Let us make no mistake about it: those benefits are enhanced and not lost when those young men and women return to their own countries. I think the case is further strengthened when students come from

609
developing countries, both in terms of what they can subsequently contribute to their own people and in the contribution they can help their own countries to make to trade and international understanding.
The difficulty arises in that resources are limited. Unlike the situation in other countries, support for higher education in the United Kingdom derives from a system of pure grants and not from loans. On 8th June in another place, the Minister of State, Mr. Oakes, in a Written Answer, gave the net cost per place in higher or further education occupied by overseas students as £1,284 at 1977 prices. As I am sure your Lordships will know, the cost per place at the moment for undergraduates is £650 and £850 for post-graduate work for overseas students. But the amount of subsidy for degree and other advanced courses is far greater than those figures would indicate, and I hope that perhaps the noble Baroness who is answering for the Government this evening will be able to give us the most up-to-date figures available and will include, so far as can be assessed, the total cost to the taxpayer of support for fulltime overseas students in higher and further education. If the noble Baroness can give that figure, so far as it can be assessed, it will be considerable, but it is money well spent. And, indeed, do not let us forget that it is offset to a considerable, though unquantifiable, extent by foreign currency brought in by those who come to study here.
Nevertheless, to be realistic, if support for overseas students were to be increased in real terms in the present economic climate, savings would have to be made elsewhere. Because the Department of Education and Science is not directly concerned with the welfare aspects of the lives of overseas students when they are living in this country, or with international relations with the countries of origin of those students, and because the Department has many competing claims on its resources, the fact is that support for overseas students, over the years, has tended to diminish and not to increase. What I am trying to say is that I should feel easier in my own mind about decisions taken on the level of support if those decisions were taken by a Government
610
Department, or a group of Departments, which was able to take all the factors into account. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, so rightly said that there are all these different Government Departments, and it does not seem—and this is the whole point of the second part of his Question—as if there is any cohesive unit for bringing their thoughts together.
Indeed, a simple solution was put forward on the occasion of the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, on 21st January 1976, that the Overseas Development Ministry should become the responsible Department, and the Government undertook to look at the case for that. It may be that such a transfer would create as many problems as it would solve, but I raise this point again not because of any lack of confidence in the Department of Education and Science—not at all—but because, as the ODM is responsible for our foreign relations in terms of aid, so that Department could perhaps bring more continuity into this grant system, so far as overseas students are concerned, which might lead in turn to greater clarity of policy. Noble Lords opposite will forgive me if I say that clarity has not exactly been a feature of Ministers' pronouncements on this subject in recent years.
For instance, on the occasion of the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, who was then Minister of State, acknowledged that noble Lords who had taken part in that debate were united in their rejection of having any kind of quota system, and without giving any undertaking on that occasion the noble Lord commended the option of having a differential fee to finance the extra resources required for the overseas entry. Yet what happened? The following year a quota was introduced, and the Government require local authorities to restrict overseas numbers this year to the 1975–76 level.
The Secretary of State has declared that her policy is to work towards the abolition of the differential. The right honourable lady said that on more than one occasion in a debate on 25th November 1976 in another place. Yet what has happened? The increase for this year, although it is true that the Government have reduced the differential, was a very

611
steep cash increase indeed, and for next year there is to be a flat rate increase of nearly 9 per cent., which in cash terms will once again increase the differential. Because this year's steep fee increases have undoubtedly caused hardship in some cases, the DES has sent a circular to local authorities informing them that cases of hardship can be helped, and I understand that the cost of fee remissions in that cause can be charged against the advanced further education pool. But what will happen? I understand that this assistance is to relate only to the current year, which is hardly likely to be a provision that instils confidence in the long term consistency of Government policy.
I have said that I recognise that resources are limited and total numbers have considerably increased. My criticism is that universities, colleges and local authorities, not to mention overseas students themselves, really are placed in considerable difficulties if Government policy remains obscure.
If I may add one further example, in the paper published by the Department of Education and Science Higher Education into the 1990 s, an assumption is made that overseas student numbers will decline to about 44,000 in 1981–82. I must say—and I genuinely mean it—that that figure came as a total surprise to me. On what, I wonder, is that figure based? Certainly it is below the 10 per cent. recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and his committee as being the minimum desirable for the good health of our further and higher education systems. Surely that figure cannot be in response to the aspirations of young people from abroad. So I am contending that the main cause of concern which lies behind the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, today is that policy is not being made taking all the factors into account, but rather by a series of ad hoc decisions.
The proposal put forward nearly a year ago by UKCOSA and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth for a Standing Commission would certainly bring together practical experience, which would be very valuable in the formation of Government policy. As some eight Government Departments are involved in one way or another with the lives of overseas students when they are living in this country or are entering this country, I
612
should have thought that it was vital that each of those Departments should be represented as full members, if there were to be such a commission. But whether the necessary consultations both between Government Departments and with Departments could be carried out equally effectively without the need to set up yet another Government sponsored organisation I do not know. What is certain is that greater cohesion is needed in policy-making.
One point which emerged clearly from the publication by the Overseas Students' Trust, called Freedom to Study, was that overseas students are unable to be sure about their relations with the different authorities with which they are concerned: that they are bewildered—I think this ties in with what the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said—by the distinction between Government, universities, colleges and local authorities and that when arrangements entered into with universities or colleges are then altered by Government they feel resentment. I do not think that we could have a clearer example of this undesirable process than the fee increases, the consequent diverse hardship arrangements and the really extraordinary device of exempting by circular a Government Department from the law of the land, all of which have occurred during the past year. It is in that context that the Government are giving their reply tonight.
Whatever answer the Minister has to give, I hope that the Government will take away from the debate a realisation of the urgent need for all those involved to believe that decisions are being reached taking all the relevant considerations into account. Only that belief will satisfy those who do so much work for overseas students, and only that belief will enable policy to be made in this admittedly very difficult area with as great a degree of assent as it is possible to attain.
11.44 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, first I should like to echo what I take to be the surprise of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that so far there should have been no reaction of any kind by the Department of Education and Science to the proposals put to the Secretary of State by myself—acting in the name of the United Kingdom

613
Council for Overseas Student Affairs and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth—as long ago as last September, and I repeat as long ago as last September, for the establishment of some form of commission, as has been said, under an independent chairman of distinction in the academic world which would put forward suggestions for general policy as regards overseas students after consultation with all the interested parties.
These proposals were submitted after consultation with very many of those interested parties—including, I may say, members of the Government, unofficially—and we thought there was reason to suppose that they might at least receive sympathetic consideration. It seemed to us then, and it still seems to us. that ordinary, inter-departmental discussions under the aegis of the Department of Education and Science, whose direct interest in overseas students might be thought by some to be less than their concern for the views of local education authorities, is an unsatisfactory way of arriving at a general policy on what admittedly, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said, is a difficult and important problem, directly concerning, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has said, many Departments. Perhaps I might add the British Council to the list he gave. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that there is a case for letting the initiative lie, for obvious reasons, rather with the ODM than with the Department of Education and Science. There is certainly a case for that which should be seriously looked into.
But to get back to the proposal for a commission, it really is not as though we were suggesting anything revolutionary or unconstitutional. The suggestions of the proposed commission would eventually have to be considered by some Cabinet sub-committee, and it is there where the actual decisions on policy would be taken. There is no difference of view about that. Anyhow, despite the fact that we have been assured almost every month since the beginning of the year that a reply from the Secretary of State to my letter of last September would shortly be forthcoming, nothing has so far happened. We are now approaching the end of the Session, after which any reply could not form the basis of any Parliamentary
614
comment, whether in this House or in another place. So, if they so desired, the Government could thus effectively blanket our initiative, at least until next October, when incidentally it is quite possible that there may be a change of Government, in which case the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth would have to start again from scratch in a fresh attempt to have favourable consideration given to their views. That is really a very depressing thought.
So, hoping against hope, we trust that even this evening, just a few days before the end of the Session, the noble Baroness who is to reply to this Question will nevertheless he able to give us some indication of the Government's reaction to the proposal for a commission, which I believe would be supported in principle by nearly all those who have the welfare of overseas students at heart.
There are some other important outstanding points on which we feel entitled to ask the Government for their views before we break up for the Recess. One is the intelligent and well-documented consultative paper entitled Admission to Institutes of Higher Education of Students from other Member States, on which the Brussels Commission asked the Government to comment as long ago as last February. After all, that is some time ago. I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, will dwell on that document in his own intervention. So I shall not do more than observe that Her Majesty's Government must soon take into consideration the proposals there made, if they are ever to formulate any coherent policy as regards the whole problem of overseas students. It is a very important document which the Commission produced, and it arose out of a meeting some little while ago of all the Ministers of Education of the Commonwealth countries.
There is also a paper submitted some two months ago by UKCOSA directly to the Department of Education and Science, entitled Fees for the 'Eighties. In that paper UKCOSA, while expressing a preference for the phasing out of fees for the majority of overseas students, suggested that if that document was not acceptable—and no doubt it would not

615
be—that if such fees are to be maintained, the following rules should be applied: One, full fee awards for private overseas students unable to meet the cost of tuition fees, but able to maintain themselves, who come from developing parts of the world; students to be nominated by the receiving institutions. Two, full scholarships under technical co-operation programmes and complete funding for refugee students. Three, reciprocal fee arrangements for students from countries within the European Economic Community, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Thomson will elaborate. Four, full cost courses by special arrangement. Five, identical fees covering the same proportion of average unit costs as at present (that is, approximately 20 per cent.) should be charged to British and overseas students.
In this approach UKCOSA naturally recognises that the injection of new money would be essential; we recognise that. They also appreciate that the Government could not be expected to accept an open-ended commitment in terms of total numbers of overseas students; we admit that, too. Nevertheless, they would hope and expect that a national planning would he conducted flexibly by encouraging institutions to make the necessary adjustments when the local proportion of overseas students to home students is particularly high or particularly low.
UKCOSA looks forward to an early indication of Government policy, and, above all perhaps, to an opportunity to discuss these complex issues in further detail before decisions are taken. Surely this is a reasonable request. So far, however, apart from an expression of Departmental interest, which was in itself welcome, there has been no response from the Department of Education and Science, and the holiday is almost upon us. For all these reasons we are eagerly looking forward to the speech of the noble Baroness who is to wind up this short debate. I can hardly believe that after all the assurances that we have had her observations will be entirely negative.
Increasingly, critics of our system of government—I do not say that I necessarily share this view—are saying that the system tends to be dominated by what one might call an unapproachable bureaucracy over which Ministers, I fear, often exercise only a nominal control. It may be that
616
these officials really believe that the present arrangements for coping with overseas students are incapable of improvement. Perhaps they do. If they believe that, they can believe anything. I repeat, I can only hope that that loyal supporter of the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, Will have more success than I have had in inducing them at least to discuss the possibility of reform, particularly in the light of the views of all those noble Lords who are left to speak at this late hour and feel, as I am sure they do, that the present system of dealing with overseas students is both deplorable and self-defeating.
11.53 p.m.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, I agree with almost every word that has been said so far, and I think we should be particularly grateful for the sympathetic speech from the Conservative Front Bench. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, making an equally forceful speech when I made my maiden speech on a similar Motion about two years ago, when I was a student myself. I agree with so much of what has been said that rather than he a feeble echo I will in a moment confine myself to two particular points. namely, fees and quotas.
My main impression on the subject of overseas students is still partly the same as it was two years ago, of the very fragmented and unco-ordinated approach which is applied to this problem by the Government. I certainly support the call for a commission which can take a more rounded and long-term view of the matter. So often decisions on overseas students appear to be taken by default as the last piece of a jigsaw puzzle to be fitted in with little choice as to its shape. A much greater amount of certainty and stability is required in the affairs of overseas students. In a world where he who makes the most noise or trouble seems to have the best chance of being listened to, it must be remembered that overseas students themselves have little direct political power or influence, either in the ballot box or in other ways. Thus I think it more than fair that the Government should be prepared to accept the limited but formalised power of the suggested commission.

617
I should now like to comment briefly on two aspects, fees and quotas. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, who is to reply, can give us the Government's latest views on these, and particularly, as far as I am concerned, the longer-term view. As regards fees, two years ago it seemed that the Government might be opening up a huge differential between the fees of home and of overseas students. Now that the differential is more modest and the latest proposed increases for both are only keeping up with inflation, I personally feel that concentrating energy on persuading the Government to produce a parity in fees is misplaced. I think that it is an easily identifiable and perhaps almost symbolic difference between the two sets of fees, and thus it is a ready target for campaign in an area where there are more intangibles and, I maintain, more serious problems. This would seem to me to be similar to mounting a campaign in the Health Service to abolish prescription charges. With enough effort such a campaign might succeed, but at the end of the day, as I am claiming as regards students fees, for me all the more important and difficult problems would still be unsolved.
Although I am in favour of parity for home and overseas student fees, I do not think that it is a principle worth using a lot of energy fighting for, especially as for most of the home students what appears to be a certain level of fee is simply a book entry recording the movement of the Government's hand from one of their pockets to another.
As regards quotas, in the debate two years ago I think that I was the only speaker who suggested quotas as an alternative to very high fees. I certainly do not support the Government's attempt at regressive quotas or the fining and cutbacks by some local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, can tell us what the Government have learned from their recent attempts at recommending quota levels of overseas students to universities. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors said that the recommended quotas should be ignored and that the existing non-discriminatory selection practice should be maintained. If the Government choose to pursue quotas, could they not use a more gentle approach
618
and try to obtain voluntary co-operation from the universities, while having a plan flexible enough to make sense to individual institutions as well as being fair nationally? "Quota" is such an emotive term, almost like "means test", that if something like it is to be instituted an extremely sensitive and fair approach would seem to be needed right down the line, from the UGC, the Vice-Chancellors and staff to student level. I hope that quotas will not be needed, but if a method of limitation has to be available it seems to me that a sensitive quota system is preferable to financial discrimination.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about the longer term as I am someone who might have to live in that future. I heard again the other day that phrase about Britain losing an empire but not yet finding a role. Part of that role now must surely be a contribution to the world, and particularly the developing world, through our transmission of knowledge and skills and, in part, our culture and educational experience. It is to our benefit, and the benefit of those we seek to help, that this Government and the next should not be afraid to make generous provision for overseas students.
I am not saying that any foreigners educated here will automatically be our friends and let us not flatter ourselves too much—part of our attraction is our language, our lingua franca—but the influence for good that we can generate through education is incalculable. I hope that the commission recommended in this Motion will be able to serve as a continual reminder to any short-sighted politicians. I hope that the Government will accept some form of commission.
12 Midnight
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I think that the House must be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for raising this Question. I hope it will not be thought that the brevity of my speech is commensurate with my interest. As it is so late and as, after a very busy day, so many noble Lords have stayed here, I propose to take no longer than five minutes because so much data and detail have been given in facts and figures.
However, I should like to point out that the Question is:

619
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Secretary of State for Education and Science is now in a position to announce the Government's future policy"
The second part of the Question asks for:
"her views on the proposal submitted to her in September 1977 for the constitution of a commission".
These points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to whom we are all grateful for the work that he has done with the student organisation, with which we all know that he has been connected for a long time. I should also like to say here that outside of the university and polytechnic students, nurses, too, are of paramount importance. Many of us, including myself, are grateful for the attention that we have received from trainee and fully-qualified nurses of all colours who have come from all parts of the Commonwealth to serve this nation. Secondly, for heaven's sake do not let our students from the Commonwealth—and I do not want to upset the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who may think a little differently from me on the Common Market—be treated any differently from those from the Common Market.
I do not want people and parents of today to forget that when we had to fight the spirit of Nazism it was the Commonwealth fathers of these students, and in some cases their grandfathers, who came to us in two World Wars to protect what we considered was the miracle of the British democracy which had been built up over many thousands of years. It may be thought sentimental, but the fact is that had we not had that manpower, of whatever race and from whatever part of the Empire, as we used to call it in the bad old days, or the Commonwealth as we call it today, England would not be in the position it is today and neither would Europe. In its way their contribution was as much a contribution as the Battle of Stalingrad—it was needed in Burma and other places.
Secondly, it is penny-wise and pound foolish to forget that these people being educated here in the polytechnics and universities, or, in our ceramic polytechnics in the pottery or mining areas, return as ambassadors for this country. I have met them all over the world. I shall reiterate my meeting some years ago, when travelling by train from Peking to
620
Hanoi, with a Chinese engineer who was 77 years of age, who spoke good English—and we are all Chinese Marxists now—and who was drawn in by Mao to help build the new bridge over the YangtseKiang River at Wuhan. I asked him where he was going and what trade he was in; he replied that he was an engineer. I asked him when he qualified and he said, "In 1910, at the Imperial College of Science, London, with the best British engineers in the world".
In Rangoon I met some of the head Government officials of the Burmese and two of them spoke with a Welsh intonation as heavy as mine, and I was brought up to speak Welsh. I asked them where they were trained and they said at Cardiff and Aberystwyth Universities. But they were ambassadors for the British way of life. What is the matter with our Government? What has gone wrong, not just with one Government but with Governments of many political Parties, that they are neglecting the value of training these people?
Do not get worried; I am looking at the clock and I have been speaking for four minutes. The international argument has been given by UNESCO:
"… in the interchange between advanced countries (principally the U.K., France, West Germany, Canada and the U.S.) the U.K. annually takes about 11,000 students and sends abroad about 12,500, mostly to North America"—
that way we get a quid pro quo—
"where students are more heavily subsidised, often receiving also maintenance scholarships, which we very rarely offer. The U.K. takes about as many students from poorer countries as do France and Germany. But we are the only Western European country (apart from Eire) which discriminates against overseas students and we have by far the highest fees".
This must stop and we must remember our heritage and the contribution that these people make.
The five minutes is up and I have finished. But when the noble Baroness gets up I hope she will have something nice to say because, like Cordelia:
"Her voice was ever soft,
Gentle, and low, an excellent thing in women.".
12.5 a.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am honoured to be placed between a Welshman and a Scotsman in this debate. I should like to thank the noble Lord for

621
putting this Question on the Order Paper, and also to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, for doing this extra work. Would she convey to her noble friend Lady Stedman our regrets that she is not well enough to be here tonight, and our hopes that she makes a quick recovery?
I want to concentrate on the importance of the learning of English. It has been stated by the noble Viscount—who we are pleased to hear again—that English is the lingua franca of the world. English is of essential importance to the world, to create an understanding between the many peoples of different nations. This common language is doing a great deal to help better understanding and to keep the peace of the world. Now that China and Indonesia have taken English as their second language we shall have all the major nations speaking this language in the future. This is very important indeed.
The knowledge of English has been spread not only by us but by other countries. I have attended three major Commonwealth Conferences: one in Jamaica, one in Malaysia and one in Nigeria. What made them so different from all the other international conferences I have attended was the fact that no interpreters at all were needed, and between sessions we could all talk happily and easily together. Many of those attending had had their higher education in this country and, furthermore, we had similar backgrounds in regard to the educational processes. English is also one of the five languages recognised as the official languages at the United Nations, the others being Russian, Spanish, French, and Chinese. It is also one of the two official languages of the Council of Europe.
Furthermore, other countries are going for self-help. I have been to Singapore on more than one occasion, and there they have a splendid Regional English Language Centre. I have visited this twice. It is a South East Asia Ministers of Education organisation. The members are, it is interesting to note, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. They also have associate members in Australia, New Zealand and France, who have been
622
associate members since 1973. This idea was conceived in 1966 and came to fruition only two years later in 1968. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be pleased that they have a woman director, who is very efficient indeed.
The object of this centre is the training of teachers to teach English, and to instruct them in the application of the theory to the practical problems of English language teaching and learning. What is very interesting in their brochure are the words,
" to develop a spirit of regional co-operation in educational matters".
Here they try to do it through a common language, which again is English. The standard of the tutors was very high, though they came not only from this country but also from the various countries in which they were teaching students.
Surely it is up to us, even in our economic difficulties, to take a good share in the training and teaching of young people in the future. It is not just those who go to university, because there are nearly 11,000 in this country at the present time who are studying for their GCEs and CSEs. The Race Relations Act 1976 stated that the establishment of separate quotas for overseas students was illegal. But, as the noble Baroness may remember, unfortunately the Secretary of State for Education and Science has invoked Section 41 of the Act to enable the numbers of overseas students to be reduced under arrangements approved by her. I was a little surprised she did that, because, after all, she taught in Nigeria and must have seen how good it was to have that exchange of students. I sent a number of students when I was doing social work in Malaysia and I had an opportunity to see them on their return and observe the benefits they had received.
As I understand it, if we go on at our present pace, we shall be reducing the level from 83,000 to 68,000 in the years 1979 and 1980. In a document I read about the National Union of Students in 1977, it was said that it would cost an extra £25 million for overseas students not covered by scholarships. I read in The Times this morning that we will be spending £30 million on gipsies; local authorities will be spending that money on providing sites for them. While I am

623
not in the least against doing what we can for gipsies (I attended an international gipsy conference and while it was most entertaining, I could not understand everything because the interpreters were not very good, and there were real Romanies there), I am not altogether certain the gipsies want to be moved about and put on special sites. However, if we can spend that amount of money, we might put it to better use at the present time. I understand there is plenty of room in the universities and polytechnics and we know that many teachers are finding it difficult to get jobs.
I have concentrated in these few remarks on the English language, but of course there are other professions and trades, teaching in which this country can enable the students on their return to their countries to improve the standards of their fellow citizens. While it is well to remember the old saying, "Trade follows the flag", in this case we might say "Trade will go with the students". It is not a question of being generous to the students because there is considerable spin-off; we get so much back, not only in friendship but in contracts. It is natural that a student in Germany will later buy German products and instruments and so on. In replying to UKCOSA, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said:
"Individuals who consider they are facing exceptional hardship"—
this is about students"—
"and are not covered by the Government aid programme, should draw their problems to the attention of their college and the local education authority. Any extension of the fee support scheme at the ODM is a matter for that Department".
That shows a division; first, one must go to the local authority and, if they turn one down, one may be able to go to the Department. Noble Lords may remember the difficulty the Biafra students had. I was a Member of Parliament at the time and I experienced great difficulty getting support for them to enable them to continue their tuition in this country.
UKCOSA has already reported that the very high fees, the cutback and the stringent control of numbers has affected students adversely. That is worrying, and while I realise it is not possible for us to have entirely open doors, the
624
Government should be a little more flexible. To use fees as a deterrent is unfortunate because it means education and training being for the rich overseas students at the expense of the poor. And what will happen to those already here? They may be in the same plight as the Biafrans when their Government even cut off their supplies. They may have to return before their studies are completed. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has stated:
"If the demand from home students increases on the scale envisaged, universities can be expected to respond as they have always done by maintaining opportunities for university study".
Even the University Grants Committee says it can manage 3 per cent. more students from this country in the universities. The Grub Institute report points out that we have one in ten students in higher education and one in three in academic education. The Government will have seen, and the suggestions have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the new fees policy put forward by UKCOSA. This was set out in May 1978 and perhaps the noble Baroness may be able to comment on that tonight.
I have worked with students overseas and in this country, both civilians and students at Dartmouth who stayed with me always for Christmas when I was living in Devonport. I am now the working and elected president of the International Friendship League. We try to give special attention to students and give them a welcome. We are shortly opening another hostel for them in Gloucester and the chairman happens to be a Guyanese. We are very proud to have a Guyanese as a future branch chairman of Gloucester. We are opening that hostel on 19th August, and if the noble Baroness happens to be there we would be very pleased to welcome her.
12.16 a.m.
Lord THOMSON of MONIFIETH: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury deserves the thanks of the House, and indeed of many people outside the House concerned with this important matter, for initiating this debate and seeking a declaration of Government policy before we rise for the Summer Recess and perhaps for a General Election. For my part I warmly support his proposal

625
for a national commission on overseas students.
My own interest in the subject lies partly, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said, on the European Community front, but it lies equally in the fact that some years ago I was one of those who helped to found the Council for Education in the Commonwealth and was later the last holder of the post of Commonwealth Secretary. I certainly found in those days ample firsthand evidence of how much our success in this country in creating a multiracial Commonwealth was due to the fact that such a high proportion of the leaders of the new Commonwealth had their education here in this country and had firsthand experience of our liberal, humane and tolerant society.
When I went round the Commonwealth last year to assist in the preparation of the Heads of Government Conference, I was struck by the number of political leaders who, during their visit here for that Conference, wanted to renew their educational links in one way or another; to go back to the Inn of Court where they had studied. One leader simply wanted to re-visit the landlady of his student days, a Scottish lady whose behaviour to a then obscure African student teacher has certainly done as much for Commonwealth understanding as any of us who are politicians.
Indeed, as Commonwealth Secretary I long ago came to the conclusion that Commonwealth relations were much too important a matter to be left to the politicians. It is in the sharing of a common educational experience here in the United Kingdom by teachers, lawyers, doctors, engineers and journalists, that has been one of the essential elements of the Commonwealth. We have lost some of that sense of the importance of this in the years that have passed since a Conservative Government took the lead in establishing the Commonwealth Scholarship Scheme or a Labour Government took the lead in setting up the Commonwealth Secretariat.
I fully recognise the complex changes that have taken place since those days, the pressures on public expenditure in the country; the natural pride in new educational institutions in the developing
626
countries; the argument that educationally it is more cost-effective overseas than here; the danger of a brain drain from the developing countries or illegal immigration and of developing countries subsidising Britain through their educated people staying here instead of going back. These are all very real problems that have developed and have to be recognised.
No one, I am sure, would accuse the present Secretary of State for Education and Science of having anything other than a great compassion for the people who come from developing countries and a great deal of knowledge and experience of them. But the truth is that the way the Government are organised—as the Overseas Student Trust, in its booklet that has been referred to, emphasised—the Department of Education and Science is concerned for all education in England and Wales, while the Ministry of Overseas Development covers the entire United Kingdom aid programme which sponsors students from the developing world. They are only a small part. The situation is similar with the other eight Departments that have been mentioned.
The case for a national commission is that it would be able to look at these problems as a whole instead of having each separate Department concerned with its own interests. I believe that with the help of representatives from the various bodies specially concerned with the affairs of overseas students, the commission would act as a point of co-ordination for these conflicting departmental views. The British tradition of responsibility for overseas students is, I believe, too wide, too far ranging and too crucial to be decided on a narrow, domestic departmental basis.
Apart from helping to suggest a coherent national strategy for the immediate future, the commission, I believe, would also be able to give balanced advice on two important longer-term developments. The first is the place of the overseas student population in this country in the 'eighties and 'nineties, when the numbers of those of conventional student age in this country will be falling. One noble Lord mentioned the Government report on student numbers in the 'eighties and' nineties. It is rather paradoxical that at a time when there is concern about empty lecture rooms and even talk about redundant universities,

627
we should be getting into a mood of acquiescing in a reduction of the number of overseas students. Like other noble Lords, I am puzzled about the estimates of 44,000 regarding a fall in the number of overseas students in the years ahead. I personally believe that a more imaginative and sensitive policy in the future towards our overseas students might well make a useful contribution not only towards their welfare and towards the wider world issues which we have been discussing, but also towards making adequate use of our universities in the years ahead.
The second major challenge for the future about which I want to say a few words is the new European Community dimension to our national existence. Education has been a major element in creating a Commonwealth consciousness. In the same way I believe that educational exchanges within the European Community can play a big part in creating a consciousness of being a citizen of Europe. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned, the European Commission has recently published a document on the admission to institutions of higher education of students from other Member States. It is a little sad to see from that document that the United Kingdom acts as host to only about a quarter of the numbers of Community students received in French and German places of higher education. Very nearly twice as many United Kingdom students go to Community universities, compared to the number that we receive here.
I personally find it even sadder to note that Britain, along with Ireland and Belgium, are in the minority who charge Community students more than they charge home students. I think it is difficult to reconcile this situation with our obligations as Members of the European Community. It is surely inconceivable not to make an arrangement for equal treatment for Community students as compared with students from the Commonwealth and from other developing countries. Surely there is room in higher Community education for a big and beneficial two-way flow of students between Britain and other Community countries. I hope that my noble friend in her reply will be able to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and give a Government reaction to the Community
628
report, which he tells us has been awaited since February.
In conclusion, I believe that the fact that we have had to have this debate tonight and that it is a repetition of a debate of similar character two and a half years ago is a sign that we in this country have become much more introspective and insular over the pas 10 or 15 years. This affects our attitude to students from the Commonwealth and now to students from the European Community. I personally hope that this is only a temporary aberration, brought about by current economic pressures, from what I regard as the deeply-rooted British tradition of being outward-looking in these matters. One reason why I feel strongly that the establishment of the National Commission would help is that I believe it would help to restore us to our former traditional attitudes in this matter. I therefore very much hope that, when my noble friend comes to reply, the Government will be able to give a sympathetic response to the proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury.
12.25 a.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I should like to echo the gratitude which has been expressed by other noble Lords to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for raising this truly important matter. Lord Sainsbury said in his opening remarks that he detected among the overseas students in this country at the present time a certain feeling of not being wanted. I do not disagree with that diagnosis. I think that the overseas students are deeply disturbed. What I should like to say, however, is that I think this frame of mind is comparatively recent. I have spent more than half a century teaching in an institution which caters for a very substantial proportion of overseas students from both the richer and the poorer parts of the world. On the whole, I would say that, in the past, the mood of those overseas students who passed through our hands was not unsatisfactory. Indeed, if one travels about the world, as one tends to do in later years, one is gratified, if not surprised, to find the incredible degree of loyalty which exists in the breasts of former alumni, at any rate of the institution where I have had the good fortune to be a teacher.

629
The trouble has arisen in the last few years, and I regret to say that it has arisen because of the actions of Government. It arises, for instance, because of all this talk about compulsory quotas. What a distasteful conception this is ! How grateful we must all be to the vice-chancellors, who have repudiated the suggestion! Not only is it distasteful: it is immensely short-sighted. It would be difficult, I think, to over-estimate the gain, both direct and indirect, of the opportunities that we have had in the last half century of entertaining those who did us the honour of coming to study in this country rather than elsewhere.
Secondly, there is discrimination. It is possible, I suppose, to get too indignant about discrimination. It is practised in some other parts of the world. I do not think that it causes very much trouble in the United States, where different States discriminate between native-born students and students from other parts of the Union. But certainly it is something which is alien to our traditions.
I, personally, feel a certain sense of shame that we at the moment discriminate against students from overseas. I think of the students that I myself have had in the past. My thoughts, as I was listening to the noble Lord who spoke last, lit upon the recollection of Dr. Emminger, who did the London School of Economics the honour of coming to listen to our lectures in the early 'thirties. How ashamed I should have felt in registering Dr. Emminger, if that had fallen to my lot (which it did not) and saying: "You are German; therefore you must pay x per cent. higher than if you came from Wales or Scotland or Northumbria or London". To me, this is an alien conception. It is a conception which, whether they can afford it or not, is something which causes deep resentment on the part of the students from overseas.
The main problem at this moment is the problem of fees, with or without discrimination. This is a very complex question. I have no doubt at all that there is much to be said in general, provided that in other ways hardship is avoided, for some raising of the proportion of universities' income which comes from fees, as it did in the inter-war period. As regards present arrange
630
ments, I do not find there is all that falling off in applications for admission to university in this country from the richer parts of the world. But there is real and genuine hardship among the people who come from the poorer parts of the world. I suggest, respectfully, that it is really a disgraceful thing that Government action in this respect should force universities to trench upon their already squeezed and limited funds to remove the hardships which are being suffered under their noses every day of the week.
That leads me to the last point that I should like to make. I am extremely attracted by the idea which was thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the chief responsibility for co-ordinating the sort of policy which has been the main desideratum of the speeches delivered this evening should fall on those responsible for foreign aid. It is possible to take many views about foreign aid and there are some forms of foreign aid which, in my judgement, have been very largely wasted; but I am quite certain that we do not waste aid to the extent that we spend it on educating people from the poorer countries who would not otherwise be able to come here at all. Therefore it seems to me an extremely good idea that the aid-giving authority should be the focus of this commission.
In my experience in Government service, commissions which are constituted by eminent people drawn from different departments, all on a plane of equality, tend to be rather on the fringe. It is most essential that there should be a central responsibility somewhere attaching to some definite Department. Serious thought deserves to be given to the suggestion that in so far as we try to co-ordinate our arrangements in regard to these visitors from abroad, the coordination should be initiated by those responsible for aid.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I ask forgiveness for intervening. I will be very brief, and I apologise to my noble friend who is to answer. But I merely want to stand up and he counted on this issue. I agree with everything that has been said, and I merely want to reinforce it by saying that in all my experience of about 30 years I have been trying to promote the sharing of knowledge

631
and skills throughout the world. The easiest, cheapest and most effective form is the kind of education that we should provide, and it should be overseas aid. I do not care whether it is Europe—and I say this to my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth—or to developing countries, it is the best investment that we can make. This is one way in which we secure, in terms of the future and communications not only from one country to another, but from generation to another, and it is absolutely essential.
12.36 a.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I thought that I ought to begin by explaining to the House that my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge is abroad on official duties and as the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has said, my noble friend Lady Stedman, our other Government spokesman, is unwell. I am most grateful for the good wishes which I shall pass on. I hope that the House does not feel there is any discourtesy in my taking over my noble friend's Unstarred Question. I rather dreaded it; I thought I was going to be jolly tired by the time we came to it, but I have seldom enjoyed a debate more. It has been a magnificent debate.
It is a tradition in this House to thank the noble Lord who raises a Question like this, but in this case it is much more than an empty compliment. The fact that at nearly 20 minutes to one o'clock in your Lordships' House, after an extremely hard day, we should have such a marvellous contribution from so many experienced people, and that it was all elicited from your Lordships' House by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury, who organised it, is a great tribute. If I may say so, it proves very much—if anybody doubted it—the enormous care and concern that there is in this House, and indeed by the Government, for overseas students.
I should like to make it clear at once, and at the beginning, that the Government entirely share the views expressed about overseas students and their needs, and that we regard it as of very great importance. I should like to say once again that the presence of overseas students in our colleges and universities is wholly welcome, and that is the message that we should like
632
to go out tonight from this debate. Of course, the opportunity to study here is of enormous value to the students themselves and to their own countries, and, as many noble Lords have said—especially the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—it is of special value to the developing countries. As most noble Lords have suggested, the benefits are very far from one-sided. The noble Baroness stressed that. We were all very moved by her description of the English-speaking school in Malaysia, and we all know of her work there and are deeply grateful for it. In fact, the largest group of students in the United Kingdom comes from Malaysia. There are 12,000 of them, as the noble Baroness knows.
I must say at this point that it will probably be impossible for me to answer every point that has been raised tonight because it has been an extremely "meaty" debate. We have not just had sentimental vapourings; it has been full of figures and, for me, very difficult questions to answer. I hope that, if I leave anybody out, they will forgive me. What everybody stressed was that overseas students enrich the institutions they attend, and they do so in many ways; intellectually, culturally and in many other ways. Working and living alongside students from other societies helps to prepare our own people for the increasing inter-dependency of the world in which we are all going to live, and especially the generations coming after us. They gain from working with overseas students in a way they could not possibly do if they were left in an exclusively domestic atmosphere. And of course there are the other benefits referred to: future trading relations and our external relations generally. I was very much struck by what my noble friends Lord Davies of Leek and Lord Thomson of Monifieth said about the amazing number of political leaders one meets going around the world who have had their education here, and of what tremendous importance this is.
So there is no question but that we are all deeply concerned about this. But it is absolutely true that very few people could be entirely happy that all is well in the situation, and tonight's debate has made that very clear. I hope that noble Lords will accept the fact that it gives the Government absolutely no pleasure to restrict the number of overseas students, for example: nor does the fee differential between home and overseas students in

633
any way lighten our hearts. Nobody believes, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rather hinted, that everything is perfect; and I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that nobody likes quotas: none of us wants them.
In answer to the very serious and thoughtful speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, who also referred to quotas, I am afraid I cannot give him the answer he wants. It is too early to say how the policy will actually work out, since the quota applies to the academic year of 1978–9, which has not yet properly started. Nobody likes it at all. But it is important to recognise—and this has been overlooked, I think,—that in the early 1970s the number of overseas students was 32,000. The resources allocated for the next academic year are for 72,000. That is a very great increase in less than a decade, and one which is proportionately far greater than the overall increase in student numbers in that period. So in all the circumstances I think we are doing a great deal for overseas students, though I may repeat again that none of us thinks it is perfect or even enough.
I was particularly touched by the speech of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury and by the humanity with which he described the distress in which many of the students live. As the director of a charitable education trust for ten years, I administered their grants and looked after their families, and I know only too well the difficulties they experience. I may say that the DES are issuing further documents on welfare. We have had much valuable advice from UKCOSA on what to put into our documents, and we are doing all we can.
I think that almost every noble Lord referred to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for a commission. I should like to say frankly and at once that I can well understand the sense of frustration which the noble Lord feels that the Government have not been able up to now to give a clear response to the proposals. But this is not because the proposals have been pigeon-holed or overlooked. It is simply because it is an extremely valuable contribution: we want to think it out. We want to be sure that we get it right.
I entirely understand the attraction of the idea of having some cohesive—I
634
think that was the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—overall body to collect all the problems together, and to have somehwere where the students could go. But there are many difficulties which have to be resolved in regard to that. For example, we have to be quite clear as to whether the Commission would be purely advisory, whether it would have some involvement in policy-making—perhaps even an executive role. There are many implications for Ministers in the exercise of their responsibilities in that regard. There is, too, the question of the structure of the commission. Two or three noble Lords mentioned the fascinating document Freedom to Study, which was prepared by the Grub Institute for the Overseas Students Trust, and that made some interesting comments on this point of structure. I do not necessarily think that the comments were right, but this shows that there are many differing views. Just because the proposal is important and extremely valuable, so it is important that we get it right. Above all, I am sure it is right that this proposal should be considered in the context of the wider and more fundamental review of our policy about overseas students, which the Government are now carrying out.
Of course, we are aware of the urgency; I should not want anybody to think that we were not. There are so many things that we want to do. My noble friend Lord Thomson referred to the EEC students. We have a little more than 2,000 EEC students, while we send 3,000 there. That is quite true. The Government are very conscious of our duties to the EEC, and this figures in all our thinking in the study that we are making now. But I must again stress that we have 72,000 students from abroad—that is, about 10 per cent.—and very few countries, if any, do anything on this scale. We also want to consider our students from the Commonwealth and from the developing nations, perhaps as the first priority. Perhaps I ought not to give actual priorities, but I think a lot of us feel that.
I must come back to the fact that we have to look at the scale of provision for overseas students in the context of overall provision. Universities and colleges, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, knows, face growing demands from home students,

635
and the Government have to decide from time to time upon the total of resources which can be made available to these institutions. I am sure the House will accept that overseas students cannot be considered in isolation from these wider considerations. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Sainsbury himself said that they must be considered together. So it is all the more important that what we spend on overseas students is spent in the best possible ways.
Apart from the 10,000 or so who come under selective support schemes from the ODM, the FCO and the British Council, which the noble Lord mentioned, the majority, as we all know, come on their own initiative. That, of course, is not at all a bad thing in itself, but it means that we cannot be sure whether we are meeting the real needs, either of the poorest countries or of the students, and that is a particularly important matter which noble Lords will, I am sure, be glad to know we are paying special attention to in our general review.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, wanted to discuss figures of subsidies and fees. The costs per student vary very much by institutions, subjects and so on, but the fees recoup some 25 to 30 per cent. of the total. I should like to remind him, as I am sure he knows, that the total subsidy to overseas students in one year is about £100 million, which is not at all to be despised in our present economic situation. We have, as I have said, been examining the whole question and our study is almost complete, so that we are not in any sense proceeding along a series of ad hoc decisions, which worried the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
There will not be any sudden announcement of new policies in this field, because when we are ready to put out our proposals we must have the fullest consultation with all the educational interests and with all the bodies, especially concerned with overseas students, just as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked, and we shall do that before reaching any final decisions. I cannot say exactly when this consultation will begin, but I can assure the House that it will be very soon. We are considering the proposal for a Commission entirely within this context.
There is a great deal which I should like to say in reply to the remarks which
636
various noble Lords have made. May I refer to the figures which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and by my noble friend Lord Thomson of Monifieth as appearing in the document Higher Education into the 1990s. The figure for overseas students of 44,000 is comparable with the figure of 66,000, because the difference relates to those on non-advanced courses.
I do not think that I ought to go into very much more detail now, although I will do so if any noble Lord feels that I have left out anything special. If I may return to the central theme of the debate, there are difficulties involved in getting the proposals for a commission exactly right, and I am sure that it is right for them to be considered within the context of the wider and more fundamental review of policy which is taking place.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, am I to understand that before the Government decide definitely what kind of commission they want they could have further discussions, unofficially, with UKCOSA and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that they could. What I was really describing at that moment were the consultations about the wider studies that we are doing and that we shall send out to institutions, colleges, universities, local authorities and so on. However, as the noble Lord knows, we have very close contacts with UKCOSA. We are always grateful for their advice. We welcome suggestions, and I am sure that we can discuss the matter officially, unofficially, ministerially and in any other way that the noble Lord wants.
I think that I ought to come to a close; I have been speaking for a quarter of an hour. It has been a very valuable debate, and I am not just saying that lightly. Despite the hour, I welcome very warmly all the speeches which have been made. I deeply regret only that the debate had to take place just before the Government could put forward their considered views on the whole subject, but I repeat my assurance that they will not be long delayed and that the Government look forward to what will undoubtedly be a very lively debate when the consultations begin.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on Recommitment) with Amendments.
WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee (on Recommitment) with Amendments.