Lords Sitting of 28 June 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester
The Lord Grenfell—Took the Oath.

ANGLO-SPANISH RELATIONS
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the progress of the continuing dialogue between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of His Majesty the King of Spain on matters of mutual interest.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the Government, who attach importance to friendly relations with Spain, keep in close touch with the Spanish Government on matters of mutual interest. But there is no formalised dialogue.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that imaginative and most helpful reply. However, I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will maintain the same level of priority on this matter as did the previous Administration.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot answer for the previous Administration. I am not in a position to say what particular priority it attached to these conversations, but we certainly think that continued relations with the Spanish Government are of great importance.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord is surely aware that the previous Administration addressed itself to two aspects of the British-Spanish relationship. The first and most important was the emergence into democracy after 40 years of Fascism of an
1604
important European country and the need to do everything possible in Britain and Europe to encourage that process. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has reminded us, there are outstanding specific questions like Gibraltar's air space and other aspects of that particular question which need continuous and assiduous negotiation with the Spanish Government.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, of course, my Lords, we attach great importance to both those matters.

GRUNWICK: ACAS APPEAL COSTS
3.8 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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, in the light of the undertaking given on behalf of the previous Government on 17th January 1978, they are now in a position to disclose the cost to public funds of the appeal to this House by ACAS in the Grunwick case.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I understand from ACAS that the question of costs is still before the taxing master, and it therefore does not yet know the cost to public funds of its appeal to this House in the Grunwick case.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I should like to ask him two questions. First, why—in view of the long lapse of time since the ACAS appeal failed—has taxation taken place so slowly? Secondly, in the meanwhile will my noble friend and the Government exercise their benign influence to restrain ACAS from plunging into further expensive and unsuccessful litigation?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as regards my noble friend's first point, my information is that the company concerned has not yet submitted an account of its

1605
costs to the taxing master. I understand that, when it does so, there will be a speedy resolution. However, the House must appreciate that, under the separation of powers, that is not properly a matter for the Government. As regards the second point raised by my noble friend, the ACAS provision in this respect is under the Employment Protection Act, and we are engaged in reviewing the workings of that Act at present.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the role of ACAS is an extremely valuable one in the whole matter of industrial relations, and that ACAS itself, before embarking on proceedings, takes the advice, as a rule, of the legal advisers to Her Majesty's Government?
The Earl of GOWRIE: Yes, my Lords.
Lord McCARTHY: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that ACAS, in fact, is in an impossible position as a result of a series of decisions and the ambiguity of the Act, and that it is driven to go to the law in this way?
The Earl of GOWRIE: Yes, my Lords; but I hardly think that that is the fault of the present Government.
Lord WEDDERBURN of CHARLTON: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance to your Lordships' House without any equivocation, that no pressure will be brought by the Government upon ACAS not to pursue its legal rights in the courts, as was rather suggested by the noble Lord who asked the Question?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, my noble friend can, of course, speak for himself, but he made no such suggestion as I understood it.

BNOC: ADVISORY RULE
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 will now terminate the
1606
role of the British National Oil Corporation as an adviser to the Government.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government are currently undertaking a complete review of the activities of the British National Oil Corporation, including its advisory role. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the outcome of this review.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but I should like to ask whether the Government could bear in mind in their review that the BNOC was given a completely contradictory role? It was meant to be a thoroughly commercial company, on the one hand, and yet it had access to Government secrets as Government adviser, on the other hand. Should not that contradiction be examined very closely, especially in view of the presence on the BNOC Board of two members of the staff of the Department of Energy?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, we are sharply aware of that contradiction, and that is one of the reasons why my right honourable friend is undertaking the review.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has said, is it not a fact that the BNOC's 51 per cent. participation does not give it an overriding role as regards policy decisions and it acts only as an adviser and is not concerned with regulating contracts? That, of course, is in the BNOC's annual report as a statement of fact.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the House will have noticed that there is a Motion down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to debate the BNOC, among other matters, next week, and I shall be replying to that point then.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, is the Minister aware that every one of the noble Earl's questions has the implication of diminishing the revenue, increasing PSBR, increasing foreign profits, and burdening the balance of payments?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, there are many assumptions in the noble Lord's supplementary question with which the Government do not agree.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most other countries which have a national oil company take great care to ensure that it cannot possibly influence the Government's regulatory role in giving licences? Can he comment on the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that BNOC is whiter than white in this matter, inasmuch as it must assume that those civil servants on the Board of BNOC live in a kind of purdah and do not know what is going on?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, that is a little wide of the original Question, but it is certainly true that the Government have every confidence in the Department of Energy in acting as an adviser to it on these affairs.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether in the course of this review the Government will consider dispensing with the services of all these special advisers?—bearing in mind the experience of the previous Government, which did not seem to achieve very much success as a result of taking the advice of the so-called special advisers. Besides, they are not worth the money.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am watching the blushing faces of noble Lords opposite.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that, if he is not going to take expert advice from BNOC, he will not take expert advice solely from the commercial oil corporations?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I never said that I was not going to take expert advice from BNOC.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean that on no account is he prepared to take expert advice? Is that the general policy of this Government?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, during the little clash between the Cross
1608
Benches and Benches opposite, I missed the first part of the noble Lord's Question.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I shall repeat the question. Does the noble Earl mean that it is not the intention of the present Government to take any expert advice? Does he mean that it is far better to rely upon the strange whimsies which occur to noble Lords opposite, rather than to take any expert advice?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government will take advice from all quarters—both expert and inexpert—including the noble Lord.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, why is it necessary for a Government with such talent, which resides on those Benches, to take expert advice? Would not that be superfluous?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, the Government have been taking advice on this subject for the last nine minutes.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, in view of the noble Earl's Question, can the Minister tell us whose advice it was which left farmers like myself in the South-West without any oil for our tractors?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, will the noble Earl confirm that in the course of this review the Government will not consider handing back control of the North Sea to the multinational oil companies?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, that is a loaded question.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I ask the Minister to answer it.
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Lord Soames): My Lords, my noble friend answered that it was a loaded question. I think that the Government at least, and perhaps the House as well, would benefit if we moved on to take some advice on some other subjects.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: WILDCAT DRILLING
3.17 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: 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 how many exploration rigs are now drilling wildcat wells on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf, and what were the corresponding figures for this time last year and in 1977, 1976 and 1975 respectively.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, at the end of May there were seven mobile rigs engaged in exploration drilling. The corresponding figures for May 1978, 1977, 1976 and 1975 are nine, 15, 14, and 20 respectively.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, but is he aware that he has not answered the Question? Is he aware that the Question was about wildcat wells being drilled now; not about the number of exploration rigs? Can he address himself to the Question which I asked, which is how many wildcat wells are being drilled now?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend if I have given him an unsatisfactory Answer; but, in fact, strictly speaking, the wildcat well is an exploration well in a new area which has not previously been drilled. I thought that my noble friend was extending his interpretation of the word a little wildly to exploration wells generally.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, without wishing to torment my noble friend, who, after all, is not in the Department of Energy and has, therefore, to take his briefing at second hand, is he aware that at present four wildcat wells are being drilled? Further, is he aware that that compares with three already being drilled in the Dutch area, two in the Norwegian area and one in the Irish area? Is he aware that that is the lowest rate of activity for six years and that this is nothing to he happy or complacent about?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I see no sign of complacency on this Bench about this situation. Pending the outcome of the ultimate review, this is exactly why we have already made substantial changes in policy, so that exploration may be increased.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, as I suggested to him yesterday, the number of discoveries per wildcat well actually drilled is decreasing? Is he aware that, in 1974, 3·5 wildcat wells per discovery were drilled; in 1977, 5·8 and, for the bigger wells of over 300 million barrels, there were 26 wildcat wells per discovery? Would he not agree that this indicates quite clearly that to extend the number of wildcat wells is not likely to produce a vastly increased number of discoveries?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, contest the last part of the question. It is true that the cherries lowest down on the bough, if I may put it that way, are the easiest ones to pick, and that the most obvious prospects in licensed territory are drilled first. The success ratios for the number of areas of the United Kingdom Continéntal Shelf are still very high, and overall success ratios remain above the worldwide average. That is exactly why we wish to encourage more activity of the kind suggested in the supplementary question asked by my noble friend.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the taxation policies in general, and the oil taxation policies in particular, of the last Government have led to this disastrous state of affairs where exploration rigs are now dispersed all over the world and are not concentrated in the North Sea where they are badly needed? What is this Government now going to do to set matters right and attract these exploration rigs back to the North Sea?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, it should be clear from my answers that we are not satisfied with the policy that we inherited, and that is why we are engaged in reviewing it.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the scale of the effort that is needed? Is he aware that the Offshore Operators' Asso-

1611
ciation, extrapolating from experience all over the world, reckon that we need between 60 and 90 wildcat wells per year if we are to get enough oil in the 1990s? That means having about 20 exploration rigs at work instead of the seven that he mentioned.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I have already said, everything should be done to encourage increased exploration.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, despite the fact that enormous profits are already being earned from the North Sea by private companies, this terrible, drastic taxation that the noble Lord referred to just now has so far yielded hardly any revenue?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, obviously the Government, any Government, have a great interest in the high yield of oil because that gives a high yield in taxation.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, could possibly the concluding question on this matter be this to the Minister? Will the noble Earl follow the guidance of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, in a general sense and see that the Government cease to take a preponderance of inexpert advice?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I always follow the guidance of my noble friend.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is a universal belief in the industry that BNOC had access to confidential information, both on finance and exploration, and that this has in some way been leaked to competitors of the oil companies operating?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am well aware that there have been criticisms of the role, and the often contradictory role, of BNOC as it was set up, but I am not aware that it has in any way abused that role.

SCOTTISH EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL
3.24 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read3a.—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In June 1977, both Houses agreed to a proposal of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that Orders in Council made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 should be excluded from their consideration. At the same time, a consequential amendment was made to the Public Business Standing Orders of the House of Lords to exclude Northern Ireland orders from the scope of Standing Order No. 68, which requires that no Motion to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until the report of the Joint Committee thereon has been laid before the House.
It has now become apparent that the amendment, in the form in which it was made, had the effect of removing Northern Ireland orders from the ambit of Private

1613
Business Standing order No. 216, which lays down the procedure to be observed in the case of Affirmative Instruments which are hybrid. This effect was unintended and the object of the present amendments is to restore the position to what it was in relation to hybrid Instruments before the original amendment was made. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order 68 relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Paragraph (1)(a): At the beginning insert "except in the case of any Order in Council or Draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974",
Paragraph (2): At the end leave out "nor any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974",—(Lord Soames.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.27 p.m.
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should like briefly to explain why I am moving this Motion. The Message from the House of Commons that they have appointed their Committee on Statutory Instruments was received only yesterday. This House has therefore proposed that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments should meet next Tuesday, and a message from the Commons responding to this proposal is expected this afternoon. This means that there has not been time for the Joint Committee to consider and report on the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order as required by Standing Order No. 68. It was for this reason that the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1979 was withdrawn by the Government from the Order Paper on Tuesday. In that case, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona indicated at the start of the defence debate, there was no immediate urgency to
1614
approve the order. But in the present case there is urgency.
The order raises a levy which supports the British Cast Iron Research Association, whose existence depends upon it. Under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, the order must be made by the end of June so that the levy can be collected from 1st July. If the order is not made, the levy will be lost for the period until the order is made, and this delay could be a matter of weeks as it would be necessary to lay a new order which would then have to pass both Houses in the usual way.
The present order has been approved in another place. Given all the circumstances, I would ask your Lordships to agree to dispense with Standing Order No. 68 in order to enable my noble friend Lord Trenchard to move the Motion to approve the order this afternoon. I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 68 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with for the purpose of enabling the motion to approve the draft Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1979 to be moved this day notwithstanding that there has not been laid before the House a report thereon of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.—(Lord Soames.)
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I think that this Motion should not be agreed to without it being pointed out that the members of the Joint Committee from this House were appointed on 14th June, and that would have enabled the usual weekly meetings of this busy Joint Committee to have taken place both last week and this week. But, as it is, the first meeting of the Joint Committee cannot take place, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, until next Tuesday.
I understand that there will be 119 Statutory Instruments to be considered at the first meeting of the committee. This will be a heavy burden upon it and a particularly heavy burden upon the new chairman to be appointed, who will be chairing his first meeting of the committee. None of this is the fault of anybody in this House, but this fact should be on the record before we agree to the Motion.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, it is obvious that we should approve the dispensation of Standing Order No. 68 on this occasion, because the timetable insists that that should be done. However, I should be grateful if my noble friend would give some indication of how many other orders are likely to be affected. Is the Joint Committee likely to be established so that this is a once-for-all situation? This scrutiny is vital because it is no use our criticising later after the horse has bolted. While, on this occasion, it is right that we should face up to the circumstances of the timetable, may we be told whether any more orders will be caught in this trap?
Lord SOAMES: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I can assure him that all the other horses will remain in the stable and that this is a once-for-all situation. I do not think he need worry about that, although I take his point that it would have been worrying had it so been. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, he is right to say that it is not the fault of anybody in this House, but I think it would be hard if one were to infer therefrom that it was the fault, in the sense of the word "fault", of another place; during these weeks they have been reconsidering the whole of their committee structure. This will not, we hope, happen frequently in future. It is a once-for-all situation and I agree with the noble Lord that the fault does not lie with us; it is the fault of circumstances rather than people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Greenwood of Rossendale.)
The Report was as follows:
1. APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES
The following members of the Committee were appointed to the Sub-Committees:
(a) Administration Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Ampthill

1616

L. Darling of Hillsborough

L. Denham

V. Eccles

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

V. Hood

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(b) Library Sub-Committee

E. Bessborough

L. Darling of Hillsborough

V. Eccles

L. Edmund-Davies

B. Hylton-Foster

L. Parry

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(c) Refreshment Sub-Committee

L. Ampthill

B. David

L. Denham

E. Fortescue

L. Greenwood of Rossendale

B. Hylton-Foster

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

E. St. Aldwyn

L. Tryon

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(d) Staff of the House Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare

B. White

With the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(e) Finance Sub-Committee

L. Aberdare

L. Ampthill

L. Denham

V. Eccles

L. Kings Norton

B. Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe

L. Wigoder

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords.
(f) Works of Art Sub-Committee

M. Cholmondeley

V. Eccles

V. Hood

L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
(g) Sub-Committee on Computers

L. Darling of Hillsborough

V. Eccles

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
With power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint their own Chairman.
2. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee approved the appointment of an additional Higher Executive Officer in the Registry and an additional Clerical/Executive Officer post in the Accountant's Office.
The Committee also agreed to the appointment of a part-time Personal Secretary in place of agency computer typists and to the substitution of a Clerical Officer for a Typist post.
The Committee authorised the appropriate rates of pay for the additional posts.
3. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee confirmed the application of Civil Service Memorandum CM/364 giving revised rates of pay to applicable staff of the House of Lords.
4. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Group Captain R. M. B. Duke Woolley, D.S.O., D.F.C., Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod, who retired on 16th May 1979;

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. K. H. Allen, Cleaner, who retired on 13th May 1979;

(c) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. I. Haynes, Clerical Officer, who retired on 1st June 1978;

(d) Revised preserved pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. L. Whitworth, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 1st June 1978;

(e) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. L. T. George, Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on 28th June 1978;

(f) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. J. M. P. McGuinness, Cleaner, who retired on 20th September 1978;

(g) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. R. Heitman, Cleaner, who formally retired on 12th October 1978;

(h) Revised pension and lump sum to Miss P. P. Foreman, Cleaner, who retired on 26th November 1978;

(i) Revised pension and lump sum to Mr. A. G. Fuke, Senior Attendant, who retired on 30th November 1978;

(j) Revised pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. A. Price, Cleaner, who retired on 24th December 1978;

(k) Revised ill health gratuity to Mr. T. A. Davitt, Attendant, who retired on 1st November 1978;

(l) Revised short service payment to Mrs. P. M. Bowden, Personal Secretary, who resigned on 31st January 1979;

(m) Revised short service payment to Mr. R. St.C. Gainer, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 14th July 1978;

(n) Revised short service payment to Mrs. L. E. Rivers, Clerical Officer, who resigned on 31st May 1978.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND ACT 1978 (REPEAL) ORDER 1979
3.33 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield) rose
1618
to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, a year ago much of our time and effort was being directed towards the Scotland Bill. The prospect of that Bill passing onto the statute book was not one which commended itself to a large number of your Lordships. Nevertheless, the House debated the Bill extensively before eventually, having passed through all its stages in both Houses, it received the Royal Assent and became law.
I should say that whatever reservations your Lordships may have had about the Bill and its possible effects, the whole House admired the manner with which it was handled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who achieved a formidable parliamentary reputation. But this afternoon your Lordships in effect are going through the last rites before the Act is laid to rest. In this speech I do not intend to engage once more upon the merits, or lack of them, of the Scotland Act, but in view of the fact that nothing stands still, particularly in the constitutional sense, it is perhaps right that I should briefly trace the history of the matter.
There have been 10 years of intense debate about devolution for Scotland. In the second half of that decade, the then Labour Government propounded a radical scheme involving a directly elected Scottish Assembly, from which would be drawn a Scottish executive, which would together wield both legislative and executive powers. That scheme aroused deep concern inside and outside Parliament. With great difficulty and only at the second attempt it reached the statute book but, on the insistence of Parliament, its implementation was made subject to a referendum, the results of which were to be advisory to Parliament. The referendum provisions included a requirement that, if the result of the referendum fell short of a prescribed standard of what might be described as full-hearted consent, the Government were to lay before Parliament the draft of an order repealing the Act. The referendum result indeed fell far short of that prescribed standard of consent and now we are to debate the consequential repeal order.
There are some potential confusions which we need to clarify in our minds.

1619
Referendums are not a traditional feature of British political machinery. There have been only three; for continued membership of the EEC, for devolution in Scotland and for devolution in Wales. The last two were held on the same day under virtually identical provisions.
There will be a separate opportunity to debate the Welsh case, but my immediate concern is with any contrast any noble Lord might seek to draw between the EEC and the Scottish referendums.
Any such contrast would surely concern the 40 per cent. provision, which I described a moment ago as the full-hearted consent requirement. Specifically, this provision—that is, Section 82(2) of the Scotland Act 1978—declares that if the Secretary of State judges that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted Yes, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of the order which we are now debating. There was no such provision in the EEC referendum. Bearing in mind the rarity of British referendums, up till now at any rate, it is not surprising that our practice on such matters is less than totally standardised.
What matters is whether the principle underlying the provision is a politically legitimate one, and I strongly suggest that it is. That principle is that easily alterable or reversible political steps may be justified by even the narrowest of majorities but that changes which are likely to prove irreversible need something much more. That thought clearly underlay the argument in the other place, where the provision with which we are now concerned was first inserted. Your Lordships had no difficulty in accepting the provision when it came before this House for examination.
A few have shown a disposition to argue that, as the Scotland Act could in theory be amended in exactly the same way as any other Act of Parliament, there is no reason why voting requirements needed to justify it should differ from the norm. The Government are in no doubt that, if implemented, repeal, or even substantial amendment thereafter, would prove enormously difficult, if not impossible. On this point I do not think I can do better than quote the former Secretary of State for Scotland, who is shortly to join us, who in a public speech made shortly
1620
after his Government had published their major White Paper, in November 1975, is reported as saying:
"Once we tread that path, there is no turning back".
It is worth noting that, whatever the provisions concerning the EEC referendum in 1975, the result over the United Kingdom as a whole would have met the requirements of the 40 per cent. provision had there been such a provision at the time. The results of the Scottish devolution referendum were very different. Of the Scottish electorate as defined for the purposes of the Act, 32·85 per cent. voted, Yes, 30·78 per cent. voted, No, and the balance, a substantially larger fraction than either, did not vote at all. There have been arguments, which cannot be resolved because the facts are not available, as to how many non-voters may by intention have been No voters because they were misleadingly informed that an abstention equalled a No vote. What is beyond argument is that those who wished to support the Act were well warned of the necessity of recording their votes. The essential facts of the result are, therefore, that less than a third of the Scottish electorate registered support; that an almost equal number recorded positive opposition; and that fully two-thirds recorded either positive opposition or total absence of enthusiasm.
Clearly, in those circumstances, it would be indefensible to implement the Scotland Act in the light of that result. But I think that the result also has a rather wider implication. I accept that some, like my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, envisaged the possibility of certain specific improvements in the Scotland Act. But he made it clear that he was speaking for himself, not for the Conservative Party. More important, anyone who closely followed the referendum campaign must, I think, admit that the Scottish electorate did not see themselves as voting on this or that detailed provision of the Act.
They saw themselves as balancing, on the one hand, the possibility of greater freedom of manoeuvre within Scottish government against, on the other hand, the certainty of greater cost and complexity in government, and the risk of loss of Scottish influence at Westminster almost immediately and unwanted independence

1621
later. The result must, therefore, be interpreted in that light, and in that light no Government would have any mandate for the reintroduction of any scheme involving an elected Scottish Assembly with legislative and executive powers.
The Conservative Party has called for inter-party talks for a very long time. In December, at the beginning of the referendum campaign, it published a pamphlet setting out what it thought might be the agenda of party talks. The pamphlet specified four theoretically possible options: firstly, an improvement of parliamentary procedures for the handling of Scottish business; secondly, an inquisitorial assembly; thirdly, an assembly with legislative and executive powers; and fourthly, a quasi-federal system. In the pamphlet, our party made clear that the third option—that is, a proposal somewhat like the Scotland Act—was likely to be unstable, and that it could be made stable only if it evolved quickly into some form of federalism.
But the pamphlet also made it clear that at that time there was little sign of a wish for any form of federalism in England. In the interval there has certainly been no sign of the growth of a demand for any form of federalism. And the referendum result, as I have argued, must be interpreted as destroying whatever mandate anyone thought there was for an administration with legislative and executive powers in Scotland only. We are therefore left with the remaining two options; that is to say, an improvement in parliamentary procedures, and an inquisitional assembly, plus any options additional to the four that I have listed which anyone else may suggest.
The Government take the view that, whatever else is done, Parliament ought to seek the highest possible degree of effectiveness within itself. We therefore consider it sensible that the inter-party talks should begin with consideration of improvements in the parliamentary handling of Scottish business. We certainly favour the setting up of a Select Committee to scrutinise those matters for which the Secretary of State is responsible. That would certainly be one of the points to be discussed. We should like to see a thorough examination of all the other specifically Scottish activities of Parlia-
1622
ment, in particular the activities of the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee, to consider how they might be improved.
As to an inquisitorial assembly, it must be admitted that, though this possibility has been public knowledge for many years, in particular through the report of the Scottish Constitutional Committee of the Conservative Party, chaired by my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel a decade ago, there has been little sign of public demand for it. The Government will not, therefore, seek to press any proposal of this kind.
My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already begun his approaches to parties individually about the form that interparty talks should take. We hope the talks will begin soon, and we do not think they need take very long. But, since these are matters for discussion between the parties, I do not think it right at this moment to attempt any forecast of their outturn.
My Lords, it is in those circumstances that I beg to move that the draft Scotland Act 1978 (Repeal) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 22nd March 1973 in the last Parliament, be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved.—(The Earl of Mansfield.]
3.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to the noble Minister for the kind words that he uttered about myself a few minutes ago, and I am also grateful to the House. I am delighted to be able to respond by congratulating the noble Earl upon his maiden speech from the Government Front Bench. Of course my congratulations relate not to the content of his speech, but to the form. I look forward to many further encounters with him in his present office and to his speedy return to the place which I now occupy.
I speak this afternoon not with any bitterness, but with a great feeling of personal sadness, because I devoted a substantial part of my ministerial—and parliamentary—life to the formulation and the defence of the Bill which eventually

1623
reached the statute book under the title "Scotland Act 1978". It is true that I played no real part in the original conception of the scheme, but I joined with others in rendering ante-natal care. I was an assistant to the midwives, and after helping during a prolonged period of labour I drank a few glasses of champagne to celebrate the birth, ignoring raucous cries about the infant's legitimacy. Alas! however, when our offspring was called upon to stand on his own feet just a few months later, the forces of fear, indifference, and conservatism pulled the rug from under him, and he collapsed, ultimately bringing the Government down with him.
I am invited today to utter a few valedictory words at the graveside. May I begin by saying something about the role of this noble House in the whole melancholy affair. The passage of the Bill through this House will, I feel, find an interesting place in the history of Parliament itself. It will do so, I believe, because this House seized the opportunity which the Bill, as a wide-ranging constitutional measure, presented to demonstrate that it could, with passion and humour, with experience and vigour, with wit, and with restraint, examine, and indeed illuminate, the issues great and small to which the Bill gave rise. I do not want to repeat what I have said about the decisions that this House took on the matters of substance, but the style with which this House approached its task unquestionably earned it the admiration of many outside.
Yet, having said that, I confess that to me the whole matter is heavy with irony; and it is not indeed without irony that the final parliamentary act in this drama takes place in this noble House, because, although the somewhat dismal result in the referendum was brought about by many factors, one of the most successful arguments in the "No" campaign, and one that carried weight even among those who claimed to support the idea of devolution in principle, was the argument that the Assembly which the Act established was a constitutional monstrosity. It was said to have financial power without financial responsibility. It was said that it was likely to be dominated by one political party. The method of electing it was said to be dangerously undemocratic. It was said that leaving the West Lothian question unanswered was an
1624
affront to the House of Commons and a fatal constitutional weakness. All these, and other such points, were made or repeated in this House.
But this House is itself the living proof that the machinery of Government and administration, the structure of Parliament, does not need to be perfect in order to function—and indeed to function well. I ask this question: who in his right mind would design a legislative Chamber in which three-quarters of all the Members are qualified for membership by reason of birth, where a majority of the Members never speak nor even bother to attend, and where one political party has a permanent and irremovable majority? Yet, my Lords, here it is; we are in it. It makes surprisingly good sense, and it works surprisingly well. It has undergone some changes, and many people believe that it can be further improved and have its blemishes removed.
This House, conscious of its own imperfections—and, indeed, constitutionalists outside, conscious of the kind of system we have—should surely have been more sympathetic to the scheme of devolution contained in the Act. The many critics of the scheme in this House and outside should have been more ready to concede in the debates in this House and elsewhere that it was impossible to produce a perfect solution at the first attempt—a solution which would please everyone and be free from all anomalies; a solution, in other words, which would command universal assent. It should have been acknowledged that all that was possible was that we should start somewhere; and this scheme, with all its faults, was close, I believe, to the best compromise that careful study inside and outside Government had been able to devise and the elected House to accept.
I believe that it would have been possible to go on from there and to say, "We must be prepared to improve this scheme in the light of experience". The critics of the scheme made no such concession; the voters, many of them, were persuaded to be equally uncompromising; and now the Government have decided to take the same line. We are asked to consign the scheme to the dustbin, we are asked to wipe the slate clean; and the new Conservative Government, as they effect their retreat from devolution, are pursuing a scorched-earth policy. It is clear that

1625
nothing that pre-dates 1st March 1979 is to remain standing; and once a desert has been created, we are apparently all supposed to start again.
I believe that to be a pity, because all the political, economic and historical imperatives which produced our scheme of devolution are still there. If I may quote the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, when he spoke in the Second Reading debate of the Bill on the 14th March 1978, he said, in col. 1198:
"But the brutal fact is that, even if this Bill were to founder, for whatever reason, the problem which fathered it would not go away but might even be exacerbated".
I can say, "Hear, hear!" to that. Nationalism is still a powerful force, even if it is in a somewhat weak phase.
The ordinary political divisions in Scotland are still very different from those South of the Border. Indeed, in the recent general election we have produced our own living version of the West Lothian anomaly, for the Scottish electorate elected only 22 Conservative Members of Parliament in 71 constituencies, and yet, in Scotland, we find ourselves with a Conservative Government. It has been pointed out that only 33 per cent. of the Scottish electorate voted for the Scotland Act, but only 23 per cent. of the same electorate voted for the Conservative Party; and that Conservative Party, in government, has now decided to bury the Act, and devolution along with it. So, for the next five years, the political decisions that affect Scotland's housing, education, health, land use, criminal law and civil law are to be taken, in effect, by a Cabinet which owes its powers not to the people of Scotland but to the voters of the Midlands and the Home Counties.
I believe that the frustrations that are bound to be felt as a result of this could well give a fresh stimulus to separatist feelings in Scotland, and, if this happens, devolution in any form is not likely to be seen as an option. No one would again believe that Westminster and Whitehall would be prepared to start once again down the long road which took us from the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to the Scotland Act 1978. On this matter, therefore, may I conclude by saying that we who live in a constitutional glasshouse have helped to
1626
heave some very destructive stones. We have helped—and today we shall no doubt complete the process—to kill the possibility of the middle way; and if within a few years the arguments again become destructively polarised, we shall have cause to regret it.

Let me turn, then, from the ironies, as I see them, and the errors of the present to the proposals for the future. The noble Earl spoke of inter-party talks. but he and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in another place, when they came to review the agenda for these talks, produced a blank sheet. According to what we have heard, federalism is ruled out; quasi-federalism—I have never been quite certain what that
means—is also excluded; legislative devolution is a non-runner; and an inquisitorial assembly is dismissed as something not worth discussing.
So we are left with nothing at all except somewhat vague and unspecified mutterings about improving the government of Scotland. But improving the government of Scotland is not a solution to the problem: on the contrary, that is a bald statement of what the problem is. Why on earth do they consider going to these inter-party or all-party talks and yet exclude from the agenda the Scotland Act, for which 33 per cent.—one and a quarter million people—in Scotland voted, when it is absolutely evident that no other proposal commands anything like that quantity of support? Should the all-party or inter-party talks not be seen to build upon that solid basis of support? Should we not be asking at these talks, "Can the scheme in the Act be improved and altered so as to remove the blemishes which cost it the 400,000 or so votes which would have ensured its implementation?". My Lords, if the Scotland Act is not to be on the agenda, then the cupboard is indeed bare.
Many people believe that the scheme in the Act could be improved. The noble Lords, Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lord Drumalbyn, and others in this House, believed it could be improved if the electoral system for the Assembly were changed to a PR system. Others believed that the financial arrangements could be improved. Yet others suggested that the Kilbrandon Report suggestions might have been more readily adopted

1627
into the scheme. Very many people—people who espouse the cause of devolution—believe that the scheme can be improved, and yet we are not allowed to discuss it at all.
I regard this as a matter for regret. By throwing out the Act itself and taking it off the agenda of politics and these interparty talks, we are really throwing out devolution itself. Proposals to have Select Committees or to review the Scottish Grand Committee, or perhaps to have meetings of Parliamentarians in Edinburgh, are purely cosmetic matters; they have nothing whatsoever to do with devolution in any real sense. While drastic things need to be done to relieve the burden upon the Secretary of State for Scotland and to improve parliamentary scrutiny, something real needs to be done to ensure that the public in Scotland determine the shape of their domestic services, their domestic affairs and their law—the people of Scotland, I say, and not the voters of the Midlands and the Home Counties.
In conclusion, I see no particular value in attempting at this stage to make any further suggestions as to the agenda for the all-party talks. We reaffirm our commitment to real devolution on the broad lines of the Scotland Act, but I fear that the proposed talks will soon be seen to be a smokescreen behind which many leading figures, particularly in the Conservative Party, will retreat from their commitment to devolution. The logic of my argument is clear, and it is that we should vote against the order. But, of course, that would be an empty gesture. I know the House would not support me if I invited it to do so. More fundamentally, I should be the last to seek to persuade my colleagues, in a matter of this kind, to vote against the clear decision of the elected House. So, my Lords, with real regret, with a fear that we are unwisely leaving unfinished business, and in the certain knowledge that this is an end and not a beginning, I invite my noble friends not to vote against this order.
3.59 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, as one other member of the burial party of this Act, I will attempt to be as brief as possible because enough has been said and I must endorse almost every word that has been
1628
said by the noble and learned Lord. His feelings and mine are, I am sure, shared by many others in this House, The only point which I think it may be correct to raise here is one concerning the referendum which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, touched on in his speech. As I see it, the referendum should be judged as what it set out to do, which was to have a "Yes" or a "No" on this Act that we are about to repeal today, with all its imperfections. Let us not forget that there was a majority in favour of this Act. However small, it was a majority.
The point I want to make is that the two-thirds who said "No" or abstained should not be judged as not in favour of a legislative Assembly for Scotland of any kind. They were not in favour of the Act as it stood. I feel that there may even have been Liberals who felt that they had to abstain or vote "No" in the referendum because there were no fiscal powers given under the Act. And the voting system was totally against us as Liberals on these Benches, and against many other people also. There was also no real effort at decentralising the Executive. It was not considered by some as a positive step towards federalism. These are some of the reasons—with the defects in the Act—why, perhaps, there were those of us who may have voted "No". And it was not confined to people of my own way of thinking. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, made it clear that he voted "No" because the Act did not go far enough towards Scottish autonomy. The noble Lord, Lord Home, presumably is not against having a legislative Assembly for Scotland.
Therefore, by burying this Act, as we are attempting to do today, we are not, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said, burying the ideas and principles which lie behind the attempts to make the Bill an Act of Parliament. They will not go away and the unsatisfied desires of some sections of the Scottish people will still remain. I feel that even among the Conservative Party as a whole, in and out of Government, many members are quite unhappy with the situation that we are left with today—which is a very poor substitute. The suggestion of all-Party talks some of us see from these Benches as fully welcome; but this may be a smokescreen. There is no agenda, according to

1629
the noble and learned Lord, and I suspect that this is so. The strengthening of the Scottish Committees is something that could have been done a long time ago and has not been done. This thought occurs to me. If there were a referendum next week on "Yes" or "No" for the Act as it stood, the Act that we are repealing today, with the suggestions put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I wonder whether the majority might be greatly increased in favour of the Act, as distinct from the pitiful proposals that are with us today as a substitute for the principles which lay behind the Act.
In conclusion, I hope that just one thing may result from the repeal of the Scotland Act. It is something that was touched upon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. The Scotland Act was an attempt at a very major constitutional measure. Almost every part of our parliamentary life and the way this country is administered was questioned, taken apart, and an attempt was made to re-create it in a legislative Assembly North of the Border. We questioned everything except perhaps, the powers of this House, I feel that it was the hereditary, built-in majority in this House that took the guts out of this Act before our eyes as we sat day after day. This was a great sadness to me and to many others. It was the in-built majority of this House that took away some of the best parts that had been embodied in this Act when it set out from the other place. So I surmise for a moment that, as a result of our repealing this Act in this House today, it may bring us one step nearer reform, which some of us desire very much indeed.
4.4 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, inevitably, in our proceedings this afternoon, there will be an element of post mortem, but my noble friend the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, have kept that to the minimum and I propose to follow their example. I have always been an advocate of devolution, in the sense that all sorts of ill flows from over-concentration of power at the centre of Government. I was, therefore, at the start disposed to give a favourable wind to a Bill which
1630
would give the Scots more say in their own affairs—and that is the modest ambition of the average sensible Scotsman. But, as we debated the Bill, it became more and more clear that it contained too many defects to justify our passing it into law. There were various difficulties for me, as for other noble Lords. The West Lothian question was not the only one; the question of adopting proportional representation as the method of election was another to which I spoke on Second Reading.
Could the Bill, even now, be amended or adopted? I think not. Politics is the art of the possible; and, following the referendum, there are three conclusions which all point in the same direction. As far as any of us can see ahead, it will be impossible either in Parliament or in Scotland to obtain agreement on any form of directly-elected Assembly. The reasons, I think, are these: so long as the conception of devolution is linked by the Scottish National Party to separation from England, no one else is going to take the risk of an Assembly. Secondly, the rest of Scotland is unwilling to accept a form of Scottish government and a method of election which could lead to the domination of the rest by the politics of Strathclyde. The third is that, having assessed the position following the local government reform, the people of Scotland dread the over-government which another layer of government would bring. For these three reasons, I think it would be quite impractical to try to amend and alter this existing Act.
Nobody could have argued more conscientiously, more skilfully or more acceptably the case for this Bill than the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, but the realities of politics have beaten him, have been against him. I think that we must accept the fact that we must start again.
There is only one way, to my mind, of approaching constitutional reform of this magnitude and that is to try to obtain party consensus. One may not be able to get it, but it is important to recognise that one must start in that way. We cannot tell what will emerge from the discussions which are now proposed but, if I am right that agreement on any form of directly-elected Assembly is impossible, then I do not necessarily think that this

1631
the end of the matter. There is one alternative which I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, dismissed a little too quickly. It is that already canvassed and mentioned by my right honourable friend in another place: that either a Select Committee of Parliament or the Scottish Grand Committee should sit for some weeks in Edinburgh. This proposal is not new. I remember that it was made in 1930 and renewed in 1950. But that does not mean to say that it is wrong. It is well worth considering for a number of reasons.
First, the Members of Parliament are elected persons, elected by the Scottish electorate. All Scottish business is their business. Should they sit for some weeks in Edinburgh, that would avoid the over-government which the Scots fear as the result of election. Should the Scottish Grand Committee or such a Select Committee call to meet them, the representatives of local authorities in Scotland, and review not only Scottish financial affairs, estimates and things like that but really sit to review the programme of Scottish legislation, I think that that would be more than cosmetic. I think that the Scottish people would see in Edinburgh the business of Scotland being considered in Scotland among the Scottish people; and they would be able to look at it day by day. I believe it would therefore be a useful exercise in bringing government closer to the people. It is not, and would not be, what some of us have hoped we might be able to obtain; but I think that this is a proposal which is worth reconsideration. I hope that something like it will emerge, because something ought to be done. For the moment, I must conclude that we are bound to put an end to this Bill and try again.
4.10 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, may I begin by adding myself to those who have already extended congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, on his appointment to the Government Front Bench. I wish him success in his efforts so far as the government of Scotland is concerned. May I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. He confirmed the reputation which he gained in the course of the passage of the Act that, whatever the odds against him, he is
1632
always ready to come out of his corner fighting.
It seems to me that, even in Scotland, to many, including the media, this whole matter with which we are concerned today has become something of a great bore, deserving in the Press only perhaps of almost ribald comment. This at first struck me as surprising because of course to those of us who were engaged in the battle to persuade the people of Scotland to vote "No" to this Act it seemed that we were faced with an impressive and formidable combination of forces. There were the British and Scottish Labour Parties. There was the Liberal Party. There was the organised trade union movement in Scotland. There were distinguished members of the Church of Scotland. There were the forces of nationalism and a number of strange ad hoc partnerships which were formed during the course of the campaign, of which perhaps the richest and most rare was that of Mr. Mick McGahey and Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn.
At the end of the day it is surprising that after a battle in which such forces were engaged the matter should be regarded in Scotland as something of a bore. It may be that after the battle of Sheriffmuir the same feeling prevailed in Scotland. It will be remembered:
Some say that we won,
And some say that they won,
And some say that nane won at all, man,
But of one thing I'm sure,
That at Sheriffmuir a battle there was,
That I saw, man".
Perhaps the feeling then was as the feeling is in Scotland today. With that in mind, I do not propose to rehearse more than any other of your Lordships have done the powerful and persuasive arguments which were advanced against this measure in Scotland with the result that not a third of the people of that country were prepared to support it and to advocate that it should be brought into effect.
The only other thing I care to say is that it is a pity that it should be regarded as something of a bore. Surely there are many useful political lessons to be learned from the whole circumstances leading up to the presentation and eventual passing—and now the demise—of the Scotland Act 1978. There are many useful lessons on which we should be reflecting, as of course we should be reflecting on the

1633
many useful lessons which history has taught us whenever the partnership between the Scots and the English—which is enshrined in the treaty of Union—has come under strain, as of course it has done from time to time in the past and, I have no doubt, that it will come under strain again in the future.
It seems to me that there is one lesson among many others which is perhaps worth commending to the Government today. This whole business stemmed from the Hamilton by-election; this chapter in the business of Anglo-Scottish relationships started with the Hamilton by-election when the Labour Party panicked just about as badly as did Burns's mouse. The Conservative Party at the time did not take an exactly firm line against the advancing nationalist hordes, if that was what they were going to be. All this and everything that happened afterwards I suggest came as a protest. It was the voice of Scotland protesting against incompetent and ineffective Government.
The people of Scotland are not impressed by the strident voice of nationalism. The people of Scotland are concerned to have competent and effective government rather than nationalist government, and if the present Government fail to give this to Scotland then of course—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has said—the nationalists will come back with all the potentially disastrous political consequences for Scotland. What the Government now propose is to hold all-party talks in relation to this problem, the business of giving Scotland competent and effective government. So far, so good. But I wonder whether the Government would care to consider the possibility that there is some wisdom to be found outside the ranks of the political parties. Far be it for me to suggest that the quality and quantity of wisdom within the political parties is any less than it has ever been; but it occurred to me during the referendum campaign that there was an enormous amount of interest in this whole business in Scotland among people not normally associated with activities of political parties, who are of course a majority of the people.
I commend to the Government the possibility that they should seek assistance in their consultations, not only from the
1634
parties but across a much wider range of people in Scotland. I hope too that they will have in mind what was said so much more effectively than I could say it by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, in the debate the other week on industrial strategy: that if this Government fail the nationalists will be back, and they will be back in force. That is the threat which the Government should have in mind throughout their deliberations on the future government of Scotland. I hope that the House will pass this order repealing the Scotland Act 1978.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, with great pleasure. Everything he said I would endorse. I also agree entirely with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I remember that in the debate we had on the referendum there was some question that the referendum had not expressed the views of the Scottish people. I think that now we have had both the referendum and a general election there can be no doubt at all in anyone's mind that the people in Scotland did not like that Act of Parliament which they were asked to vote on in the referendum. When it came to the general election, I was absolutely staggered by the fact that at the meetings I addressed—admittedly not a great many, though I did take a fairly active part in the general election—every time I went to speak for a candidate I would ask: "Have you had a great many questions about Scottish nationalism, Home Rule or the referendum?" and he would reply: "Nobody asked anything about that". That absolutely staggered me, but it was true. It was true in Glasgow; it was true in the Borders and it was true in one or two places in Edinburgh where I went to help the Conservative candidate. I felt sure that during the general election at least there would be people who would ask many questions on this subject, but it was hardly mentioned at all.
When one thinks that at the end of the general election the Scottish Nationalists were reduced to two MPs from the 11 or 12 that they had, one can see there was a decisive indication from the Scottish people that they did not like the Bill, did not

1635
want it and were only too glad that it was going to be repealed. That, I think, is the answer to those people who have said, "31 per cent. of the voters in Scotland voted in favour of the Act at the referendum". They certainly did not do that in the general election; otherwise the representation of the Scottish Nationalists in the House of Commons would not have been reduced to two.
As your Lordships may remember—probably to their cost!—I took an active part during the many days and weeks in which your Lordships studied the Scotland Bill. There is no doubt at all in my mind that it was not a good Bill: it was a bad Bill. That was shown by the fact that in the House of Commons the opposition to it was really very considerable and it was not only on the Conservative side. Many Labour MPs on many occasions abstained from voting because they did not wish to vote directly against their Government. It was not a good Bill.
I think that whatever we do in the future we must not have a Bill which is not a workable Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Home, has reminded us of the deficiencies in the Bill, and I support everything he had to say. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, mentioned that in Scotland today we have only 22 Conservative Members of parliament. I think there are two or three Liberals and the rest are all members of the Labour Party. But that has happened in Wales also. For years and years and years the Welsh representation has been largely Labour, but the point about our representation and our Parliament is that it is representative of the whole of the United Kingdom so that, even if one gets more Labour Members from Wales, they have to meet Conservative Members from other parts of the United Kingdom; and similarly in Scotland. The fact that we won the election with what I would call a jolly good majority shows that the whole of the United Kingdom was anxious for a change of Government, and that is what they have got. Although in Scotland fewer Conservatives than Labour were returned, the fact that we are all part of the United Kingdom means that this Government has the support of the United Kingdom, which is what we want.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home, that we do not want more government just for government's sake. We do not want
1636
more assemblies or more committees or officials or whatever you like, just because they are going to say that they represent only Scotland. I want government in Scotland to be part of the United Kingdom—absolutely definitely part of the United Kingdom. I want government in Scotland to be as closely in touch with local government as possible. One of the objections we all had to the last Bill was that Scottish MPs were going to be prevented from taking any part in Scottish legislation which was going to be devolved, and therefore they were utterly cut off, whereas, as we all know, Scottish MPs were all to be allowed to vote on equivalent English subjects although they had been returned for Scottish constituencies. That problem really killed the Bill. It was a hopeless situation, and I hope that in anything else we suggest such a thing as that will not happen.
I think there should be very close liaison between local and central government. I would welcome anything which made for closer working between Members of Parliament and local government representatives. As your Lordships know, I have spent nearly 30 years of my life as a local government representative and always tried to keep as closely in touch as possible with the Member of Parliament for the area concerned, whether he was Liberal, Conservative or whatever. I think there is room for much closer co-operation between local and central government, and, in the discussions which are going to take place between the many different interests, I hope that point will be strongly stressed.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to give way? Would she agree that the introduction of party politics into local government has made that more difficult?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, possibly; in the area I represented there were no party politics and so it was very easy to co-operate, although in fact the Member of Parliament was of a different political party from the majority in local government. I think that could be got over: it is not insuperable, and anything that makes for closer liaison is well worth doing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Home, has said, we are not asked today to make any

1637
concrete suggestions for the future. I agree with him that we cannot drop the subject—I do not think it is something that we can just leave because the first Bill was a bad Bill and was turned down. I think the guiding principle must be the United Kingdom and not Scottish nationalism. It must not increase the civil service, the officials, the expenses and so on. It should be one of co-operation and of keeping as close to the people as possible. Often it is very easy not to be as close to the voters as I should like people to be, but in local government one really is close to the voters. Therefore, I feel very strongly that there should be closer liaison between local government and the parliamentary representatives. I also think it could well be a good idea to have meetings in Edinburgh about legislation which applies entirely to Scotland.
However, it is very difficult to find legislation which applies only to Scotland, unless you take the local government area as the main area in which you are legislating, because we in Scotland want to be part of the United Kingdom, we want to play an important part and our MPs in Westminster must play an important part. After all, in our lifetime we have had several excellent Scotsmen who have been in very high office, from Prime Minister downwards. I do not want that to stop. It is very important that we should be able to play our part in the United Kingdom Government, as we have done in the past. That is why I am so very much opposed to the Scottish nationalists' idea of separating Scotland from England. I think that that would be a disaster.
I support the Government's view of having further talks. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Lang-side, that we could certainly enlarge the scope of those talks. I hope that they will not go over all the ground that has already been gone over by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and so on, because there are other matters to think about than that. I very much hope that these talks will take place, but not in a great hurry. We are not in a great hurry. We want to get a consensus of opinion and that takes time. But the Government are quite right to do away with this Act. The House of Commons has passed this order and I am
1638
quite sure that we should pass it. We should then think again, and think on the lines of discussion with a wide variety of people in the whole of the Scottish area.
4.32 p.m.
Lord KILBRANDON: My Lords, with some diffidence, but without any doubts, I shall ask your Lordships to reject this order. I can put the fundamental reasons very shortly and perhaps too simply. Parliament, after a long, detailed and, I am afraid, controversial examination, decided that the Act would be for the better government of Scotland. That is why it was passed. I shall mention later the section providing for a referendum. But at this moment I should like to emphasise that in past years, over and over again, the people of Scotland have been asked, and have asked themselves, whether they wish some form of self-government through their own elected representatives, and they have always answered "Yes"—I am not much impressed by the assertion that in these polls the question must have been misunderstood—but always subject to the continuing political unity of the United Kingdom. Indeed, influential and experienced supporters of the present Administration have maintained, while expressing their dislike of the Act, that some radical change of a devolutionary character is called for, not even excluding a federal system embracing as members the other sub-divisions of Great Britain.
This, while it would be welcome in Scotland, goes much further than the present provisions, let alone the speculations that one reads as to the outcome of rather nebulous all-party consultations. If these should give rise, as one rather fears they may, to the setting up of a talking-shop of the kind now forecast, your Lordships may be absolutely assured that it will be received in Scotland with indignation and contempt. That seems to me to be a powerful reason for not killing this Act of Parliament—a majority of the Scots want it to survive. The referendum showed this but, above all, last week 19 Scots Members voted for this order and 43 voted against it.
There is nothing at all in this Act which is not confined to the internal government and administration of Scotland. If the English say that they do not like the Act, it is a fair retort that they are

1639
called upon neither to like it nor to dislike it, because it does not affect them. During the referendum campaign, and I am afraid before it, the wildest alarms were sounded that this was the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. I never heard any intelligible foundation in fact for that tremulous anxiety, which I am afraid has not been set at rest to this day.
For example, during the campaign there were those who stuck adhesive labels on their motor cars which read "Scotland is British". When I saw them, I could not help wondering what would be said in the United States if people stuck labels on their cars saying "California is American". California, like most of the other 49 States, has a full-blown bicameral legislature, sovereign and independent in its own field—which the Assembly is not—and I never heard it suggested that the constitutional powers of the 50 States threatened the existence of the Union. A self-governing Californian is American, just as a self-governing Scotsman is British. There is accordingly, as I see it, no compelling reason from a British point of view for the retraction of approved measures which affect Scotland only and which the Scots desire.
I do not believe—I think other noble Lords agree with this—that it would be helpful at this stage to look at the arguments which were set out for Yes and for No in the referendum. What is done is done. But what has happened since is of great significance. I believe that two strands of opinion were seen having effect in the general election. First, what caused the defeat of the Scottish National Party? The answer, I am sure, is that the SNP, who have not always made themselves clear about this, are thought to favour a policy of Scottish independence, at least as far as dominion status, and the people of Scotland have never wanted that.
The second question is: what caused the defeat of the Conservative Party? I have no doubt about that either. Unhappily, in the referendum campaign the Conservative Party were thought by most of the ordinary people I met, mostly country people, to be concentrating on the frustrating of the Labour Government with no regard to anything but party strategy. The people I met are somewhat different from those met by my noble
1640
and learned friend Lord Wilson: they seemed to indulge in some kind of ribaldry, which I am bound to say I never heard. I am quite certain that it is in the best interests of the public that the resulting unpopularity, amounting to an anti-Scotland reputation, should be repaired.
The consequences of the election are especially discouraging, I suppose, to those who had hoped that Scottish domestic affairs would be handled in future by Ministers responsible to a Scottish elected body. Scots domestic affairs are now being handled, as my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey said, by Ministers belonging to a party which enjoys so little confidence in Scotland that it can command only 22 out of 71 Scottish seats. This seems to me to be an insuparable difficulty in the way of proposed meetings of MPs in Edinburgh, for any purpose at all. So the SNP came down because they were suspected of wanting to go too far, and the Conservative Party came down because they were opposed to Scotland's moderate demands.
There is an interesting and somewhat disturbing analogy to be drawn with recent events in Canada. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois may be compared with the SNP. They have views, not always candidly expressed, coming very near to secession. The Liberal Party favours the redress of provincial grievances by the extension of provincial powers. I am speaking with no attention to detail. At the recent election, the Conservatives, who were believed not to be sympathetic to provincial aspirations, narrowly obtained federal power, but in Quebec neither they nor the PQ made any headway. The people do not want independence, but they do want constitutional reform. The situation is, to this extent, not comparable with Scotland. The Quebec Parliament already has powers greatly exceeding those which it is now proposed to deprive Scotland of by Order in Council. I suppose that if Canada tried to treat Quebec in the way that Britain is treating Scotland there would be very grave trouble indeed.
Nor do I think it useful to go into arguments and recriminations about the 40 per cent. rule in the referendum and try to trade off those who, according to

1641
some, were stupid enough to refrain from voting, because they thought that if they stayed at home it was the same as voting no, against those who were disfranchised: the temporarily absent, those on two registers, or on no register at all, or those who were disfranchised for other reasons. The thing is over now and I hope that such a thing will never he seen again.
The propositions which I would place before noble Lords in urging them to disapprove of this order are, very shortly, these. First, Scots people, as I have said, in resolutions and opinion polls over many years, in a recent referendum—not by any means the first—and through their elected representatives, have clearly called for some form of elected self-government within the United Kingdom. Secondly, leading men and women in every party, including the party now in power, have conceded that some devolutionary reform, possibly even of a federal character, is necessary for the good government of Scotland and, indeed, of Britain. Thirdly, there is now on the statute book legislation which, to some extent at least, fulfils these requirements. And, fourthly, a majority of the party now in power is dissatisfied with the terms of this Act, although all other parties and, in Scotland, a great majority of Members of Parliament will support it.
I think the conclusion to which these propositions lead is that the Act should stay on the statute book. I can see no objection to that, whatever the defects which many, but not by any means all, see in it, because there is no reason why, if it is defective, it should not be amended by subsequent legislation, like any other Act. I think that it is a misnomer to describe this as a constitutional Act, as if it were an Act of Parliament different in kind from other Acts of Parliament. We do not have a rigid constitution, although many countries have a rigid constitution, and one has to be very careful about a constitutional measure, because it is extremely difficult to alter it once it has been passed. But that is not the case with the Scotland Act, any more than it is the case with any other Act.
That, I think, will be the time for the all-Party conference in which Scottish Assemblymen may take part as well as Members of the Westminster Parliament. Probably a year or two should elapse so
1642
that it can be seen how things are working out. An ounce of actual experience will be worth a ton of the present lugubrious and sometimes over-enthusiastic speculations. It is even likely that those statesmen who see a need for the reform of regional government in England and Wales will find the Scottish experiment a useful pilot scheme.
I have tried to confine myself to reasoning of a practical character. I shall leave out of consideration the feelings of grief, discouragement and disillusionment, although they are widespread. I have not met anyone in Scotland who thinks that this is a bore. Some think that it is a tragedy. Everyone had his own hopes for the improvements and developments that devolution might bring, not least the reform of an extravagent and unrepresentative system of local government. I think the fallacy is still rife that the Assembly means an extra layer of government. I do not know where that comes from. I can sum it up like this. Many will find it difficult to forgive the cancellation by Order in Council of liberties conferred by an Act of Parliament.
Finally, your Lordships have a very important role here, for this reason. When the revision of the functions of this House is in debate, it is commonly said that an indispensable function of a second Chamber is the protection of minorities, especially national or local elements against power at the centre. An early example is seen in the composition of the United States Senate, and a recent one in the Bundestag of West Germany. Your Lordships have today an opportunity to perform that function—an unique opportunity in a sense, because there can be no question of coercion of your Lordships by the Parliament Act. Your Lordships are free to reject this order and your Lordships' approval is indispensable to its passing.
If this order is rejected, I do not see the Government readily introducing legislation merely to repeal the Scotland Act. No firm indication has yet been given of any remedial measure which is to be proposed in its place. Your Lordships' role is to stand up for a minor partner in the United Kingdom, United Kingdom interests being entirely unaffected, I believe, and to call for the disapproval of the order.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could assist me on this point. He referred to the 40 per cent, rule and he dismissed, somewhat cavalierly, the complaints which had been made about the suggestion disseminated that an abstention was the same as a No vote by suggesting that people could not surely be so silly as that.
I want to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that the Scottish Council of the Labour Party received from the National Executive of the Labour Party the sum of £50,000, which was described as a generous award in the light of the necessity to get it across to the people of Scotland that an abstention was the same as a No vote. This was not something which was said by enthusiastic "yes men". It was said officially by the Scottish Council of the Labour Party, and they thereupon pursued this fabrication. It was really an attempt to commit a fraud on the Scottish people.
This view was disseminated officially. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is aware of that fact, and I wonder also whether he is aware that, in the debate in another place, a spokesman of the Liberal Party said in terms—and spokesmen of the former Government have said something similar both in this House and in the other place—that it was a fact that, because of the 40 per cent. rule an abstention was the same as a No vote.
Lord KILBRANDON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is in a better position to answer for the people he is quoting than I am myself, but I deliberately left all this part out of the speech with which I detained your Lordships for too long, because I said that it was something in which your Lordships were probably no longer interested. However, another reason for leaving it out is that it is a kind of barren, semantic exercise. The other way of looking at it is that if every single man and woman who voted "No" had stayed at home in bed, this order would have been before the House just the same.
4.49 p.m.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, when I attend a funeral it is with real sadness in my heart at parting either from
1644
a relative or from a friend. Today I have no such feelings whatsoever. Indeed, I am happy to be present as this, to me, monstrous Act is disposed of. I hope that it will be buried so deep that its resurrection will he impossible. We have already been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, of its origin. It stems from the day that a Scottish Nationalist won Hamilton, which until then had been considered to be an impregnable Labour stronghold. It was won by a woman; versed in the law, practised in oratory and political argument and endowed with much female charm. The victory raised fears, both in the Conservative Party and the Labour Party, that it might be the forerunner of a serious uprising of Scottish nationalism which might well undermine their hold on the Scottish constituencies, and as such called for immediate action—a call which was met by both parties promising a Scottish Assembly. That meant the setting up of a new political body with its Members, housing and servicing to be discovered for them, which called for the employment of a further 750 civil servants.
It may be interesting to follow the history of the Scottish Office. I believe originally Scottish affairs were cared for by the Home Office. From that it was moved to Dover House in Whitehall, which is still the headquarters of the Secretary of State in London. Scotland then acquired a Secretary of State and for him and his assistants there was built St. Andrew's House in Edinburgh. Although as the years have passed outshoots of the Scottish Office have been housed in various parts of Edinburgh, a new St. Andrew's House was built and there I understand the Secretary of State today has his office.
It was then proposed that the Assembly should be housed in the Royal High School of Scotland in Edinburgh, which was acquired and made suitable for that purpose, while St. Andrew's House was also altered for the Assembly's personnel—all at very considerable cost of some millions of pounds, sanctioned by I know not whom. Where this is all going to lead, I do not know. St. Andrew's House was crowded both in its rooms and corridors, and the new St. Andrew's House will probably follow the same course. Yet a further 750 people were to be housed.

1645
But what possible benefit was Scotland to obtain from the proposed Assembly? As we have been reminded already, our affairs were already taken care of by Members of Parliament. In my opinion Scotland was not governed by London but by the Secretary of State in Edinburgh. All Scottish legislation goes to the Scottish Grand Committee, and I have yet to learn of any of their decisions being overturned, either in another place or in your Lordships' House.
We have heard a great deal in recent months, and indeed this afternoon, about devolution, but what is there to devolve? Surely everything that can be devolved has already been handed by Parliament to the Secretary of State. Apart altogether from every other aspect of this Act, the great fear was that the Assembly would more and more demand greater powers until it had gathered to itself almost complete control of our Scottish affairs and become a Scottish Parliament, which would inevitably have led to the break-up of the Union. That was a risk which, in my opinion, should never have been taken. That Union, which had been of such benefit to each and all of its members, which has brought us all prosperity greater than ever previously we had, which has brought us safely through great wars which otherwise could have seen us overthrown—let us never risk that Union. An Assembly in that context has no purpose and no benefits to offer. Although of different origins, we are British. Let us so remain, and to that end, united, repeal this Act.
4.55 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I too, want to say how pleased I am to see the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, my near neighbour in Scotland, sitting on the Government Benches and I know that he will do Scotland proud in his position. My only sadness is that his first task—if it is to happen—is the burial of this Act. As I think many of your Lordships will know, I believe that an Assembly was the right solution for the Union. Others—and we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—say exactly the opposite. There is no point in arguing about it now; history will give us the answer.
Equally, I am going to follow other noble Lords and take no part in post
1646
mortems over the referendum. However, there is one point which I think may be important for any future referenda that may be held. I campaigned a certain amount for the Assembly for a week or more, taking meetings and addressing various gatherings and the thing that struck me almost more than anything else was the ignorance of people as to what it was all about. I think that future Governments, if they have referenda on any subject, have a duty to produce some sort of leaflet which explains what it is all about. It is not enough—and I remember this was argued in this House—to say that the media can tell, or that the people will understand, or that they can buy a copy of the Act, or whatever it may be. I hope that if in future there is to be a referendum some form of explanation of what it is all about will be produced by the Government of the day, in conjunction, if necessary, with the Opposition. To do nothing is wrong. The Scots are a canny people, and when they did not know they did not vote; and, to my mind, that is perhaps one of the reasons why there was such a large number of abstentions.
Now let us come to what lies ahead. We hear that there is to be an all-party conference; that any form of devolution and good government for Scotland by an Assembly is to be out. Indeed, I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who brought home to us very forcibly how little was to be in the all-party conference. One thing after another had been ruled out. I hope there will be second thoughts on this point, and I hope consideration will be given to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—who, after his broadcast, must be in a way sad at what is proposed—that others should be brought into discussion, whether it be local governments or the Churches or whoever has a special responsibility in some form or another for the better government of Scotland. I am quite clear about one thing. The scheme, whatever it may be, that comes out of the conference or the body that is to be set up, must sit at times in Edinburgh. That is absolutely essential. Further, it must not be a talking shop—and a toothless talking shop at that. It must be able to take initiatives.

1647
Today Scotland is divided and Scotland is worried. They have an unemployment rate which is twice that of the South-East of England and at such a time, when things are difficult for Scotland, whatever comes out of this scheme must ensure that there is a body which can put pressure on Whitehall and on Westminster. I will give your Lordships two examples of what I have in mind. In the last several months there was a proposal by an American company to set up a factory for silicon chips. I am not entirely clear what those are, but I know they are a very important advance in technology. The Scottish Development Agency took up with all possible energy the task of getting this company to come to Scotland. On the other side of the ring, if I may put it that way, we had Europe. I think finally the American company was about to choose Scotland. What happened? The Government, or rather the Department in Whitehall, drew the rug from under the feet of the Scottish Development Agency. They said, "It is perfectly true that we give grants in this kind of case but we do not think this is a suitable one". Whitehall decided. The thing was lost. At a moment like that, surely it should be possible for whatever body comes out of the all-party conference to intervene quickly and try to get things changed.
May I give the other example. The National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland has for 50 years been promised by successive Governments that it would have a new building. Nothing has been done. I am on a committee in Scotland which is considering the role of the National Museums in Scotland. One of the figures I saw was that no less than 85 per cent of all expenditure on national museum buildings is directed to London and Scotland gets 6 per cent. I visited this museum—and remember that this is the museum of Scotland, about its history and its past; If any of your Lordships had done what I did and seen some of the upstairs rooms where the staff work and where things of great value and importance have to be stored, you would not believe it possible that that sort of condition should prevail. I am surprised that the health authorities and fire authorities do not close much of it. I rather wish they would, because then at least it would draw everybody's attention to the scandal that
1648
exists in this connection. The initiative for reform in regard to that ought to come from whatever body may be set up in Edinburgh—I hope it will be in Edinburgh—at any rate from time to time.
There is another question, how the members of the conference are going to be chosen. We have heard today that approaches are already being made to various parties. I hope that many of your Lordships will be invited to take part in the conference because so many of you are so wise on Scottish affairs. Furthermore, I hope that the Cross-Benches will be considered a party, because, after all, in a sense in this House they are. Otherwise, perhaps Lord Wilson of Langside may have to join the Conservative Party to say what he wants to say at the conference, or I might even have to—I was going to say join the SNP, but that is something I would not want to do. But I hope the point I am making will be taken aboard.

Sooner or later I believe we shall see some form of Assembly in Scotland, because we do want to run our own show. But I would say this to the Government. I hope that in this conference they will do their very best to ensure good government for Scotland in which the Scots take an active part. The more successful they are in that—and this is the thought I would leave with your Lordships—the more likely it is that a change to an Assembly, which I think is inevitable sooner or later, will be postponed. Those who do not want it because they fear it means the break-up of the Union—I believe the other way—will know that by getting something of real substance out of the conference they will postpone something they see as wrong. All the same, I believe that in time, whether it is through a federal solution or whatever, we shall see Scotland having its own body to run itself. Then we shall see its great qualities as a nation, and if, as I believe, it is to its advantage, it will be to the advantage of the United Kingdom also.
Lastly, my Lords, I was very impressed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said in his speech. I would certainly be ready to go along with him, if he felt it was appropriate, in not wanting to repeal the Act. It would not mean that we had an Assembly; it would merely mean that it is on the

1649
books. I would only say that if he had taken action in that direction I would have supported him.
5.7 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, having stoutly opposed the Scotland Act since it first began to take shape, I feel I owe it to your Lordships and certainly I owe it to myself to take a brief part in its obsequies, though not to go over any of the ground again—far from it. As both the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, have said, how important these transactions have been. After all, although, technically, the Act may be removed from the statute book, the record will always be in Hansard of everything that has been said, pages and pages of it. That is all the more reason why I have no intention of going over the ground again, because all I have said is there to be read. It is possible, nevertheless, to lament the dissipation of energy and time which might have been better spent. Perhaps the oil shortage arises from the amount of midnight oil which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has had to burn over the transactions. But let us extract what good we can from this experience and let us hope that by doing so we can avoid such a thing happening again as had happened in this case.
All are agreed that an increased measure of decentralisation in the government of the United Kingdom is desirable. It is clear that the developments should be discussed and should produce a result, let us hope, as a result of all-party agreement, as some of us have been saying for years. It seems to me to follow inevitably that such developments must come little by little, broadening down from precedent to precedent, gradually rather than by some traumatic stroke. The Secretary of State for Scotland in the other place set out the major lessons in a masterly way in his peroration on the 20th of this month.
What can we do today to decide whether there is anything here and now that we can do to further the interests of Scotland which have been so carefully set out by so many speakers, including the noble Earl who has just spoken? I have two or three suggestions which have not altogether been touched upon. One is that we might abandon some of the shibboleths which
1650
have become established. As matters stand at present, might it not be wise to replace the rather depressed word "devolution" by the word "decentralisation"? As has been suggested on previous occasions, can we avoid the confusion engendered in Scotland by the word "Assembly", by substituting the word "Convention", as of old? I am thinking again of the speech of the noble Earl in which he visualised, as I hope I visualise, a Convention with teeth considering Scotland's needs in the future.
Let us forget about a referendum as an escape route, certainly as regards such an unacceptable question as that put forward to what I regarded as an unacceptable electorate. In view of what the noble Earl has just said, I think I should expand on what I mean. Having spent so many years abroad and having been chairman of Caledonian societies overseas, I think that I can say that there are more Scots abroad—and by "abroad" I include England—than the 3¼ million who were entitled to vote in the referendum, of whom a large proportion were not Scottish at all.
There is something else that we can start doing now. We should try to remedy the dissatisfaction of many ordinary people who feel that they deserve a larger say in political decisions in respect of Scotland. I have studied the memorandum of dissent to the Royal Commission's report and it calls what I am referring to as "the 'we' and 'they' situation". It also refers to, "The feeling of powerlessness". How can that he put right or at least ameliorated?
My noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood mentioned how extraordinary it was that during the election so little interest was shown in this matter. People did not seem to worry about it at all or to address their minds to it. I believe that, if this sense of powerlessness and lack of interest is to be put right, there must be a serious and sustained effort to ensure that Scotland is better informed not only about current affairs but about past history. I shall not develop that point, but I think that some Scottish history, as taught in the schools, could be made more factual. Therefore, I suggest that it should begin in the schools.
Unfortunately, the bully boys of the printing unions have emasculated the

1651
Press. What is left? We have the broadcasts on the radio and "the box". I am not—and I repeat "not"—urging a general broadcasting of the business of Parliament. In that respect we are learning new lessons every day, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. If only the money and the energy spent on the Scotland Act over the last few years could have been used to ensure that people were better informed, I believe that we should be better off.
I turn to another matter. Millions of pounds have been spent on the Royal High School. Must that building lie empty? Can it soon be used as some sort of information centre, or perhaps as the locale of the inter-party talks, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel suggested? It follows from what I am saying that such proceedings in such a place, in order to reach the people of Scotland, must be linked in some proper way with broadcasts or "the box".
I hear that the BBC is to overhaul its Scottish news and parliamentary services. That is good, because they need it. At present we are suffering from the pattern of the so-called "Radio Scotland". On Tuesday—only the day before yesterday—"Yesterday in Parliament" was being broadcast on Radio 4 while Radio Scotland broadcast some pop music and a talk on homing pigeons! I only cite that as an example. It is not the fault of the hardworking and experienced broadcasters. They do a good job with what they are given, but the pattern is wrong. A letter published in The Scotsman only last Saturday commented:
"I suggest that anyone in Europe who listens to Radio Scotland will merely have his suspicions confirmed that the Scots are a bunch of mugs".
I agree that that is the case as regards the so-called Radio Scotland. It must be tightened up. Let us hope that the measures which I understand ate in hand will do something to that effect.
Let us take our lessons to heart. Let us say farewell—perhaps for ever—to the Scotland Act and join with the psalmist in a metrical version of the 124th Psalm:
"Like as a bird out of the fowler's snare escapes away
So is our soul set free.
Brake are their nets and thus escaped we".
I feel like that—as does my noble friend Lord Strathclyde—about the particular
1652
experience that we have been through in the past two or three years. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, have said, the transactions are there to study, to be a basis from which we can learn our lessons, and not all this time and trouble has been wasted. I, for one, look forward with the utmost interest to the developments in the future. Let there be no delay in the business of informing Scotland of what is in progress.
5.17 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, the worse the passage the more welcome the port. After all the dreary debates—and on this Bill they have been dreary—I must say that I listened with particular interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. He gave us a sober and moving speech this afternoon, and I regret that throughout the Committee stage we did not have his counsel available to us, although it had long been available in three thick volumes for all of us to study beforehand. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was true to form. He came out of his corner fighting hard. He reminded me, as usual, of the Irishman who said, "I always think a general and a bit of shooting make you forget your troubles".
I am certain that it is sometimes better to go back then to go badly. The Act failed—whatever the mechanics of its failure—on three points. The first was the point of principle "the West Lothian question" or if one prefers, "power without responsibility. Next it failed on the economic count that this is too tight and too fragile an economy to support another focus of faction and disarray. But I believe it also failed in quite a different sense—and one to which the debate has not so far alluded. So many noble Lords, and commentators outside, have focused on the 40 per cent. rule. The operation of that, and the focusing of our minds upon it, has obscured perhaps the most critical feature of the whole issue.
If we were to draw a line East and West through Stirling, we would, I believe, find that North of it there was a net majority of people against the Act, including those who live in two of Scotland's great cities—Dundee and Aberdeen. While seven

1653
regions voted for the Act, five regions voted against. Of the seven that voted for it, two—the Lothians and the Highlands—only did so by a narrow margin. So whatever else the referendum showed, it certainly showed that most of Scotland geographically was gripped by a fear of control by the Central Belt in general and by Glasgow in particular.
There is abroad in Scotland—and I am sure that this is farily common to all sides of the House—a gut feeling which wants, in some inchoate fashion, to find a louder Scottish voice over Scottish affairs, more audible to the Government of the day. But that gut feeling is balanced by another, which is a real fear of the Colossus of Strathclyde.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has mentioned the possibility—and reference has been made to it during this debate—of setting up a Select Committee of Scottish Members of Parliament—not the Scottish Grand Committee, which is a different matter altogether—sitting in Scotland from time to time.
There are only two bodies in Scotland which can claim to be representative in a democratic sense of Scottish opinion. One is the collection of 71 Scottish Members of Parliament; the other is the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which is indirectly elected. Both my noble friends Lord Home of the Hirsel and Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, have already referred to the desirability of liaison, whatever action we may take in the future, between the top layer of government in Scotland and local government. One of the merits of the Convention of the Scottish Local Authorities is that it is so constructed that small is beautiful. It is so balanced that in its make-up there is a total of 76 regional and district council representatives from the Strathclyde and Central Belt area, matched by about 67 from those outwith the Central Belt. In other words, it is constructed in such a way as to tackle head-on the great and searing problem of Scotland: the depopulation of the North and the South, on the one hand, and the concentration of wealth and also poverty in the Central Belt. I believe that it is perfectly possible for the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and a Select Committee of
1654
Scottish Members of Parliament to he brought together. They could be built into a new forum, which would be wholly compatible with Westminster practice and would do no violence to the primacy of the legislative responsibility of Parliament.
If set up, the Select Committee could follow the precedent of the Select Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, set up in 1933. Then the Secretary of State for India took the chair and it was agreed in advance that he could be questioned by the committee and be forced to give evidence to it, in spite of the fact that he was the chairman. The Select Committee was specifically authorised by Parliament—by both Houses—to call non-parliamentarians into consultation; namely, representatives invited from the Indian States and British India. It was so constructed that those advisers would sit at Westminster on an equal footing with the committee members for everything except an actual vote. They could deliberate together, and indeed they did.
Let us suppose that that principle was applied to a Select Committee of Scottish Members of Parliament. We would have 71 Members of Parliament and 143 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities representatives, making 214 in all. If we balance the rough regional associations between them, we would end up with approximately 120 Members of Parliament and local government representatives from the Central Belt, and 90-odd from the rest of Scotland. Here is a perfectly fair balance and a balance of which the people of Scotland need not be afraid. Indeed, one might say that the heartland versus the outback would be brought into reasonable balance.
One of the great failures of the Scotland Act was the built-in inevitability that the Assembly would be dominated by the Central Belt, to the alarm and despondency of the rest. Such a Scottish Select Committee, taking, COSLA, as it is known for short—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—into consultation, would have parliamentary precedent for questioning Ministers. It could debate the Estimates and doubtless in time through the promotion of serious motions on major affairs, make its voice audible indeed inside the Palace of Westminster.
Meantime, there is a practical step for consideration. These thoughts do not at

1655
all preclude the approach eventually to a federal solution, but as Sir Winston Churchill once said:
"It is wise to look ahead—but foolish to look further than you can see".
5.26 p.m.
Lord BALLANTRAE: My Lords, I venture to intervene for a couple of minutes in order to raise two matters. I must confess that I came here today greatly looking forward to dancing on the grave of this Act. I was hoping to go through the whole gamut of my repertoire from Petronella to Strip the Willow, from Shian Trubhais to Argyllshire Broadswords; but having realised afresh how much this Act has really meant to those who feel strongly and sincerely about it, I will refrain from making facetious remarks. I was, for instance, extremely moved by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and by the very moving speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, who obviously feels deeply about these traumatic two or three years.
I have only two points to make because all other points have already been made—in fact, my two points have also been raised. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, did something with his billhook—his slasher—to cut down the myth which has sprung up, and which was watered by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and by The Scotsman in a leading article last week that the abstention vote was not a "no" vote. We cannot backtrack like that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, gave one or two examples of those who said that to abstain was the equivalent of voting "no". One third of the people abstained. Suddenly they changed the rules. We must not allow that myth to propagate itself. Weedkiller is apparently what that myth is qualified for, and nothing else.
My second and last point has been referred to by one or two speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who said that, now that this phase is over, we must ask ourselves whether there is anything we can do here and now for the betterment of Scotland. There is one very urgent thing to be done; that is, the dismantling of Strathclyde. By an overwhelming majority this House decided that Strathclyde should not come into being. That
1656
decision was overturned in another place by a majority of 73 votes, and there are only 71 Scottish Members. It almost made me teeter on the edge of joining the Scottish National Party, like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, because it was a nonsense. People will say that too much money has been spent on setting up Strathclyde to pour it all down the drain now. Already £3½ millions have been spent on the Royal High School in Edinburgh. But it is better that the drain should be unblocked. Strathclyde is like elephantiasis on the fair face of Scotland, and it must go.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I clarify one point. I did not say that the "No" vote, and the abstention vote, could be judged only as saying "No" to a legislative assembly. They might have said "No" to the Act, but they did not say "No" to a legislative assembly.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I continue for one moment on the question of referenda. I do not like the referendum, and I think it is a dangerous instrument. But the blunt fact is that this has been a successful referendum. It is successful because it has got Parliament out of a nasty dilemma. I believe that if you had a free vote in both Houses, the Act would never have been passed. Parliament fell back on this as a very present help in time of need. That is what happened.
What worries me is that we shall come to look on referenda as too successful; as something that we can fall back on whenever we disagree in Parliament. This is dangerous and wrong. On the ordinary interpretation of Section 85 there is absolutely no doubt what it meant. That section was fully fulfilled by the manner in which the referendum took place, and there can be no doubt about it. In this country we are in the position of trustees for democracy. It is here that the concept of representative government was evolved. Noble Lords say that it takes time to get something perfect. We have been 700 years doing it, and many people think that we still have not got it quite perfect.
If we put a lot of interpretation into just what democratic voting means, it can be dangerous. The noble and learned Lord,

1657
Lord McCluskey, said, "You know, we had a majority of Labour Members from Scotland, and here we have a Conservative Government". What happened in the last Parliament? The majority of people in England did not vote for a Labour Government. Therefore, you might have had the shipyards in Scotland nationalised, and the shipyards in England would not have been. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that that is a very dangerous argument to pursue.
It is the same with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. He said that we should turn this down because there are Scottish Labour Members of Parliament in the other place. But they were not elected for this purpose, but for an entirely different purpose. We find that many people overseas copy us, and if we start examining and saying that electoral systems, referenda, or other matters are unfair, we may reach curious results. It is common in many countries, and we can all think of places where this is happening at the present time.
I say from my own feeling, such as it is. that Scotland is well content with the referendum, and what Scotland wants is not more politicians but more opportunity and more employment. That is why you see Scots all over the world. That is why many years ago the French said, "If you go to the ends of the earth you will find rats, lice, and Scotsmen".
5.33 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, if I may begin this winding-up on a personal note, may I express my thanks to those noble Lords who expressed some satisfaction at seeing me in this spot. Of course any idea that I might have had that there would be a general, if reluctant, measure of agreement among your Lordships for this Motion this afternoon was rudely dissipated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, who in fact has stated his intention of, hopefully, urging this House to exercise its undoubted constitutional right of defying the terms of the Scotland Act which were written into it and disregarding whatever views the other place may have had on this particular Motion.
Lord KILBRANDON: My Lords, I do not intend to ask the House to divide. I have not changed my mind in any way at all, but I am not going to ask the House to divide.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I am glad that he now takes the stance that he does. It saves me the task of trying to persuade him not to take that course. It was to be expected that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would express regret, if I may use the analogy for the last time, that his baby had come to an untimely end. However, I could not help but notice that in effect he admitted that the Scotland Act, as it was passed, had imperfections. I think he said that it was the best measure that could be devise in the circumstances. He said, as did other noble Lords, that perhaps if it remained on the statute book it could be improved subsequently in the light of experience.
The noble and learned Lord, I have no doubt, will agree with me that many innovations are made in government in a state of known imperfection. But, in such cases, it is nearly always possible to see how improvements might be effected in time. Very often these imperfections stem from problems of competing interests, which if they are resolved before the measure goes on to the statute book might cause undue delay. With pressure on Parliamentary time as it is, frequently the Government do not want to experience that.
In the case of the Scotland Act—and let us not forget this—in spite of intense discussions over a period from 1975 to 1979, no acceptable solution had been found to some of the major problems which were identified: the problems of finance; the problem of the now notorious West Lothian question. These are but two examples. I think that the feeling about the Act on this side of the House can be summed up if I say that many of us could not see how, in a unitary State, one smallish part of the United Kingdom could be given a subordinate yet sovereign Assembly without there being a fatal slide into, at best, a form of federalism and, at worst, a splitting up of the United Kingdom. I do not think that any

1659
explanations, any suggestions, have been able to dispel those real and genuine doubts.
I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, to appreciate that just as he is passionately devoted to a system that he thinks would work, and no doubt work well, others are just as passionately devoted to the opposition to a system which they think would be fatal to the well being and future prosperity of the people of Scotland. On that, I think we must agree to differ. I do not think that it can be argued out.
A number of other points have been made upon which I think I should touch. First, that in some way the referendum was unsatisfactory and that, in effect, as indeed was the case, the majority of votes which were cast in the referendum were in favour of implementing the Act. I do not think that it is profitable to speculate as to why the vast majority of Scots did not vote at all. On the one hand we have noble Lords saying that that was because they had it in mind that if they failed to vote it would be taken as a No. Then at the other end of this particular spectrum we have the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, saying that they voted, No, because the Act did not go nearly far enough. We have the noble Earl, Lord Perth, saying that they did not vote because they did not get a leaflet and did not know what they should do—a rather cavalier view, perhaps, of the sophistication, or lack of it, of the Scottish electorate. Whatever reason for this abstention there may be, the fact of the matter was—as I think was certainly conceded in the other place—that there was no firm support for the Act. The result of such a referendum, whether or not one believes in referendums, was to throw the whole matter into doubt, and that is the situation in which the Government now find themselves.
Where do we go from here? What I tried to say in my initial remarks was that the Government are intent on initiating what have been all-purpose talks. I know some noble Lords have hinted, if they have not actually said, that the Government's heart is not in devolution, and that I hope to show is wrong. What the Government's heart is in is a meaningful system of devolution which will not lead to the perils I have already outlined.
1660
First, let me comment on the inter-party talks. I do not think that, on their content, I can usefully add to my opening remarks. Of course at this early stage I do not suppose anybody really expects the Government to produce an agenda. The Government intend to listen carefully to all suggestions that may be made, although, as I said, at the moment we are not aware of any theoretically possible options other than the four to which I referred, and of those four at least two seem to be no longer practical politics; as I said, quasi-federalism and a Scottish assembly such as was sought by the last Government.
As to the form of the talks—a number of noble Lords have mentioned this—at the moment the form which the talks will take is a major aspect of the preliminary talks about talks which the Government have now initiated with the other parties individually. There has not yet been an opportunity for the Government to talk to all the other parties concerned, and therefore I am not in a position—nor would I wish to and I do not suppose your Lordships would want me to—to anticipate the results of those preliminary discussions. But I think it is safe to say that in the first instance the Government wish if possible to agree with the other political parties represented in Scotland the form to be adopted for discussion between the parties collectively and these discussions we hope will be compact and not take very long.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves the matter of the discussions, may I ask whether he recalls that in relation to the third option, an inquisitorial Assembly for Scotland, his right honourable friend said in another place that proposals of that kind had been publicly current for some time, but that in the Government's observation they had signally failed to attract much support from any quarter and that the Government did not wish to press such proposals in the all-party talks? That is three of the four items dismissed, is it not?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Certainly, my Lords, but there is no desire on the part of the Government to close options. If the parties wish to revive the idea of some form of inquisitorial body, I am sure it can be discussed; it is just that at the

1661
moment, certainly in Scotland, there does not seem to be very much enthusiasm for such a body, but perhaps such will emerge.
I was going on to say that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Lang-side, suggested, as did other noble Lords, the time may come, and I hope will come, when the studies get to what I might call a detailed stage, when wider consultations than mere politicians, if I may use that phrase, may be considered appropriate and other bodies or parties or groups may be part of the consultation process. But this, I wish to emphasise, is a matter in the first instance for discussion, and hopefully agreement, between the parties.
I appreciate that after the sweeping proposals which were initiated by the last Government in the somewhat heady atmosphere which existed, the all-party talks may seem to be something of an anticlimax, I suppose one might say, but what I suggest the referendum has revealed is that the previous Government over-reacted to phenomenon which may have been temporary and, as I suggest, was certainly superficial, and the Government now wish to return to a more systematic and careful building on such foundations as already exist. Clearly, I suggest, this course has emerged since the referendum as being more in tune with the true feelings of the Scottish electorate.
I conclude by saying that it would be a great pity if, because, as we hope, they will deal with reality rather than pipe dreams, the inter-party talks were scouted. The Scottish electorate have now pronounced on one partisan proposal for the proposed improvement of their Government. I hope they will not for any reason be denied the opportunity of non-partisan proposals for real improvement.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IRON CASTING INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1979
5.47 p.m.
Viscount LONG Viscount LONG rose to move, That the draft order, laid before the House on 16th May, be approved. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of this
1662
order, which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry proposed to make under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947, is to amend the Iron Casting Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1971 so as to update the formula by which part of the levy is calculated.
The existing order imposes a levy on the iron casting industry to finance scientific research carried out on behalf of the industry by the British Cast Iron Research Association (BCIRA). The new order is necessary in order to take account of a change of the base year of the index, upon which part of the levy depends from 1970 to 1975. The amount of the levy at the date of introduction will remain the same as if the old base year and index had continued in use. The proceeds of the levy will continue to be collected by my right honourable friend and then released against the Association's expenditure on scientific research.
The activities of BCIRA need to be viewed against the background of the iron castings industry. Many companies in the industry are small and would find it difficult to support their own research activities. They are nevertheless of vital importance to British manufacturing industry generally. The Research Association provides the whole of the iron castings industry with a wide range of services which include general scientific research, contract research and consultancy and advisory services. The high standard and practical usefulness of the association's work is widely recognised.
Much of the Association's scientific research is supported by a statutory levy collected from companies in the industry under the provisions of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The levy was first introduced in 1966 after wide consultation with the industry and was increased in 1971 to take account of the rise in costs experienced by the Association, and in 1976 to take account of a further rise.
Under the orders at present in operation every iron foundry is liable to pay each quarter a levy made up of two components. First, it pays 0·15 per cent. of emoluments of those employed in the industry. Secondly, it pays a levy per tonne on the iron castings it produces.

1663
The rate of the levy per tonne is linked to the index of the United Kingdom wholesale selling prices of iron castings published by my right honourable friends' department in Trade and Industry. Because of the increase of this index since 1976, the levy has gone up from 11p per tonne to 14·5 per tonne.
The part of the formula linked to the index does not allow for changes in the base of the index. That base has recently changed from 1970 equals 100 to 1975 equals 100, and a new order incorporating an updated formula is therefore required. The new order has been so worded as to preserve most of the terms of its predecessors, and I would emphasise that the rate of levy chargeable from the end of June 1979 of 16·5p per tonne is no different from the rate of levy that would have been reached had the 1970 index remained in use. This new order merely revises the mechanics of calculating the levy and does not change the principles under which it operates.
The organisations representing both the industry and the persons employed in it, who were consulted at the time of the 1976 order, have been notified and no objections to this mechanical change have been received. I therefore commend the new order to your Lordships for support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th May, be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
5.52 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, first, may I thank the noble Viscount for his very clear outline of this amending order. I am sure that the House will agree with me that any effort to maintain or indeed extend research into the industry is to be welcomed. While not opposing the order, I should like to raise one or two small points. This is an amending order on the levy aspect only and so I understand that all other provisions of the 1971 order remain in force, including Article 12(1) containing penalty provisions of a fine of not more than £5 per day for failure to make returns. I should like to know if possible how many convictions have been secured since 1971, and whether it is really necessary today for this penal provision to continue.
1664
Secondly, will the levy, increased as it will be, when paid out to the Cast Iron Research Association still attract the Government grant usually given to research associations? If so, will the grant be extended as a result of the levy increase? I ask this because we understand that the levy increase is designed to maintain and extend research, and to my mind it would follow that the Government grant should also increase.
Finally, I must confess that I was completely befogged—and I found that I needed a micro-chip—due to the fact that the method of calculating the levy seems to be somewhat complicated. However, I do not beg for an explanation, much as I am sure that the noble Viscount would be able to provide one. In view of the fact that there has been consultation, I do not intend to pursue that point. All I need add is that on this side of the House we accept the order.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I consider it appropriate to congratulate the Government upon for the first time since coming into office ceasing to be revolutionary, and being conservative instead. It is agreeable to find that for once the Government are prepared to accept that what has been done in the past might be continued in the future, especially when it comes to research work in industry. The order laid before us deals with a problem involving the Cast Iron Research Association, which is one of the most important associations in this country in terms of our future, and it is vital that we realise that unless the research is carried on effectively, the cast iron industry will suffer enormously.
I happen to know a little—not a great deal—about the Cast Iron Research Association. It was that association which produced, by its own investigations, a new form of cast iron, the grey cast iron, which is an extremely important addition to our industrial potential; and it is vital that this should be maintained. Therefore, I congratulate the Government upon for once ceasing to employ their preconceived ideas about being prepared to destroy everything which has been well done, and instead being prepared to do what we are now considering.
I wish to emphasise that it has always been the policy of the research asso-

1665
ciations, and of the Government support of them, that the Government should supply as much money as is raised within the industry. This is an essential factor which in this country has made successful the whole research association programme, which started at the end of the First World War, and which has played a vital part in developing much of our industry. Unless the Government are prepared to go on doing this, they will be doing a grave disservice to the industry.
I should like to put a question to the noble Viscount on this point towards which I know he is most sympathetic. I wish to ask him whether the Government are prepared to ensure that Government support for the Cast Iron Research Association is in no way diminished? I do not mean to say diminished in absolute terms, but in terms of the percentage contribution made by the Government, because I believe that this is most vital for the future progress of the industry, upon which much of the rest of our industry depends, as I know the noble Viscount will agree.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Coslany, and Lord Wynne-Jones, for their comments on the order. I am so pleased that they agree with the Conservative Government in our intention to continue all the grants towards research.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I mean the conservative part of the Conservative Government's policies.
Viscount LONG: The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, posed a series of very important questions in connection with the order. First, he wanted to know how many convictions there had been since 1971. At the moment we have no trace of any convictions at all, and I hope that the noble Lord will agree that that is a very good situation. The noble Lord also asked whether the penalty provisions still stand. It is the case that they stand as they were; and the noble Lord will probably remember that they were based on a scale involving a figure of £5.
I should like to include the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, in my reply to the next question which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked. I do so because I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-
1666
Jones, felt strongly that research needs all the money that it can get. I could not agree more that, in such an important industry, without research it would collapse; and it is vital to the rest of industry. So I am not expressing sympathy; I am stating an absolute fact in saying that I believe in what he said.
Perhaps I can help noble Lords on what the grants consist of and how the money is brought in. More than half is from the levy, not from Government grants. Another part of the money that comes into research for the iron cast industry is from Government grants for specific research projects. This amounts to about 20 per cent. Then, further monies are obtained by research associations themselves selling their own expertise. If that helps in any way, my Lords, that is the way the money comes in and that is the way the Government intend to keep it. I hope that, if I have not answered all the questions, your Lordships will allow me to do so by writing to noble Lords afterwards. I am most grateful to noble Lords for their kind contributions to the debate on this very important order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL AIRCRAFT: BRITISH AEROSPACE PROGRAMMES
6.2 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their view with regard to British-Aerospace's future aircraft programmes. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. This afternoon, the monitor said:
"Unstarred Question on the future of British Aerospace".
I hope there is a future for it. I should like to start with a quote:
"In this industry, one can see clearly the direct effect of exports on employment. The prospects are positive. It is now a question of not only maintaining aerospace activity but also of developing it".
Who said that, my Lords? It was President Giscard d'Estaing speaking about the French aerospace industry in his opening address at the Paris Air Show. Let us heed his words, and take the same action in our own country.
I therefore hope that British Aerospace and its European partners do not miss the vast market for the middle and late 'eighties and the 'nineties. It is a market which is being presented to us on a golden salver by nearly 3,000 thirsty, noisy and obsolescent airliners which will need replacing by 1985. Even if there were no environmental pressures about noise, the cost and shortage of fuel will force the airline market to follow technology. In addition to the aircraft, there are 10,000 JT8D and Spey engines, both of which, as my noble friend well knows, are noisy and uneconomic. The manufacturers who can drum this simple fact into their financiers and who can produce a quiet and dry replacement engine by the mid-'eighties will have one problem only, and that is the problem which Airbus Industrie has right now: how to meet the demand?
A few years ago, the Joint European Transport or JET team were quite right, I think, about their two future projects: the JET 1, with round about 130 seats; and the JET 2, with 160 seats plus. Alas!, possibly JET 2 is not quite so vital or important now, due to the coming of the Boeing 757 and also the A310. But I maintain very seriously that JET 1 must be pushed now, because time is rapidly running out. The replacement of the DC-9s, the British Aerospace 1–11s, the Caravelles, the small Tridents and the 727s give an immediate market for 2,500 airliners in the 110 to 130-seater category, which is the same category as the JET 1. There is perhaps a problem on the power plant for JET 1, as I think that the CFM 56, even with cropped fans, is probably too large. But we have the RB 432, which, if proceeded with, would fill the bill more than adequately.
The reasons of the British, the French, the Germans and the Dutch for not agreeing on a new narrow-bodied aircraft in this category, although it would have to be six abreast, is given as there being uncertainty over the market. This is a fallacy. The real reason, I maintain, alas!, is nationalism. The Dutch Fokker wants to maintain its identity and insists, if it does a deal with the United States, on taking the lead with any partner it may have. France wants to fit the new aeroplane into its existing command structure, final assembly taking place at
1668
Aerospatiale in Toulouse, which is impossible because of the ever-increasing demand for the A300 and the A310, in which, of course, West Germany also is heavily involved.
So, my Lords, I ask: Why not let us do it in the United Kingdom? The Trident and the Concorde production lines are finished; and the 1–11 production line is quietly running down with the Rumanian order, and will be finished within two years. So resolving the issue of production responsibility is the stumbling block, and not—I repeat, not—the market uncertainty. The 1985 target date for noise is only six years away, and hush kitting is purely cosmetic. So I would suggest that Europe had better get its skates on. If I may revert for a moment to the replacement engine for the Spey and the JT8D, which could of course be the power plant for JET 1, I am given to understand that the Japanese are very keen to do a deal with Rolls-Royce (Bristol) and form a consortium. So perhaps they can be encouraged to get on and do it.
Let me briefly recap on a little history. Three years ago, in the nationalisation debate, the last Government stated that there was an urgent decision for the go-ahead on JET 1. Further, they said that delay in approving this project would result in possible redundancies and possible closures of plant. The threatened factories were Weybridge, Hurn and Filton. The track record to date from these three factories—and to these three I now add Hatfield—is as follows. The British Aerospace FX11 was cancelled. The go-ahead was given for the 146, which at the moment nobody seems to want. We joined Airbus Industrie, thank goodness!, in the nick of time. Concorde has been run down, and the jigs have been removed. While on the subject of Concorde, I am given to understand that we have ceased any development on improving and upgrading existing Concordes with modifications, including Canardes, although I believe there was a model of this at the Paris Air Show. We have the Rumanian 1–11 deal; we are refurbishing VCI Os into tankers; and we are maintaining some of the United States Air Force's F1–11s.
So, my Lords, where are the new projects in which Britain's nationalised Aerospace was going to take the lead? For 30 years our Aerospace industry (to

1669
use that horrible hackneyed phrase) has been, alas!, a political football; and during this time the American aerospace industry has gone from strength to strength. Fifteen years ago the Aerospatiale had only the Caravelle—and that had a Comet nose and flight deck—and had started work on Concorde. Today France has the major share in European civil air transport. Unfortunately, in Britain the reverse has happened. Alas! we do not have very far to look for the blame. I think it lies in the Palace of Westminster. But recriminations and regrets are no good. Let us accept the present very unsatisfactory position, but let us dig ourselves out of it. I sincerely hope that when my noble friend Lord Trefgarne answers he will state that it is not the Government's intention to denationalise the industry, because I am convinced that that would be the kiss of death for it. I also hope that he will say that his slogan should be "Buy British and European!" As I say, that, I hope, is what he will say.
While on that subject, let us remember that the military side of British Aerospace does very well. We have the Jaguar and the Tornado. We can do it military-wise; why can we not do it civil-wise? I think that those who were responsible for British Airways' decision to allow the British taxpayer to buy American 757s and 737s should be removed from their positions of responsibility. What can any potential customer of British Aerospace think when our national carrier gives absolutely no encouragement to "Buy British" or, as it is today, to "Buy Anglo-European"? Can Air France, Lufthansa, SAS, Alitalia, Iberia and Olympic all be wrong? They have all bought the Airbus!
The Paris air show did little to relieve fears for the JET project. I should like to read a letter I have from somebody who works in British Aerospace. It goes as follows:
"As an employee of British Aerospace, I am most concerned about the state of the Commercial Aircraft Group, and would like to draw your attention to the grass-roots view that no new work is being generated and is indeed being actively discouraged.
"A proposal is afoot to re-engine the BAC 1–11 series airliner with a quiet engine, which will extend the useful life of the aircraft well into the 1990's. By all accounts, this proposal has been squashed at a high level within B.Ae., as being
1670
uneconomic, despite the benefits that would accrue from it, i.e. continued work for Hurn on a world-wide retrofit package and continued sales of a modified aircraft, the major development costs of which have long since been written down. Beyond 1985, 1–11's and similar aircraft will be banned from the majority of U.S. airports on the grounds of excessive noise, leading effectively to the demise of the aircraft.
Is this the forward planning of B.Ae.? If so, then I think it should be aired publicly.
"What future is there for the H.S. 146? Whilst it works its way slowly towards first flight, where are the orders—any orders—for it? Is B.Ae. going ahead with Jet 1 and Jet 2, or modifying Concorde in any way?
"At the moment, of the projects mentioned above, only the 146, with a shaky start and one cancellation behind it, is progressing at all!
"An early statement as to B.Ae.'s future intentions is essential if experienced teams are not to be dissipated and if the Company is to remain viable in the field of Civil Aircraft".
My Lords, I think that that letter says probably everything that I have said rather better than I have said it. I will finish with the following points. In the last few years Britain's economy and growth have declined, but the effects of the decline have been camouflaged by North Sea oil which is only a short-term palliative. Our economic recovery must be based on industrial recovery and on improved productivity. Britain's natural talents, resources and population make the manufacturing sector a key element. All political parties want high productivity, which also means high wages; but our traditional industries such as shipbuilding and motor manufacturing do not, unfortunately, exhibit these characteristics. They are too labour-intensive and their products do not compete effectively at home or abroad today.
However, there is one industry that meets all these criteria. That is the aerospace industry with its wealth of talent and experience. Civil airline transportation must be a growth industry. Why else do we want to build a third London airport? A combination of British Aerospace, with its airframes, Rolls-Royce engines, avionics from Dowty, Marconi, Plessey and Lucas, must produce a product which not only would prove highly acceptable to the air-minded travelling public, but might even perhaps tempt British Airways. The will of the workers of British Aerospace is there. All that is needed is some drive and initiative from the top.
6.15 p.m.
Earl AMHERST: My Lords, I do not have the technical knowledge to enable me to follow fully the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in his detailed description of various aircraft and jet engines and their particular relativity to the fuel consumption and noise aspects, save to point out that I am told by what I believe to be fully reliable sources that Aerospace is very much alive to these problems and that they are confident that the know-how of their specialist staffs is more than competent to tackle these problems, and tackle them successfully. Further, I am informed that the Rolls-Royce RB 2–11 is not only suitable to power the airbus A300 but also its successor, the Mark II Airbus, the A.310. It also has yet another Rolls-Royce engine, the RB 432, which should be available in the late 1980s and which will be particularly suitable to power the medium/short-haul aircraft both in Europe and in the United States. Also it has a smaller engine, the RB 401, particularly suitable to power the smaller executive jet aircraft for which I am told there is a considerable market.
With regard to noise, Aerospace has a special aerodynamic section concerned with the construction of airframes and also with new techniques of flight control both aimed at reducing noise. In discussing Government policy for Aerospace, it might be useful to take a brief look at the record to date. Aerospace has been in existence for barely two years, during which time it has built up an organisation of some 70,000 work people—no mean item when you think of the present position of unemployment in this country. In its last annual report, it shows sales to the value of £894 million, of which £480 million were on account of exports. Finally, after paying tax, it showed a profit of £29 million—as good as if not better than, many of the other nationalised industries. During this period, as a result of considerable negotiation and hard slogging, it forged a partnership with its opposite numbers in Europe and, at the same time, enabled itself to circumvent a bid from the other side of the Atlantic which would have given Aerospace not even a junior partnership, but probably would have resulted in something like a sub-agency, probably ending up with Aerospace being taken over completely and disappearing as an inventive and progressive force.
1672
I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, comes to reply, we shall hear that the Government intend to adopt a policy that will support Aerospace in what it is doing and in what it plans to do; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has said, that they do not, on the contrary, intend to modify it, hive off some of it or generally to meddle with it, because if that be so, we shall not want another Unstarred Question but a very full debate.
6.20 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the Question which has been raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, is one which I am sure will be recognised by the Government—and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Tregfarne, who will be replying—as one of considerable importance. It is important because we are talking about the whole problem of the future of an industry. The aircraft industry in this country has a notable past. It has done remarkable things. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, knows better than I—a mere amateur in these matters—how well the industry has performed in the past. However, it has to be realised that the industry had reached the point where it was incapable without co-ordination—I am not talking necessarily about nationalisation—and without being brought together into one unit to continue to compete effectively on a world scale.
Today we are faced with a situation which, so far from being desperate, is very hopeful. We have an industry which on the airframe side—which is covered by British Aerospace—is doing extremely well, and which has linked up with European industry through Airbus Industrie in order to do what is likely to be a very good job. This has already produced the Tornado, the multi-role combat aircraft. That is almost certainly going to be one of the striking—and I use the word in several different ways—successes with regard to the whole of military aircraft development. Do not let us forget that this is produced in Europe by a combination between different countries, and it has surpassed what is being done elsewhere in the world. It has also produced a large number of different power plants and aero engines of enormous importance.
I have been in touch with Rolls-Royce on this matter to find out from them

1673
exactly what was occurring. May I remind your Lordships that it was about nine years ago that we in this House played an important part in ensuring that the RB2–11 would continue. The RB2–11 was being planned by Rolls-Royce at the time and it proved an extremely expensive matter; in fact, it brought Rolls-Royce to bankruptcy. Rolls-Royce was saved very largely in this House. I can remember the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, accepting the view—and it was a courageous step for him to take—on behalf of the then Conservative Government that Rolls-Royce ought to be taken under national control in order to save it from collapse. This was done with support from all sides of this House at the time. Because this was done, the RB2–11 today is one of the most successful powerplants in the world. I am told that the Australian airline, Qantas, have just decided to use the RB2–11 instead of what I believe is called the JT8D—perhaps the noble Lord will be able to correct me on this matter—because the RB2–11 has nearly 8 per cent. greater fuel efficiency than the American powerplant.
Do not let us run down all the time what we do in this country. Some of the things that we do are extremely good. I am told that Eastern Airlines—I think one of the biggest airlines in the world—has decided to install the RB 35—another Rolls-Royce engine—in their new Boeing 757 aircraft because it is more efficient than the powerplants they can get in America. They claim—and whether this figure is correct I cannot be certain; I am told this by Rolls-Royce—the increase in efficiency will be 40 per cent. These are not trifling figures. One has to bear in mind that it is largely statistical nonsense to talk about the efficiency of a powerplant unless one also talks about the combination of the airframe, because it is the combination of the airframe with the powerplant that gives efficiency. It is not just a matter of whether there is a good engine but whether there is an aerodynamically effective airframe so that the combination of powerplant and airframe gives this high efficiency.
There is no reason to suppose that our producers of powerplants and airframes are falling behind. I am informed that if Rolls-Royce are prepared to go ahead with
1674
the development of their RB401—unfortunately one has to use these numbers and letters—this would power the executive 125 aircraft. They have already produced this engine but do not have it in full production. This could be extremely important not only for this country but particularly in America because the Americans like the 125. Rolls-Royce, after all, are not an organisation that can be expected just to turn out engines in the hope that there will be some uses for them. They have to be certain in advance that the engines can be used. It is like making a motorcar, you cannot make a new design of motorcar and expect that its success will depend upon an accident of whether this man or that buys it. One has to try and find an assured market before producing the car. Rolls-Royce, quite rightly, will gladly make the RB401 but they want to have the evidence of the market in advance.
The same applies to the RB432, to which reference has been made. The RB432 is, I understand, an ideal engine for planes of the order of 150 seats. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, said that there will be a large market for this, but no one can tell with certainty exactly when that market will be available. No one can tell with certainty who will buy the aeroplane. One cannot blame Rolls-Royce for saying, "Until you can tell us how many engines will be ordered, we cannot undertake the cost of developing the engine". This applies all the way through.
There are other matters which arise on which I do not want to go into detail. There is one to which I should like to refer. In the further future we are all thinking in terms of what will happen when oil is no longer available or not available cheaply enough. In fact, it is already going up rapidly. Here again you come into difficulties. For instance, I looked at the evening papers in the Library. I found one that said the price was going up by 7p per gallon; the other evening paper said 8p. But then the first one "upped" this and said it was going up by 10p. The second one "upped" it again and now says it is going up by 12p. It is really anyone's guess, and these figures are, frankly, vague guesses. We know that it is going up; and when it has gone up enough we shall look to other fuels.
Of course, one that is constantly referred to is hydrogen, which is in many ways a fuel of great potentiality and one

1675
which people say causes no pollution. In a sense, it does not, because when hydrogen is burned it only produces water. But although we know we can burn hydrogen in an aero engine, nobody is prepared to say at the moment—and I have been in touch with the firms to find out—whether they have any engine running today which they would guarantee to run on hydrogen. That is the first point.
The second point is that there is an immense logistic problem involved in using hydrogen because certainly you have to liquefy it and, except for helium, it is the most difficult gas to liquefy. So you have to reduce the temperature to an enormous extent in order to liquefy hydrogen and you would need to have liquefying plants on every aerodrome in the world in order to run on hydrogen. Therefore, you have a vast logistics problem and no one today is prepared to say definitely whether they can face up to that problem in a short time. These are problems with which I know the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is very familiar; but I should like to suggest to him that perhaps in replying he might take a little time to let us know what his thinking is on this kind of matter.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this: he said that Rolls-Royce were uncertain that there was a market for the 435. By 1985 the present Speys and JT.8Ds will not be allowed to land at any airport; but there are over 10,000 of these in existence today. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree with me that there is a market for a new, quiet, dry engine of this thrust and power.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure there must be a market and I am sure that Rolls-Royce would like to hear from the noble Earl with a guarantee of this market. I think they would then go ahead and produce it.
6.33 p.m.
Lord WHADDON: My Lords, it is said that necessity is the mother of invention, and, judging by the present developing oil crisis, we certainly have the incentive to further invention. If I may borrow a line from "The Six Million
1676
Dollar man", we have the technology. The question is: Which way should we deploy it?
A great deal of stress has been very properly laid on the development of more efficient jet engines, and these must come. I have heard various opinions on the extra savings on hydrocarbon fuel which can be made, but most opinion seems to hold that well within the reach of present technology is an economy of around 16 per cent. within the next few years. That is very valuable, but I should like to ask for a balanced approach in aircraft research. This has already been mentioned. I support the idea that the airframes are even more important. Expert opinion has it that the economies in hydrocarbons to be expected from reduction in weight by the use of new materials, by improvements in aerodynamics and control systems and by operational control improvements are roughly twice those to be had from engine improvements in the next five to 10 years. One can never be sure until it has been done, but I would plead that our efforts, with inevitably limited resources, should not be entirely concentrated on engines, but that British Aerospace be given as much encouragement as the Americans have given to their NASA for the aerodynamic economies which are possible.
It has been pointed out that hydrogen is a possible alternative, and certainly the greatest economy that could be made in hydrocarbons is to use none. There are several synthetics that are possible and these will certainly come from the realms of fantasy into actuality within the next few years—they must, because even the most optimistic curves of oil production show a rapid tailing-off in the very early years of the next century and the more pessimistic curves show a tailing off in the next few years. What is certain is that the next generation of aircraft will still he in service when jet fuel from conventional oil sources has become a great rarity and utterly uneconomical. So consideration of synthetic fuel and other power sources is an absolute necessity.
There are several possibilities. The Government should certainly be keeping an eye on biological sources, on methanol, ethanol and other non-hydrocarbons.

1677
But of the possibilities, hydrogen must be the most likely. The Coal Board are doing a great deal of work on synthetic hydrocarbons from coal. I should like to point out that Lockheed have recently proposed that they should take the risk on hydrogen propelled aircraft. Although passenger aircraft have not yet been operated with hyrdogen fuel, NASA has certainly operated a great many engines using hydrogen fuel. So a lot of the technology is known and no great problems are envisaged in changing over from conventional gas turbines to hydrogen.
Provisional figures I have seen, based on the production of hydrogen from coal, seem to show at least the possibility of much greater cost-efficiency in using that coal to produce hydrogen than synthetic hydrocarbons. I know this is disputed in some places, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and we shall only know when it is actually tried out.
Another argument for taking the hydrogen option seriously is that any energy source, whether it be nuclear, wind power or any other source of energy, can be used to produce hydrogen because it is produced from water, and Heaven knows there is plenty of that! So even countries without coal can look forward to providing fuel for engines which are powered by hydrogen. This option must be taken seriously, and apart from escaping from the fuel shortage problem, there are other possible advantages. It is calculated that because of the weight saving of hydrogen fuel that the noise levels of such aircraft would be lower. I have seen calculations indicating, for instance, that the TriStar, if it were propelled by hydrogen engines instead of kerosene engines, would be six decibels quieter. That is a great saving in nuisance for the same load-carrying capacity, and it is something we should take seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has mentioned that the great unknown with hydrogen concerns the logistics of producing it in bulk, in transferring it and storing it. Nobody will know about that until we try it out. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I think, is aware that Lockheed themselves have proposed to run a test airline in the United States, Britain and Germany. I think we should take this proposal very seriously. I think there is a very strong chance that
1678
this technology will come to pass within the next generation, and that those who are in there in the next few years will reap the benefit. We must, I suggest, be well aware of what is going on and be prepared to co-operate in these experiments, and the British Government really must have representation at the conference which is proposed in Stuttgart in September, to be well informed of what is going on and to help us decide what part, if any, we should play.
The discussion has been about the big jets. The vast majority of aircraft have not been mentioned. Over 90 per cent. of United Kingdom registered aircraft are general aviation aircraft and, if we arc talking of economy of operation, strangely enough, and to the surprise of most people, they are the most economic. The Boeing 747 is, very rightly, proud of its 40 passenger seats per mile gallon consumption, which is indeed very good for a big jet. But I worked out last night that the performance of my own pride and joy, a 100 hp Rallye Club, is 70 seat miles per gallon of hydrocarbon, which leaves even a 747 standing. I therefore appeal to the Government: do not forget this most important sector.
Many of the Press and the public seem to have the opinion that people in piston-propelled aircraft are just playboys in the sky. This is nonsense. The overwhelming majority of general aviation aircraft are used on business. Heaven knows, we use very little fuel, but of that which is used about two-thirds is in business, about 10 per cent. is in agriculture, about a quarter is in training of new pilots and less than 3 per cent. is in recreation. So that it is a most important sector, although a very small and undemanding one.
We have certain problems at the moment in respect of fuel supplies, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will bear in mind our need. The position is very puzzling. I myself have recently been into airports where no fuel at all was available for visitors. That is a very dangerous position, because it tempts private fliers to try to get home with a teaspoonful in the tank, and the biggest single cause of forced landing through lack of power is simply running out of petrol. I ask that pilots be warned of these dangers.

1679
What are we to do about restoring supplies? Certainly it appears that supplies have been more restricted for general aviation than for the motorist, and this is certainly dangerous and uneconomic. The stories that we are getting as to why these shortages are happening are confusing, but it appears very likely that the revolution in Iran, quite apart from restricting supplies, has had a particular effect on the supplies of Avgas, by cutting down almost to nothing the production of an Avgas refinery at Abadan. It is bad enough in Europe looking for supplies of Avgas, but outside Europe—in the East and in Australasia—there has been a very bad position indeed in recent months, with even medical aircraft grounded for lack of fuel. If we arc to avoid this position in Europe, then I think that the Government should give this matter urgent attention. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to take this matter very seriously and I appeal to him to call a conference in the near future to include the Government, the oil companies and GAMTA—the representative of general aviation—to discuss the present difficulties and future supplies for this most important sector of our aviation community.
6.44 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has whetted our appetites on many occasions over recent months in connection with the aerospace industry, and I join with previous speakers in thanking the noble Earl for providing us again with an opportunity to "air" the subject, if I may use that term. When I first read the Question, I recalled our debate on 27th March, initiated again by the noble Earl. To he fair, that debate concentrated on the smaller size range of aircraft and the market for aircraft from around 120 seats up to perhaps 180.
Much of the general argument for support of such aircraft types was gone over before. Apart from commenting on one or two specific points, I do not intend to rehearse the detailed considerations again. I should like to look more generally at the industry, and the relations between British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce and the Government, with particular emphasis on civil aircraft projects. I have not forgotten the questions put
1680
to me by the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and I shall come to those at the end. But these civil projects are at the core of the noble Earl's Question. First, I should like to comment briefly on what has already been achieved with regard to some related matters and what is in progress.
During the previous debate, references were made to the likely size of the market for 120–180 seater aircraft. The noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, has previously quoted figures—and he mentioned them again tonight—of up to 3,000 aeroplanes. This sounds to me rather on the high side. I am not certain whether we are talking of one aircraft type, or a number with different seating capacities within the same range. But what I think was established, when we considered the issues in March, was that there is certainly a market slot below the Airbus and the Boeing 757–767 category; but the size of the market—as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, reminded us—and the precise requirements of the airlines as to seating capacity, performance, et cetera, have yet to be determined.
In considering any new aircraft in this sector, it is crucial that the manufacturers produce what the airline operators want. With competition from American manufacturers, in the form of DC9–80s, reengined DC-8s and new variants from the giant Boeing Company, our manufacturers may not get a second chance to get their designs and timing right and still capture a reasonable share of the market. I mentioned all of this in some detail, and other related points, when we discussed the issues last March.
But as regards the design I think the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and I will be agreed on one aspect; that is, that any new project in the medium range category of around 150 seats will require high standards of technology to be built into its basic design. The strong competition from other aircraft means that the economics of operating any such aircraft must be extremely good; in fact, superlative. And the effects of the new noise regulations and the unrelenting increases in fuel prices place additional constraints and set even higher targets for any new project. These are factors which must be taken into account in the basic design.
Of course, many of these considerations affect design of the engines as much as

1681
the airframe itself. It is in this aero engine increasing, the number of aircraft weighing field that significant advances have been achieved with new types of engines, such as the RB.21 and its variants and the smaller Franco-American CFM.56 engine and refanned JT.8 engines. These engines are relatively new and show significant gains in the areas of noise and efficiency. The engines will no doubt be improved in many respects to match, or stay ahead of, the continuing lowering of noise standards and the ever increasing need to economise on fuel. As your Lordships will know, Rolls-Royce have embarked on a significant programme to improve their RB.211–524 engine, with new, more powerful, and more efficient variants.
The investment required in such new programmes is large, and involves substantial funds from the public sector. There will therefore be Government involvement in the decisions to embark on such ventures, so that the wider implications for the industry—and the country as a whole—can be taken fully into account. But we should note that the demands put upon the manufacturers by the market are not always wholly compatible with each other. No doubt, those living close to airports and under the main flight paths would require the quietest jets the plane-makers can produce. But the quietest jets are not always the most economic, nor the most fuel effective. Significant improvements in noise suppression on existing engines have been demonstrated with hush kits and other noise-reducing devices, such as ejector silencers. No doubt we can expect further improvements as the science advances.

It is important to remember that the improvements which have been achieved to date have not been gained without considerable expenditure upon research and development. Further improvements will be even more expensive to achieve; a return in terms of the degree of suppression of emissions relative to the investment required may not be as great as previously. In other words, we have done the easy things. Future progress will prove harder and harder.
As I said, the technology has been developed which has markedly reduced subsonic aircraft noise. This has been reflected in the current noise regulations. However, although the proportion is
1682
increasing, the number of aircraft weighing more than 30 tonnes in airline service which were designed to meet Annex 16, Chapter 2, of the ICAO standard comprises only about 15 per cent. of the world fleet. Moreover, while some aircraft of recent design will be able to comply with the more stringent Chapter 3 standards, no aircraft specifically designed to that standard has yet flown. Hence, introduction of aircraft incorporating the latest available technology will make some improvements over many years to the noise currently experienced around airports. But there will be no dramatic overnight improvement, even on that fateful day in 1986 when the last of the United Kingdom fleet of "noisy" aircraft retires. Even this modest if steady improvement will be to some extent slowed by the increase in air transport operations generally.
While the technology is already available, or nearly so, there is no aero engine incorporating it which is currently in service. One Franco-American CFM 56 engine of some 10 tonnes thrust is now becoming available in production, but there are few existing airframes capable of being effectively developed to accept it.
There is, perhaps, a potential demand for 400 to 500 aircraft in the medium capacity, medium range sector of the market, and of course a larger demand elsewhere in the world. While we should recognise that there are many existing airframes of rather smaller size, such as our excellent BAC 1–11, capable of development for some of the market, there is no really suitable engine yet in production which incorporates all the currently available technology. However, the potential world market seems large. Indeed, the United States plane-makers are exploiting it by modifications to existing engines. But the results are only a marginal improvement. Both noise and fuel consumption characteristics fall short of what we hope can eventually be achieved.
The desirable incorporation of available technology consequently seems to require the development of either a substantially new airframe or a new engine; and indeed a case for developing both can be made out. But very large capital investments will be required in either case, and these will be large in relation to the industrial capacity already committed to current projects.

1683
These factors will have to be examined very closely and related to market prospects.
For the airframe, British Aerospace has been examining the issues in collaboration with other European manufacturers for some time, although at present no favoured single design proposal has emerged. As to the engines, Rolls-Royce has its RB432 design but no decision on launching it has been made. With all the uncertainties in this sector, this is quite understandable.
The position on gaseous emissions from aero engines is rather different. With the exception of two or three exceptionally busy United States airports, aero engines have little effect on air quality at airports. Indeed, motor cars and air-conditioning plants at the airport can have a more adverse effect. Nevertheless, the Government will continue to monitor this aspect of aero engine pollution.
Returning to our consideration of new aircraft, we should recall that below the medium-size airliners there are of course the corporate, commuter and feeder type aircraft. In this sector, our main airframe manufacturer is already heavily committed with new and existing projects.
It was only last July that the previous Government approved British Aerospace's decision to launch the four-jet 146 feeder-liner. I understand that work on this project is now under way in this country and abroad. The involvement of American and Swedish manufacturers on this new "British" project on a risk-sharing basis is perhaps a sign of the times. This spreading of the development burdens among other countries has relieved British Aerospace, and hence the Government, of some of the financial commitment to this £250 million programme.
At the lower end of the civil transport market, British Aerospace has the new Jetstream 31, launched only last December. This commuter or executive aircraft is entering a competitive and rapidly expanding sector of the market. It will of course be necessary to match the price and availability of other aircraft at this end of the market, but providing this can be done, all those involved in British Aerospace should find it a rewarding venture It will be of major benefit to the Scottish Division of British Aerospace.
1684
In the light of these two programmes, the 146 and the Jetstream 31, British Aerospace has a full workload at this end of the market. Above the 150 seater range which I mentioned previously, British Aerospace are already engaged on the existing A300 Airbus and the new smaller A310 Airbus, and again the opening for a wholly new civil transport project in this area seems unavailable.
However, as your Lordships are aware, British Aerospace, with its partners in Airbus Industrie, is looking at the whole spectrum of aircraft, including longer range, heavier weight, larger capacity and cargo types. Much of the work being done has concentrated on the single aisle type of aircraft of up to 180 seats mentioned by myself and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, during our previous debate. But the other aircraft are also being taken into account in these studies. We should not expect an early conclusion to be reached.
It must be remembered, of course, that as a partner in Airbus Industrie, British Aerospace has agreed not to enter into programmes competing with those of Airbus Industrie. This is not a one-sided commitment, of course, and your Lordships will wish to know that the other partners, Deutsche Airbus and Aerospatiale, have made exactly the same commitment.
Although many of my previous remarks have been related to the evolution of new types of aircraft, and the constraints which must be considered, many of the same principles apply to the re-engining of existing aircraft types. It is not a cheap or easy task to swop engines from one aircraft to another. It is a major commitment of design, production and financial resources; one must be sure to get it right.
Before turning to the Government's role in these affairs, I want to say a few words about a further set of constraints which all too frequently get overlooked in the enthusiasm for new projects. I am not sure that we have emphasised them enough this evening. I am thinking now of the resources in terms of finance, manpower and materials available to our industries.
British Aerospace, in particular, is already heavily committed on existing programmes, both in the civil and military

1685
fields. Airbus Industrie, which I mentioned earlier, is receiving an increasing flow of orders and has found interested airlines in all four corners of the globe. It has even made some inroads into the American market. Indeed, it is difficult to keep pace with the orders for airbus these days, and it is very satisfying to note that this aircraft is flying on British wings. In consequence, the partners are considering what can be done to increase production rates. On the military side, too, we should note that British Aerospace is very heavily engaged on a wide range of programmes.
British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are therefore already committed to additional investment and to improvements in efficiency in the largest total production programme ever undertaken in British aviation history. Design and production capacity in British Aerospace, anyway, will be at full stretch until 1981 at least. In consequence, the target set by British Aerospace is for an improvement in efficiency and productivity in order to take full advantage of the situation and improve its share of world markets.
These commitments on existing programmes mean that any new projects, whether new aircraft ventures or major revisions of existing aircraft, must be fully justified and timed to fit existing programme commitments. These are but some of the constraints. However much we in your Lordships' House would wish to see the continuing success of one of our most famous industries, we must face reality. We must recognise that the most detailed consideration of the market, the most careful balance of the commercial and technical issues and the efficient use of the available resources is necessary before any new aerospace project can be launched.
It is for British Aerospace, not for the Government, to take the initiative in considering possible new projects and in bringing forward proposals, if it so wishes. Only at that stage do the Government become involved, since a major new aircraft project will involve the commitment of substantial resources and needs to be carefully scrutinised.
The Government have no intention of usurping the responsibility of British Aerospace management and making
1686
decisions on possible new projects at an earlier stage. On the contrary, our Manifesto said that we would interfere less with the management of nationalised industries, and we are determined to fulfil this promise. But our Manifesto also said that we would offer to sell the industry back to private ownership, giving employees the opportunity to purchase shares. There are many possible ways of implementing this commitment: we are examining carefully all the options and we shall bring forward proposals as soon as the facts about the industry have been fully assessed.
I will now turn to some of the points which have been put to me this evening and will try to help noble Lords on them. My noble friend Lord Kimberley asked me a number of questions. First, about what we are doing to develop Concorde further. Production support on Concorde is continuing on a limited scale, but any other developments have not yet been agreed or even considered. As with JET, we are waiting for some proposals.
With regard to the Rolls-Royce engine programme, my noble friend particularly mentioned the RB 4–32 and the RB 4–01. I can say that no proposals have yet been made by Rolls-Royce to the National Enterprise Board—as it would be in the first instance—on these projects, but no doubt they will be carefully considered in due course.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while my noble friend is referring to the RB 4–32 may I ask whether he has any news about Japan forming a consortium with Rolls-Royce regarding production of this in Bristol?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I have read the Press reports on those proposals, as the noble Earl has done. I have no formal information on that to hand, but I will look into the matter further and will write to the noble Earl.
The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, paid a tribute to British Aerospace and to their technical expertise. I certainly support and agree with him on that. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised a number of points. I will come to the question of the hydrogen-powered aircraft in a moment because the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, also mentioned that. Perhaps I might

1687
just explain that it is a fact that Qantas have ordered RB 2–11 engines to be fitted to their new 747 aircraft. In fact, the RB 2–11 is a replacement for the JT 9 engine which is one of the other possible options on the 747. As for Eastern airlines who have indeed ordered the Boeing 757 to be fitted with the RB 2–11–535 engine, the noble Lord mentioned that the RB 2–11 was 40 per cent. better than the other engine that was an option on that aircraft. It sounds to me to be a very optimistic figure, but I certainly agree that the RB 2–11 is better in many respects. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that the RB 4–01 is a much smaller engine designed for corporate aircraft and, as the noble Lord also said—and this is a point which I think could be echoed in other contexts—it is of course necessary for Rolls-Royce to be sure that they have customers for their engines before launching major production programmes.
On the question of hydrogen engines, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones and the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, these are very early days indeed for hydrogen engines. The major problem, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is carrying the hydrogen in the aircraft. The problems of liquefication and compression have not yet been solved to a stage where we can think of prototype engines or prototype aircraft, but we shall certainly keep a wary eye on developments in that field and hope that progress will be made.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The point I was pressing was not so much the carrying of the hydrogen in the aircraft as the storage on the ground at the airport, where considerable facilities would have to be made available.
Lord TREFGARNE: That is certainly true, my Lords, but I think carriage in the aircraft is also a problem which has not yet fully been solved. I certainly agree that the problem to which the noble Lord refers is another which has not yet been solved.
Finally, I should like to refer to the rather important question of the fuel for light aircraft which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon. I am informed by the oil companies that there is a shortage of aviation gasolene and that
1688
supplies to some customers are being reduced to 95 per cent. of the normal level and that this may create localised shortages. I would advise the noble Lord when making a flight to check at his airport of destination that supplies of gasolene are available there if refuelling is likely to be necessary.
The noble Lord mentioned that some owners are using motor spirit in their aircraft. This is a most dangerous practice which is certainly not authorised and invalidates the certification of the engines concerned. I hope the noble Lord will discourage his aviatorial friends from doing that, because it really is against the law and dangerous. If the noble Lord would like further information on that particular point, I would refer him to the Civil Aviation Authority's airworthiness Notice No. 70 of 25th September 1972, which gives full details and makes it very clear that that is not an appropriate practice to follow. My noble friend Lord Kimberley has once more posed searching and important questions. While we cannot yet be specific on all facets of our policy, I can promise that we shall proceed to conclusions as fast as prudence allows and in doing so we shall consider very carefully the views of your Lordships as expressed tonight.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I apologise profoundly for the fact that, owing to circumstances over which I have no control, I only heard the latter part of the noble Lord's speech. I should not like this debate to finish without my paying a tribute to the firm of Rolls-Royce, who were my constituents for many years before I left another place in 1970. I always had then, as everybody in Derby had, the very highest regard for the management of the firm and for the work which they accomplished. At that time, when I left Derby, the RB 2–11 was coming up and was about to secure the enormous contract—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I do hope the noble Lord will forgive me. It is against the practice of the House for a noble Lord to speak after the Government's reply to an Unstarred Question.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, I apologise profusely. May I ask the noble Lord a question? Can he amplify the few words that I heard him say about the prospects for the greatest aeroplane in the world, the Concorde, on routes other than those on which it is now used?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if I were to write to the noble Lord on that point. I could give him some information if I were to take that course.